Saturday, July 12, 2025
So What Were Our Genuine Enemies Up to While Brennan Headed the CIA?
“(In Aug. 2015) an unmarked U.S. government plane landed at an airstrip in Havana, carrying…John Brennan, the director of the C.I.A. Brennan was there to meet with Alejandro Castro-Espin (Raul Castro’s son, the KGB-trained head of Cuba’s counterintelligence service, who authored a book titled “U.S.-Empire of Terror”) and discuss increasing intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Brennan considered Cuba’s spy agencies the most capable in Latin America, and hoped to work with them against drug cartels and terrorist networks.”
Brennan definitely had a point. Thanks to the CIA’s historic penchant for hiring and promoting people like John Brennan, Castro’s DGI and DI has historically run rings around the CIA, while guffawing.
But it gets even “better:
“Brennan’s talks with Alejandro Castro took place at a discreet government guesthouse, where a day of formal negotiations was followed by a banquet featuring a spit-roasted pig. U.S. officials said that, during the talks, Cuban leaders made it clear that they respected the C.I.A.”
I bet! But “respect” probably isn’t the proper word—unless The Pink Panther “respects” inspector Closseau and The Roadrunner “respects” Wile E. Coyote.” The word “appreciate” fits much better. Perhaps these (thoroughly-documented) historic items will help us understand this unbounded appreciation:
In 1987, Cuban intelligence officer Florentino Aspillaga defected in Prague and revealed that every single Cuban agent (four dozen of them) the CIA had recruited to spy on the Castro regime since 1962 was a double agent controlled personally by Fidel Castro. Now backtracking a few years:
“We’ve infiltrated Castro’s guerrilla group in the Sierra Mountains. The Castro brothers and Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara have no affiliations with any Communists whatsoever.” (Havana CIA station Chief Jim Noel, sneering in typical CIA, Ivy league blueblood manner at tacky warnings from Cuban “McCarthyite deplorables” in Nov. 1958.
(In fact, all of three of these hardcore Stalinists poised to take over Cuba had a KGB-handler named Nikolai Leonev since 1954!)
Now let’s fast forward to April 2015, just a few weeks prior to Brennan’s ultra-secret trip to Havana:
“Cuba is not a threat to the United States…They don’t implicate our national security in any way…The government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding six-month period; and the government of Cuba has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.” (President Obama after meeting with Raul Castro in Panama and recommending that Stalinist Cuba be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, April 14th, 2015.).
Presumably the head of the CIA at the time John Brennan, who had been a close national security advisor to Barack Obama since his 2008 campaign, signed-off on (and maybe even encouraged) Obama’s decision to whitewash and legitimize the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate. Never mind that this whitewash required taking one of modern history’s most infamous liars at his word.
But in fact, only a few weeks before Obama’s (and presumably Brennan’s) giddy acceptance of Castro’s promise (“cross my heart and hope to die!”), Castro got caught red-handed supplying Chinese-made arms to the Western hemisphere’s oldest, biggest and most murderous terror-group: Colombia’s FARC. The terror-death toll from these Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) exceeds 200,000, and includes more U.S. citizens than were murdered by ISIS.
So maybe it was a mere coincidence that the very week Obama (with presumably Brennan’s support) planned to remove Cuba as a terror-sponsor the mainstream media (especially CNN) blacked-out any mention of this blatant terror-sponsorship by Cuba in our own backyard?
You see, amigos: In February 2015, Colombian authorities found 99 missile heads, 100 tons of gunpowder, 2.6 million detonators, and over 3,000 artillery shells hidden under rice sacks in a ship bound from Red China to Cuba that docked in the port of Cartagena Colombia.
Most Cuba-watchers immediately guessed what was up. And crackerjack Colombian (NOT CNN or New York Times, heaven forbid!) reporters quickly investigated and exposed the Castro-regime’s terror-sponsoring scheme. In brief:
– The arms were from a Chinese manufacturer named Norinco and the recipient was a Cuban company named Tecnoimport.
– But the ship stopped in the Colombian ports of Cartagena and Baranquilla (where the FARC is based.)
– Colombia’s crackerjack newspaper El Espectador also reported that many Norinco-manufactured arms had already been captured from FARC guerrillas over the past ten years. This proliferation of Cuba-smuggled Chinese arms to the terrorist FARC got so bad that in 2007-08 the Colombian authorities sent a diplomatic protest note to the Chinese.
This awkward information at such an awkward time, needless to say, might have hampered Obama’s plan (with presumably Brennan’s support) to cleanse the Castro regime from any taint of terror-sponsorship—at least for people with half-a-brain.
But shouldn’t the head of (probably) the world’s largest and most lavishly–funded intelligence agency (the CIA) have been aware of this Cuban terror-sponsorship on our very doorstep? So how could he possibly sign-off on Obama’s howler that “the government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding six-month period?”
Two years earlier (with John Brennan the recently appointed CIA director by Obama) Panamanian authorities discovered unregistered Russian missile parts and actual MIG jets hidden in a North Korean ship that had just left terror-sponsoring Cuba and was bound for terror-sponsoring North Korea through the Panama Canal. All the Russian made contraband was hidden under sacks of Cuban sugar. An investigation by a U.N. panel (no less!) concluded that the Cuban smuggling was a blatant violation of international sanctions.)
Shouldn’t a CIA director have been aware of this illegal, blatant and repeated smuggling of arms from one terror-sponsor to another in our own backyard?
Of course. But looking the other way was very convenient for de-classifying the blatantly guilty party from the list of terror-sponsors--a condition Castro demanded before he would deign to allow Obama to legitimize and enrich his regime. The Castros, you see, knew full well how Obama desperately craved the “opening to Cuba” for his “legacy.”
So they had a ball! They played him like a fiddle, humiliating his “negotiators’ (mostly Pajama-Boy Ben Rhodes) at every turn and absolutely mercilessly, while snickering.
Apparently, Brennan’s Cuba trip had results. To wit:
“Cuba and the United States signed an agreement to cooperate in the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking…A delegation of Cuban government national security officials recently toured the Pentagon’s counter-drug center in Key West (in May, 2016)— a first, signaling a nascent effort in U.S.-Cuban security cooperation. They got a briefing on the work that has been described as Southcom’s command center in the war on drugs.”
The result of this Brennan-encouraged “cooperation?”
“Panamanian authorities (NOT, U.S. authorities!) on Saturday (May, 18, 2019) intercepted 46 suitcases containing an estimated $90 million in illegal drugs on a cargo ship that arrived from a Cuban port and was en route to Istanbul, Turkey. The suitcases contained 1,517 packages of drugs hidden in a container declared as containing charcoal.
Needless to add: no mainstream U.S. media portal (not even Fox!) bothered reporting on this blockbuster embarrassment to the Obama/Brennan “national security” team.
Why the Left Sees Fascists Everywhere
Fascism lost World War II. Communism lost the Cold War. Marxism is winning the historical imagination in the twenty-first century.
The word “fascism” is used everywhere to describe anyone even slightly to the right of the far left. The virtues and values of the generation that defeated fascism in the 1940s would be labeled fascist today: Christian, patriotic, and pro-family. This is not accidental. It is essential to the Marxist imagination of fascism since the end of World War II.
Originally, fascism was the political theory of state corporatism and authoritarianism, where the state, headed by a dictator acting on behalf of the people (the “nation”), ruled with a sort of absolute supremacy. Giovanni Gentile, in his Doctrine of Fascism (co-authored by Mussolini), described fascism succinctly as the philosophy that would manifest “the century of the State.”
The fascist century envisioned by the original fascist theorists and leaders conceived itself as the energetic zeal emanating from the spirit of the people being channeled into the formation of a state that would act as the uniting spirit of newly formed nations. We must not forget here that though certain peoples had a long history, their nations had only recently been formed, like Italy (1861) and Germany (1871), or only recently gained full independence after the end of World War I, and thus state-building was conceived as the next step of national development.
No one nowadays means fascism to be a political philosophy of state supremacy, either self-descriptively or as a pejorative for political opponents. What happened?
What happened was fascism’s own self-transformation, once in power, and the analysis of it by critics (especially Marxists) during the 1930s and at the end of World War II. Having achieved political power, fascist governments promoted an aggressive foreign policy of territorial expansion, often with the goal of achieving “living space,” or Lebensraum, as famously adopted by the Nazi Party in Germany.
This aggressive foreign policy of self-aggrandizement, tied to the idea of Lebensraum, was then united with late nineteenth-century race science, ensuring the eventual marriage of state supremacy with racial supremacy. The state is the ultimate actor of the will of the people, but the people the state is an expression of is a racial people, which excludes other groups even if they reside within the nation. Thankfully, the Allies defeated the fascism of Germany and Italy in World War II.
However, the defeat of that brand of fascism alongside its spectacular rise to power in the decade after the tragedy of World War I caused Marxist philosophers and intellectuals to reanalyze capitalism, the nature of the bourgeoisie, and the new phenomenon that Marx did not live to see and therefore didn’t write about: fascism.
The East German playwright and philosopher Bertolt Brecht aptly summarized the emergent new Marxist understanding of fascism: “Fascism is a historic phase of capitalism.” Brecht would go on to say, “How can anyone tell the truth about Fascism, unless he is willing to speak out against capitalism, which brings it forth?”
To be against fascism, Brecht elaborated, meant one had to be against capitalism. To be against capitalism meant one was fighting against fascism. The Cambridge Five, the infamous ring of British spies working for the Soviet Union, thought the same: Marxism, in the form of the Soviet Union (at the time), was the best political system to fight fascism (capitalism).In the new Marxist historical imagination, capitalism’s disintegration of all social bonds through its relentless industrialization and commercialization, its exploitation of humanity, and reorganization of social life around urban work made humans weak and prone to the eventual state authoritarianism of the dictator.
Fascism then appears as the bulwark against revolutionary socialism, which would attract the support of the bourgeoisie, the patriotic middle class of any nation, who would fear the Revolutionary Other. Therefore, capitalism and fascism are interlinked and depend on each other. “In Fascist countries capitalism continues to exist, but only in the form of Fascism,” writes Brecht. “Fascism can be combated as capitalism alone, as the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive, and most treacherous form of capitalism.”
Under this new Marxist view, fascism is the final expression of exhausted capitalism, or what is also called “late capitalism.” Late capitalism, a term first used by Werner Sombart, was popularized by the Marxist economist and philosopher Ernest Mandel during the Cold War.
Late Capitalism, Mandel’s magnum opus, attempted to explain what Marx did not witness: the failure of the working class to launch the proletariat revolution, the 1950s and 1960s economic boom, and the shift of capitalist modes of economics away from industrial work to financialization leading to globalized markets and mass consumption for a significant portion of the world’s population.
The exhaustion of late capitalism into financial consumerism would lead to the re-emergence of fascism, which would be the attempt by capitalism to defend itself at the end of its exploitative and oppressive development, wherein the racial majority of a capitalist country would vehemently scapegoat and go to war against the foreign other. The scapegoated other would be the image held up as the enemy by a devolving capitalism to hide the failures of late capitalism in its final descent into disintegration and authoritarian fascism within that process of disintegration.
So much left-wing rhetoric makes sense once understood through the Marxist historical imagination. We are living in the early stages of the new fascism, according to the Marxist mind.
Capitalism becomes fascism. Liberalism becomes fascism. Conservatism becomes fascism. Christianity becomes fascism. This is the basic narrative proclaimed by the new Marxists.
This idea and narrative of world history is pervasive among the Western educated elite and intelligentsia, a core segment of the professoriate at elite universities and state universities (especially those educated at the elite universities who read the many post-war Marxist thinkers), among lawyers and journalists, and also among a new generation of university students who have swallowed, wholesale, this basic vision of understanding history and the world.
To save the world from fascism means to save the world from capitalism, and especially to save the oppressed scapegoated victims of late capitalism from the abuse of would-be fascists. Fascists can be anyone. You. Me. Our neighbors. To be an anti-fascist means one must actively oppose capitalism and actively help the oppressed people exploited by late-stage fascistic capitalism. Fascists literally are everywhere in the Marxist view of world history because you either become a fascist or an anti-fascist.
Humans are instinctively narrative creatures. We live by stories. Our identities are shaped by the stories and narratives we tell ourselves. Unless a different story can be told in the current world epoch in which we live, the Marxist story of late capitalism and its descent into fascism and the emerging danger of fascist catastrophe will be the narrative that dominates our world and the next generation. Ignoring this is perilous. Confronting this story is the imperative of liberty.
Communist Positions of Zohran Mamdani and Bernie Sanders
By James D. Agresti | July 10, 2025 | JUSTFACTSDaily.
Overview
PolitiFact, a so-called “fact checker,” claims it is “false” that New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont are “communists.” PolitiFact also alleges that calling them communists is “a red scare tactic.”
PolitiFact’s article, written by Ella Moore and Amy Sherman, relies heavily on the opinions of “experts” and is bereft of primary sources on the doctrines of communism. It also downplays and ignores pivotal statements of Mamdani and Sanders.
The actual facts of this matter show that the defining positions of Mamdani and Sanders accord with key elements of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the Soviet Constitution, and the official Law of the Soviet State.
This is important because communism is notoriously associated with widespread poverty and the trampling of rights assured by the U.S. Constitution.
“Communism” & “Democratic Socialism”
Mamdani and Sanders reject the label “communist” and differentiate themselves as “democratic socialists,” a narrative that PolitiFact uncritically repeats.
That argument falls apart in light of the fact that the Law of the Soviet State (1938) refers to the USSR as a “socialist democracy” more than 40 times.
Likewise, a Harvard University Press book about communism explains that “the Russian Social Democrats, better known to history as the Bolsheviks, decided in November 1917 to call themselves ‘Communists’.”
The word “Bolshevik” literally means “one of the majority,” and Bolsheviks were members of the “Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party.”
In short, Communists’ descriptions of themselves as members of a “socialist democracy,” “Social Democrats,” and “Social-Democratic” are virtually identical to Mamdani’s and Sanders’ descriptions of themselves as “democratic socialists.”
Given that the meaning of words can differ over time and place, this doesn’t constitute proof that Mamdani and Sanders are communists, but the verbal distinction they draw between “communism” and “democratic socialism” is tenuous.
Democracy & Government Control
PolitiFact claims that, unlike communists, Mamdani “hasn’t called for eliminating democracy” and doesn’t favor “government takeover of private property and control of industry.”
Contrary to the notion that communism opposes democracy, the Communist Manifesto calls for winning “the battle of democracy” so that government controls all “communication,” “property,” “transport,” “factories,” “credit,” and “agriculture.”
In perfect accord with that goal, Mamdani is a self-described “proud member” of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which calls for using “democracy” to “collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation.”
Mamdani isn’t merely a run-of-the mill DSA member but delivered the keynote speech at their 2023 National Convention.
Leaving no doubt about his view of democracy, Mamdani stated during a 2021 DSA conference that “the end goal” is “seizing the means of production,” which “we firmly believe in.” He also urged his colleagues to not abandon this issue and other positions that are “correct” and “right” even though “we do not have” a “groundswell of popular support” for them “at this very moment.”
Although Sanders has been praised by a New York Times Magazine contributor for “almost single-handedly” spurring the membership and political “boom” of DSA, he isn’t a member of the group and said in 2015 during his first run for president, “I don’t believe government should own the means of production.”
But back in the 1980s before he was elected to national office, Sanders proposed using politics (i.e., democracy) to achieve “public ownership of significant parts of the economy.”
And back in 1970s, Sanders explicitly and repeatedly called for government to seize large sectors of the economy, including “banks and major industries,” “gigantic” energy companies like “Exxon,” “drug companies,” “private electric companies without compensation to the banks and wealthy stockholders who own the vast majority of stock in these companies,” and all “the major means of production.”
In stark contrast to Marx, Mamdani, and pre-national Sanders, the founders of the U.S. explicitly rejected “a pure democracy” where a majority can seize private property and use the power of government to do most anything they want. Conversely, the Soviets demanded this and approvingly called it “the dictatorship of the proletariat, a new Soviet democracy for all the toilers.”
James Madison, the “father of the Constitution” and primary author of the Bill of Rights, emphasized in the Federalist Papers that “such democracies” are “incompatible with personal security” and have “been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.”
That is why Madison stated near the outset of the Constitutional Convention that their mission was to “frame a republican system” of government to protect the rights of individuals from the will of the majority. In accord with this principle, the founders created a democratic constitutional republic with strong checks on the power of government in order to “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
The Law of the Soviet State scorns that system as “bourgeois democracy” and claims that “Soviet democracy and the Soviet state are a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic.”
That was pure propaganda because all of the actual power in the Soviet Union was in the hands of a few elites. However, the point remains that communism and democracy aren’t mutually exclusive, and democracy can be used in totalitarian ways that have been embraced by Mamdani and Sanders.
Small Business
PolitiFact claims that Mamdani’s positions are “not akin to communism” since he “does not call for getting rid of private ownership” and because “one of the goals included on his website is to ‘make it faster, easier, and cheaper to start and run a business’.”
Here again, PolitiFact displays a weak understanding of communism and distorts the views of Mamdani.
First, the Soviet Constitution “permits the small private economy of individual peasants and handicraftsmen based on their personal labour.”
Second, the full context of Mamdani’s quote cited by PolitiFact shows that it only applies to “small businesses,” similar to the Soviet Constitution.
Healthcare
There is no daylight between Mamdani, Sanders, and the Soviet Constitution on the issue of healthcare.
Mamdani has written, “We need to abolish private insurance, institute single-payer & nationalize the medical supply chain immediately.”
Likewise, Sanders has incessantly called for “Medicare for All—not some, or a few, or most” but “ALL.”
Sanders has also asserted dozens of times that “healthcare” is a “right,” a claim rooted in the Soviet Constitution, which declares a “right” to “medical” care.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Constitution, which Sanders swore to uphold, doesn’t specify or countenance even a single social program, much less call them “rights.” Instead, it recognizes inalienable rights that shall not be infringed like “life,” “liberty,” and “freedom of speech.”
Moreover, what Sanders and the Soviets call a “right to healthcare” is actually an entitlement to get in line for services that government rations through “waiting lists, gatekeeping, and limiting individuals’ choices,” as documented in the Encyclopedia of Health Economics.
Sanders alleges that “every other major country recognizes” healthcare as a “right,” which is far from true. And even among nations that do so, they ultimately derived this doctrine from the Soviet Union, which was the “first country in the world to provide health services to the entire population as a public service paid from the state treasury.”
Banning Guns
Spurning the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution, Mamdani posted to X in 2022, “We need to ban all guns.”
That position is further to the left of the Soviet Union, which had very strict gun control but not a total ban. Per a 1973 Library of Congress report, “acquisition and possession of firearms in the Soviet Union are subject to severe restrictions and limitations imposed by the State.”
Landlords and Capitalists
The Soviet Constitution praises the “overthrow of the landlords and capitalists” and declares that “the bulk of the dwelling houses in the cities and industrial localities, are state property.”
Likewise, DSA calls for overthrowing the “capitalist class,” and Mamdani starred in a 2021 video for the Gravel Institute in which he called for the full government takeover of housing. In this video, he stated:
We’re facing an unprecedented wave of evictions and foreclosures that will crash straight into millions of struggling families across the country. …
At the root of all of this suffering is that the fact that in this country, housing is treated as a commodity, not a right. …
If we want to end the housing crisis, the solution has to be moving toward the full de-commodification of housing. In other words, moving away from the status quo in which most people access housing by purchasing it on the market and toward a future where we guarantee high quality housing to all as a human right.
Tempering that position in his mayoral race, Mamdani’s campaign website says that “he will immediately freeze the rent for all stabilized tenants” while forcing landlords to make more repairs. If they don’t do this and demonstrate “consistent neglect for their tenants,” Mamdani promises to “take control of their properties” in the “most extreme cases.”
Food
The Soviet Constitution mandates “public enterprises in collective farms and cooperative organizations,” and the Law of the Soviet State explains that the “Soviets began to control the activity of various organs concerned with food supply and to employ revolutionary measures (of confiscation and requisition) in the struggle with speculation, and so forth.”
Likewise, Mamdani says that he “will create a network of city-owned grocery stores” that won’t “pay rent or property taxes.” This will provide them with a competitive advantage that could drive out private supermarkets, especially since grocery store profit margins averaged only 1% to 3% during 2018 to 2023.
Childcare
The Soviet Constitution guarantees “a wide network” of “nurseries and kindergartens.”
Likewise, Sanders calls for “universal childcare and pre-kindergarten,” and Mamdani says that he “will implement free childcare for every New Yorker aged 6 weeks to 5 years.”
This enables government to indoctrinate children from the cradle, as was done in the Soviet Union.
Transportation
The Soviet Constitution declares that “rail, water and air transport” are all the property of government.
Taking that a step further, Mamdani’s campaign website says that “he’ll permanently eliminate the fare on every city bus.” In other words, he also wants to socialize the demand, not just the supply.
32-Hour Workweek
The Soviet Constitution declares a “right” to “the reduction of the working day to seven hours.”
Similarly, Sanders has proposed legislation to mandate “a 32-hour workweek with no loss of pay” and says this “is not a radical idea.”
Paid Maternity & Sick Leave
The Soviet Constitution declares a “right” to “pre-maternity and maternity leave with full pay and the “right to maintenance” in “the case of sickness.”
Likewise, Sanders wants government to provide workers with “at least twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave” “after a new birth, to care for a sick loved one, or if they themselves are ill.”
Sanders alleges this will only cost workers “$1.61 a week,” a claim reminiscent of President Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 promise that “hospital insurance” (i.e., Medicare Part A) would cost “no more than $1 a month” per worker.
Adjusted for inflation, $1 in 1964 equals $10 in 2025, but the Medicare payroll tax is now unlimited and costs workers 2.9% of their wages up $200,000/year and 3.8% thereafter. Workers who earn $1 million/year pay about $3,000/month for this tax.
Paid Vacations
The Soviet Constitution declared a “right” to “annual vacations with full pay.”
Likewise, Sanders wants government to “guarantee all workers” “paid vacation.”
Retirement
The Soviet Constitution declares a “right” to “maintenance in old age.”
Likewise, Sanders says that government should grant everyone the “right to a secure retirement.”
Higher Education
The Soviet Constitution declares a “right” to “education” that is “ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges.”
Likewise, Sanders says that “public education for all—from childcare and pre-kindergarten through college” should be a “right.”
Conclusion
Beyond the broad affinity of Mamdani and Sanders for communist policies, they are also quick to impugn the U.S. and its largely free market economy, even though it provides the highest average standard of living in the world.
For example, Sanders condemns the U.S. for allegedly having “the highest rate of childhood poverty of nearly any major country on earth.” In reality, Sanders is using misleading data, and even the poorest 20% of people in the U.S. consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries.
Conversely, the nation that provided the exemplar for much of Sanders’ and Mamdani’s agenda was wracked by poverty. As documented in the academic serial work Quality of Life in the Soviet Union, the “living standard” there in 1976 “was roughly one third that of the United States.”
Mamdani and Sanders haven’t endorsed darker aspects of communism mentioned in the Law of the Soviet State, like “depriving the bourgeoisie” of the ability to vote, outlawing “freedom of speech” for “the foes of socialism,” and having “the exploiter classes in the country” “liquidated.”
However, the Law of the Soviet State explains that such policies are not “according to the plan” of communism and are “not a matter of the proletarian dictatorship in general” but things that “developed spontaneously during the course of the struggle.”
Sanders said something very similar after he traveled to the Soviet Union in 1988 for a diplomatic trip/honeymoon. In the wake of this, he held a press conference in which he praised and critiqued various aspects of the Soviet Union while making this telling comment:
At least some of the people that we met, from some of their lips, I was very impressed by their desire to become a democratic society and move fully into some of their early visions of their revolution—what their revolution was about in 1917.
They understand in many ways that they have had an abysmal history since then, and they want to go back to some of their early visions, and we certainly wish them well in that.
In summary, Sanders is in favor of utopian communism without the despots and gulags, although that is what communism has typically descended into throughout history.
Only by twisting and ignoring the doctrines of communism and the words of Mamdani and Sanders can PolitiFact conclusively assert that they are not communists. Instead, the facts are clear that Mamdani and Sanders have embraced many fundamental aspects of communism detailed in the Communist Manifesto, the Soviet Constitution, and the Law of the Soviet State.
Photo Credits: lev radin/Shutterstock.com and LiamMurphyPics/Shutterstock.com