moonbattery logo

Sep 07 2017

Yes, Bill de Blasio Is a Communist

It isn’t hyperbole. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio really is a communist. Here he is quoted from a fawning recent interview with his fellow moonbats at New York Magazine:

What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property.

The alternative to private property is communism, a system that reduces regular people to literal slaves of the government. It grants the bigwigs running the government total power over everything:

Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.

As de Blasio makes clear, communism is a totalitarian system. Big Government makes all the decisions; the people under it do what they are told in return for their sustenance, much like farm animals.


On tips from Sean C and TCS III. Hat tip: Whiskey Tango Texas.

62 Responses to “Yes, Bill de Blasio Is a Communist”

  1. TED says:


  2. ICEvictim says:

    now if one wanted to throw the word “Nazi” around, I believe this is a good case for it.

  3. TED says:

    NOTE the similarity to De Blasio?


    Another OPEN SEWER…

  4. THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084 says:

    So this means that every time I said I lived in a hostile land under a dictatorship that wanted to steal my home and murder me, I wasn’t fucking “paranoid”?

    So many “paranoias” are just really observant reactions to the unfolding Bolshevik terrorism unfolding around them.

  5. mas2 says:

    Makes me even more glad that I turned down every tech recruiter that’s tried to recruit me for positions in NYC.

  6. MAS says:

    Makes ya want to move to NY don’t it? NOT…

    The horrible reality is NY voters (that bothered to show or were raised from the dead) endorsed this guy and the USA suffers from the same malady.

  7. Swordie says:

    Those quotes read like straight up hyperbole.

  8. Torcer says:

    In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom – fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. Arthur M. Schlesinger

    Communism and Fascism are variations of the same immoral and parasitic ideology.

  9. Mr. Freemarket says:

    De Blasio is in favor of an all-powerful government only when the right people are in charge. His basic premise isn’t that there is anything wrong with communism…you just need to have the right people in charge.
    BTW…government owned apartment must be wonderful, considering how well government owned bathrooms are maintained.

  10. Mr. Freemarket says:

    IF de Blasio thinks government owning and controlling everything is so great, why doesn’t he move to North Korea, where the government owns and controls everything?

  11. Mr. Freemarket says:

    He really believes that fascism and communism are two, different things.

  12. Mr. Freemarket says:

    So sad the second amendment interferes with their dreams.

  13. Mr. Freemarket says:

    How would they feel if the AP building were targeted? Change their position?

  14. Mr. Freemarket says:

    It is good to be king.

  15. Boudica says:

    This news will do wonders for NYC tourism. Now communist will be coming in droves. Unfortunately they won’t be coming to NYC to spend some cash. No they will becoming to for free stuff from welfare handouts or some free window shopping.

  16. Boudica says:

    DeBlasio is the fascist who likes to dictate.

  17. Boudica says:

    Communism leads to fascism. eg. North Korea, Cuba, China, Venezuela, Belorussian and soon too come South Africa and Germany.

  18. Torcer says:

    Okay, it’s just one of my pet peeves that there are those who try to maintain the fiction that fascism is somehow ‘right wing’ despite the fact that defines all logic if the Right-Left political spectrum measuring governmental power and size has any meaning.

    One expects to hear that from the Leftists, but there are those such a Glenn Beck who also spout that fiction….

  19. Mr. Freemarket says:

    The difference between communism and fascism is that in one of them, the government tells citizens how they must live. In the other, the government tells citizens how they must live.

    Both, however, march under red flags so that you can tell the difference.

  20. Eddie_Valiant says:

    Is it just me or do others want to take de Blahhhhhsio out behind city hall and beat the snot outta him?

  21. Eddie_Valiant says:

    Paging Cher….paging Cher!

  22. TED says:

    THEY would BURY his worthless ass!

  23. Julie says:

    This mayor has lost his mind.

  24. TED says:

    He’s a liberal, NEVER had one!!!

  25. Torcer says:

    Agreed, the main item I point out to everyone is that the Left has to maintain a facade of lies since the immoral and parasitic collectivist ideologies are based on the use of force.

    This ranges from denying the true nature of their philosophy to lying about it when it fails to even changing the colours that signify the two sides:

    When Republicans Were Blue and Democrats Were Red
    The era of color-coded political parties is more recent than you might think×600/filters:no_upscale()/
    By Jodi Enda October 31, 2012
    That’s right: In the beginning, blue was red and red was blue and they changed back and forth from election to election and network to network in what appears, in hindsight, to be a flight of whimsy. The notion that there were “red states” and “blue states”—and that the former were Republican and the latter Democratic—wasn’t cemented on the national psyche until the year 2000.

    Chalk up another one to Bush v. Gore. Not only did it give us “hanging chads” and a crash course in the Electoral College, not only did it lead to a controversial Supreme Court ruling and a heightened level of polarization that has intensified ever since, the Election That Wouldn’t End gave us a new political shorthand.
    There are theories, some likely, some just plain weird, to explain the shifting palette.

    “For years, both parties would do red and blue maps, but they always made the other guys red,” said Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent for NBC News. “During the Cold War, who wanted to be red?”

    Indeed, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union little more than two decades ago, “red was a term of derision,” noted Mitchell Stephens, a New York University professor of journalism and author of A History of News.

    “There’s a movie named Reds, ” he said. “You’d see red in tabloid headlines, particularly in right wing tabloids like the Daily Mirror in New York and the New York Daily News.”

    Perhaps the stigma of red in those days explains why some networks changed colors— in what appeared to be random fashion—over the years. Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly wrote in 2004 that the networks alternated colors based on the party of the White House incumbent, but YouTube reveals that to be a myth.

  26. Floridian says:

    “Big Government makes all the decisions; the people under it do what they are told in return for their sustenance, much like farm animals.”

    This one sentence is the best analysis of the reality of socialism that has ever been written.

  27. James McEnanly says:

    This would probably explain his love of self-aggrandising parades,

  28. Bodhisattva says:

    And yet I am certain he owns at least one of not several expensive pieces of real estate (private property) as well as one if not several expensive vehicles, multiple expensive electronics items, an expensive wardrobe and, likely, one or more expensive firearms.


  29. Bodhisattva says:

    The other versions of that are that communism/socialism works, if you do it right… and nobody previously did it right. When asked why no one did it right you often get the answer that communism/socialism was an idea formed before technology needed to make it possible existed – and now that technology exists.

  30. Bodhisattva says:

    I wonder… has she filled all the rooms, and put up tents on the grounds, of her home(s) to house all the “dreamers” that Trump’s actions have put under threat of deportation – if you listen to the leftard moonbats, who leave out that his action did no such thing… it just started a clock running and punted the issue to Congress, where it belonged in the first place before Obama’s unconstitutional action that created this mess.

  31. Bodhisattva says:

    In practice both are oligarchies usually with a figurehead leader who may be the most powerful and persuasive member of a larger group, many of whom are content to stay in the background.

  32. Bodhisattva says:

    Some of the concepts shared by fascists are also concepts you often hear expressed and favored by what some brand as “right wing” but really (even though I make the mistake of using those terms too) there isn’t so much “right wing” and “left wing” So this starts with completely wrong headed notions. The best explanation I’ve found yet is still this video, which I’ve posted before:

  33. Torcer says:

    Yes, this is usually the case.

    One of the arguments put forward by the Socialists is that it’s supposed to be ‘democratic’ and run by the people and when things don’t turn out that way they can claim that it’s not really socialism.

    Socialism Requires a Dictator | Richard M. Ebeling via @feeonline

    But the fact of the matter that is exactly how events will play out since the most ruthless and power hungry will tend to rise to the top.. or bottom as the case may be.

    My basic contention is that a clearly defined metric is always required with scale of measurement. The modern day Right-Left scale has to be a measure of Governmental size and power. The Right favouring minimal government, the Left favouring maximal government.

    Given that obvious metric, authoritarian regimes are by definition leftists. And that arbitrarily placing certain authoritarian ideologues on the ‘Far- Right’ makes no logical sense.

    You have my apologies if this sounds like I’m arguing with you, that isn’t the case. It’s more of writing out different ways of proving this point to people in general. 🙂

  34. Torcer says:

    Yes, I’ve perused that video in the past and it has some very good points.

    Recall that the original Right and Left stemmed from a meeting on a tennis court with the relation of the groups in supporting Royalty being the determinate factor.

    Clearly this is no longer the case and the dictionary definitions paint a picture of Right and Left being a factor of governmental size and power.

    Definition of CONSERVATISM
    a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
    b : the Conservative party
    b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
    3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

    Definition of conservative
    2 (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.
    Informal true blue
    late Middle English (in the sense ‘aiming to preserve’): from late Latin conservativus, from conservat- ‘conserved’, from the verb conservare (see conserve). Current senses date from the mid 19th century.

  35. Alfredo Zagales says:

    With comrade dialysis at the top of course

  36. Alfredo Zagales says:

    Hey but it’s free!!!

  37. Bodhisattva says:

    You didn’t include the definitions of “liberal” or “progressive” and those are things the people who call themselves either do not bother to learn either – because most of them are neither.

  38. Bodhisattva says:

    And remember – just because you’re paranoid it don’t mean they’re NOT out to get you…

  39. Bodhisattva says:

    I am capable of hearing out viewpoints that differ slightly or in fact substantially with mine without considering it an “argument” – certainly you’re making an “argument” for subtle (or substantial) differences in your own worldview but, unlike lunatic moonbat snowflakes, I know that hearing such will not damage me in any way nor will the world end just because someone actually can think without being told what to think and as a result has currently reached some conclusions which may not match mine.

    I think my point was just that we need to consider more than just a simple “left-right” scale, because so many who might consider themselves one actually should be classified as the other once a comprehensive inventory of their views is taken.

    Keep in mind the left also tends to include anarchists who say all government is bad. So under that reasoning the simple definition you provided breaks down. Are there far right wing anarchists too?

  40. Bodhisattva says:

    Again my point would be that fascism can arise at any point on the “left-right” spectrum. Fascism isn’t an exclusive left or right wing system. It is defined more by a constellation of beliefs and behaviors than whether one prefers more or less government.

  41. Torcer says:

    My apologies – I was in a hurry.
    Note there is a clear distinction between Leftist and Liberal:

    Definition of liberal
    1Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:
    1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
    1.2(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform: ‘a liberal democratic state’
    1A person of liberal views:
    ‘a concern among liberals about the relation of the citizen to the state’
    Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’. The original sense was ‘suitable for a free man’, hence ‘suitable for a gentleman’ (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense ‘generous’ (compare with sense 4 of the adjective) gave rise to an obsolete meaning ‘free from restraint’, leading to sense 1 of the adjective (late 18th century).


    Definitions of left
    2 Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views.
    2 (often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.

    And progressive is so vague as to be meaningless

    Definition of progressive
    2(Of a person or idea) favouring social reform
    1An advocate of social reform:
    Early 17th century: from French progressif, -ive or medieval Latin progressivus, from progress- ‘gone forward’, from the verb progredi

  42. Torcer says:

    Well, by definition Leftist are in favour of expansive government, while anarchist are in favour of no government. Those are two thing that cannot logically exist together, much like matter and anti-matter.

    Logically speaking one is either for extensive government control or no government at all, but cannot be both. There are those who label themselves as ‘An-coms’ – Anarchist Communists – a severe contradiction in terms.

    Definition of COMMUNISM
    1a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
    b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
    a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
    c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
    d : communist systems collectively

    Definition of ANARCHY
    1a : absence of government
    b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
    c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
    2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
    b : absence of order : disorder not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker
    Origin of ANARCHY
    Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler
    First Known Use: 1539

  43. Torcer says:

    Yes, I think we are. By definition the right wing is Conservative and Conservatism signifies smaller and limited government.

    I’ve seen statements that have tried to postulate that the sides are different in Europe, but the MW Definitions more or less coincide with the OED.

    Definition of CONSERVATISM
    a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
    b : the Conservative party
    2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
    b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
    3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

    Definition of conservatism
    [mass noun]
    1Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.
    ‘proponents of theological conservatism’
    2The holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.
    ‘a party that espoused conservatism’
    2.1 The doctrines of the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party elsewhere.
    ‘the thrust of post-war Conservatism’

  44. ReikoRBloom says:

    my neighbor’s aunt makes $74 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her pay was $21562 just working on the computer for a few hours. you could try here



  45. Bodhisattva says:

    Well the answer is simple, particularly if you ever are able to get them to speak clearly about their beliefs. They will plainly demand things like a “living wage” for all without any requirement to work for it, which means more government and more taxes, free health care, education and housing for all, which means more government and taxes, but if you ask them how they feel about the government they’ll tell you that they can’t stand it due to it being so intertwined with business and they might throw in that bit about the military-industrial complex because they like to throw in things they think are cool that make them sound like they know what they’re talking about. But they always ruin it by talking about HAARP and Chemtrails and all that nonsense.

  46. Torcer says:

    The point about the handing out of all that largess is the requirement of the use of force an fraud. Usually people tend to not be agreeable to their property being taken from them, thus it has to be done so at the point of a gun…

    It also explains why the national socialist Left favour gun control…

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy