The American Spectator : Back to the 1930s

Text Size

Back to the 1930s

By Green Lantern on 11.29.11 @ 6:09AM

The Obama left revives the politics of a “low, dishonest decade.”

There’s an old saying popular among liberals and leftists: “Anti-Semitism is the socialism of the stupid.” The aphorism attempts to account for the troubling resemblance of the main propaganda line for socialism — there is a small, infinitely powerful, infinitely wealthy cabal at the center of society that controls the entire economy — with the other propaganda line that there is a small, infinitely powerful, infinitely wealthy, Jewish cabal at the center of society controlling everything. According to this flippant dismissal, only a stupid person would distort the shining truths of socialism by muddying them with theories about race or religion.

Somehow it never occurs to liberals that the equation also runs the other way. Socialism is the anti-Semitism of the intelligentsia.

The political dialogue of the “1 percent versus the 99 percent” that currently consumes the liberal press is beginning to take the aura of the 1930s. That was the era, of course, when the world was divided into the “plutocrats” and “the masses,” when the Monopoly board’s depiction of “the rich” as a portly, tuxedo-and-top-hat-wearing breed apart was perceived as social reality. It was the 1930s, after all, that gave us Daddy Warbucks, that billionaire-who-could-do-anything, who was, let us not forget, a friend of President Franklin Roosevelt.

So why anyone would want to revive the politics of a “low, dishonest decade,” as W.H. Auden described it, that led directly to the outbreak of World War II? It seems beyond comprehension. Nevertheless, thanks to the distorted scholarship of liberal scholars and the New—Dealification of the economy under President Barack Obama, here we are back in 1935.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd, as anyone who has studied 1930s history can see, is only one or two steps away from becoming the Brown Shirts of our era. The run-up to World War II was fought in the precincts of Berlin and other European capitals by political gangs that had abandoned electoral politics and decided to win their case “into the streets.” By comparison, the Occupy-Whatever movement has so far been relatively benign. There is the usual agitprop of trying to provoke the police into overreaction so that the aggressors can celebrate themselves as “victims of the establishment who have unmasked the iron fist of the establishment,” etc. etc. (Why is it that every movement that starts out denouncing billionaires ends up fighting $35,000-a-year cops from Queens?)

In any case, the Occupiers’ form of extra-political violence isn’t likely to reach true 1930s levels until it abandons the relative safety of urban parks and college campuses and goes out to Iowa, where they are promising to “Occupy the Iowa Republican Caucuses.” At that point things are likely to get nasty. While the relatively tame urban police forces have learned their lessons from the 1960s on how to deal with protesters, inexperienced folks out in the Midwest are not likely to be as tolerant of political thuggery.

So how did we get to a point most sensible historians had assumed we left 80 years behind us? There are two answers: President Obama’s politics and liberal scholarship.

The Occupiers have the germ of a case — just as did the inhabitants of Hoovervilles and the Bonus Army that descended on Washington in 1932. (They had written promises of bonuses for their service during World War I that Congress had failed to honor.) The economy stinks. There are few jobs to be had. Yet except for James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal, no news commentators have yet used the term “Obamaville” to describe the tent cities that have popped up around the country. Our President has managed to fashion the worst economy since the 1930s — one that may soon eclipse the 1930s if Europe follows the present trend and goes under. Yet his only response has been to cartelize the economy in the manner of Franklin Roosevelt and then follow by emulating the worst demagogues of that era. Try this for example:

According to the tables which we have assembled, it is our estimate that 4 percent of the American people own 85 percent of the wealth of America and that over 70 of the American people don’t own enough to pay the debts they owe. How many men ever went to a barbecue and would let one man take off the table what’s intended for 9/10ths of the people to eat. The only way you’ll ever be able to feed the balance of the people is to make that man come back and bring back some of the grub he ain’t got no business with.

Is this Obama addressing a group of dewy-eyed freshmen in Colorado? No, it is Senator Huey Long of Louisiana, “The Kingfish,” delivering his “Share the Wealth” address to an assembly of Congressional staffers in the Capitol Building in 1935. The Hill staffers applauded rapturously as Long went on to propose stripping John D. Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, J.P. Morgan, Andrew Mellon, and the rest of the millionaires of all their wealth and redistributing it to the American people:

We say to America 125 million, none shall be too big, none shall be too poor… but… that America will become a land, sharing the fruits of the land, not for the favored few, not to satisfy greed but that all may live in the land in which the Lord has provided an abundance sufficient for the luxury and convenience of the people in general.

All that’s missing is Obama’s customary invocation of “folks.”

But it isn’t just the President’s channeling of the demagogues of the 1930s that has created the poisonous mood. Liberal scholars have labored long and hard to bring about this moment. Two of the most noteworthy are Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, a pair of French Marxists who parachuted into Berkeley in the 1990s and without ever bothering to check out the neighborhood started dissecting income tax records trying to prove that America has as much inequality as France in the days of Louis XVI. All this has since been fought out in the academic journals, with Alan Reynolds standing toe-to-toe with Piketty and Saez, critiquing their work every step of the way. Suffice to say that P&S are the main source of the “1 percent” argument that has become the touchstone of Democratic politics.

Here’s how P&S arrived at their conclusions:

1. First, they looked at individual tax returns, rather than households or families. Individual returns reflect every teenager who earned $3,000 at a summer job. Not taking account that people share income and support each other naturally skews things toward the lower end.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Green Lantern is the pen-name of an East Coast writer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (275) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Riddler| 11.29.11 @ 6:33AM

Sir, Paul Krugman is not the only certifiable lunatic to win a Nobel prize. Obama got one simply for being a lunatic. Please correct the record.

Timothy L. Pennell| 11.29.11 @ 7:34AM

Yasser Arafat got one. Jimmy Carter Got one. Al Gore got one. It's recipients have become a Who's Who, of the Idiot Kingdom that, at the moment, still has the upper hand. But the screws are turning, and so is the worm.

It's become as worthless as a Pulitzer. As worthless as the people who receive it.

C Smith| 11.29.11 @ 11:54AM

The absurdity of Nobel Peace Prize nominees and recipients became demonstratively apparent in 1939 with Swedish parliamentarian Erik Brandt's satirical nomination of Adolf Hitler to receive the prize in protest of Neville Chamberlain's nomination.

C Smith| 11.29.11 @ 1:22PM

When Hitler did not make the cut. The infuriated, Führer forbad any other German receive the "honor."

However he was consoled having received Time Magazine's Man of the Year "honor."

http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....02,00.html

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 2:02PM

Ya, the REST of the world is nuts, but YOU are so grounded.... ya riiiiiight.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 12:59PM

WTF dude? You think pointing out the author of the comment is doubtless imperfect changes WHAT HE SAID...?

Got anything to REFUTE HIS COMMENT? Or is it $1 Ad Hominem Day at the DNC again???

Anthony| 11.29.11 @ 2:33PM

The Left do love to wrap themselves up in phony awards, as they stand around in a circle and jerk each other off.
Don't forget lefty journalism's contribution to this inanity, the "Peabody Award" given to one Dan Rather, creator of the new paradigm of journalism, "fake but true".

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 6:54PM

Nobel Peace and Literature prizes, of course. The Physics, Medicine, and Chemistry prizes are still good, Tim. But Peace is bullshit, like Pulitzers for Commentary. (Not the magazine---you know what I mean.)

Hope your Turkey Day kicked ass!

chuck| 11.29.11 @ 9:29AM

I don't think Krugman actually won THE Nobel Prize for Economics. I think it was some other type of commendation from the Nobel panel. Generally, except for the Peace Prize, the rest of the Nobels go to people who have actually contributed something positive.

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:13PM

Back in the 80s Jerry Pournelle published an essay about Economics and pointed out that there was no rhyme or reason as to why they were giving a Nobel in Economics. One year they'd give it a loon ball, then the next year give it to someone semi-sane. He ended the essay with something to the effect, "and we have a council of Economic advisers. God help us."

That Purple guy sounds like he's a few fries short of a happy meal. But then, leftists are. That's why they are leftists.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:48PM

that makes no sense, as usual.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:05PM

I remember when Krugman won the Clark Medal in 1991. His nearest competition was none other than Larry Summers.

Krugman got the Nobel in 2008 for the same work -- his big deal was looking at trade from a new angle. In fact, it's ironic where he's ended up today, because his work was to show, for example, that trade barriers MAKE SENSE in CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, namely fledgling industries that exhibit increasing-returns-to-scale.

Prophetically interventionalist, or more precisely, prophetic of Krugman's ability to JUSTIFY intervention using solid math ... while completely ignoring second-order effects (also known as UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES).

Same old Krugman....

Moe Blotz| 11.29.11 @ 6:50AM

Most of us thought Barry's nemesis, thwarting his efforts, was in the form of Koch brothers. Is Barry pizzed at Goldstein because he is Jewish or pizzed at Jews because of Goldstein?

Joe March| 11.29.11 @ 7:07AM

Actually, there is one billionaire pulling the strings. It's Soros.

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:15PM

And, not to put too fine a point on it, Soros is a Jew. He was willing to turn in his own people to avoid being arrested himself. He was a real nice guy. Still is.

Deborah D | 11.29.11 @ 7:19AM

In my memory we've never had a president who so pitted American against American. His disgust with his own country is only topped by his glee in tearing it down. Frightening times we live in. Let's pray the country can survive until January, 2013 and has the will to change the man in charge in 2012.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 2:04PM

Are you ignorant, stupid or just plain evil?

Butch| 11.29.11 @ 4:22PM

No matter what you say, how you say it, or how many words it takes, you're counterargument always boils down to the Big Three. Thanks for being so brief. You're implied answer, of course, is all three, stirred into an unholy stew. That's all it ever is, from any or all of you.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 5:53PM

unfortunately, the truth hurts, but don't take it so hard Chuckles - America was quite exceptional long before Ronald Reagan came along.

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:17PM

Alas, Purpleguy, you are all three. That you believe what you imply by your ad hominem merely reflects that you are deeply diseased from the mental illness known as Progressivism.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:49PM

Since I AM part of the 2% your argument is shallow and misses the mark. But no matter, I have mine, you just don't see how the 1% is keeping you from yours.

idalily| 11.29.11 @ 8:34PM

So, again, why is it morally right to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than everyone else? No, you still have not answered that question. So, since you haven't yet answered that question, let me ask another:

Since you advocate a blatantly unfair moral code, then when questioned, can't explain it or justify it, yet keep insisting it's right, does that make you ignorant, stupid, or just plain evil?

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:16PM

apparently you have a short memory and attention span - a sure sign of mental weakness. I have answered this question for you and have no intention of repeating myself to someone who sounds like a blathering idiot that keeps asking the same question over and over. I guess you'll just have to figure it out for yourself. Even the lowliest among us have - you can do it too.

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:28AM

NO YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED IT. You quoted Jefferson. That is not an answer. I'm not asking what Jefferson thought (which was by no means a justification for the unfair taxation you advocated). You deflect, you insult, but you never answer. Until you do, I will keep asking, because it keeps proving how stupid you are.

Chic Xulub| 11.29.11 @ 6:14PM

If I were ignorant I'd be like purplething. If I was stupid I'd be like Congress. If I were evil I'd be like Obama.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:50PM

Oh, but you are one or all 3 ... but im not surprised you put your shortcomings onto others.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:52PM

I can say what I want - or did you miss that 1st Amendment thingy?
What you really mean is that it is more acceptable to attribute a quote to someone else. I am not supposed to do anything. However, on this site, there is way more unacceptable behavior than that simple faux pas you find irritating.

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:38AM

Such as? Examples, please.

Fredrick Ward| 11.30.11 @ 1:04PM

Purpleguy,

I wonder at what exactly you are challenging Quartmaster. George Soros did turn in his own people to the Nazi regime. That is a fact that has been told by Soros himself. I think that maybe it is the fact that liberals do not enjoy truth that bothers you so much about that post.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:08PM

Again, the ad hominems. The sure sign of the FEEBLE MIND.

Did Soros work for the Nazis in Hungary or not?

Huh, PUNK?

There's your ad hominem right back at you , Punk. Trolling away, second attack post as I read through ... what a punk you are. Let's see if anything you post has content, ok, PUNK?

DRed| 11.30.11 @ 1:34PM

No, he didn't work for the Nazis. He most certainly never admitted turning anyone in to the Nazis. Check your facts.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:44PM

Right---he tagged along helping his stepfather confiscate Jewish property and turning them over to be transported...

But the real horror of Soros is not that he witnessed this as a teenager, but that he doesn't give a shit that it happened---read the interview with him on this.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 6:56PM

Soros is what we in the Tribe call a Jew by Vaginal Canal only. He's a Quisling, not only to Jews, but to the human race.

Pecos Pete| 11.29.11 @ 7:20AM

I sure do wish I was in the top .01%! Occupy That!

Doctor_X| 11.29.11 @ 7:27AM

Google searches for Emmanuel Goldstein spike as readers of the TAS can't recall thier highschool English classes. :-)

I'll go with Soros or maybe Buffet!
Personally I make less than $75,000 a year (household) and i identify more with the 1% than the 99!!

Vern Crisler| 11.29.11 @ 9:31AM

I didn't Google the name, but wasn't he the guy in Nineteen Eight Four who served as the convenient scapegoat (Orwell's reference to Trotsky)?

Will| 11.29.11 @ 10:11AM

Well done Vern. And lets not forget that Orwell, in his famous essay/manifesto "The Lion and the Unicorn", called for wealth to be capped at 10 times the lowest wage. And for the stock exhange to be pulled down, and the country houses turned into childrens' holiday camps. A genuine socialist hero.

TrueBlue| 11.29.11 @ 4:05PM

Heck with that, get rid of the Federal Reserve and either go back to the gold standard, or a standard based on a number of precious metals.

Riff Raff| 11.29.11 @ 10:53AM

I didn't read "1984" in school. I bought it and read it myself. Teachers in my school had "another agenda" and never touched anything by Orwell.

Timothy L. Pennell| 11.29.11 @ 7:27AM

Where ya been?
Pop Quiz: Who came to Power, amid an Economic Upheaval, dazzling his audiences with his Words, and his Speeches. Who could hold them in the palm of his hands, as he campaigned on HOPE and CHANGE, while pitting the Poor against the Rich. The People, against the BANKS, and the (Jewish) BANKERS?

Need more Clues?

He loved the BIG LIE. He would repeat these lies, over and over, again, and his believers in the Press, protected him, every step of the way. He would fill the streets, with his supporters, who would Chant Their Slogans, and Make Their Demands, before resulting to Violence, to make their points. Smashing windows, and Blaming the JEWS.

This Leader kept himself Isolated from others. Had no Real Friends. Nobody even remembers if he ever had a girlfriend. And he surrounded himself with fellow IDEOLOGUES, who were Down for the Struggle, and Loyal to HIM, and His Cause. To them, he was the Alpha and the Omega. And he went on to DESTROY HIS COUNTRY.

Who is it?
Is it: a) Adolph Hitler
Is it: b) Mussolini
Is it: c) Vladamir Lenin
Is it: d) Fidel Castro
Is it: e) Robert Mugabe
Is it: b) Barack Hussein Obama
Or, is it ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Okay. Pencils down.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:11PM

The don't TEACH anymore, certainly not what kids need and especially not anything warning young minds not to fall for demagoguery.

If Republicans take power, I say CLOSE THE DEPT OF EDUCATION with one exception -- leave the task of giving EVERY HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR A COPY OF "ANIMAL FARM" so we won't get stuck with another Obama....

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 2:06PM

And, that, sir is the problem with all of you. You THINK you are part of the 1% and they laugh at you all the way to the bank while you keep supporting the corporate shills that continue to give tax breaks and special favors to the real 1% ... Most of us are just one job away from destitution, but we never think it can happen to us. I pity those who are so short-sighted and are completely demolished if it happens.

Riff Raff| 11.29.11 @ 3:31PM

Are you still here? Perhaps YOU are just one job away from destitution, but don't speak for others. You are just a government shill and a fool. If you knew anything at all about history you would see the destruction wrought by governments from Caesar to Mao. The answer is more freedom, not more government.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 5:56PM

Why, by all means, move to Somalia where you can have absolute freedom to do anything you want. If you want the benefits the US government provides to you, and if you can stop whining that others are collecting something from the government that you are not, then just pay the taxes the United States needs to provide your happy home and shut up. Biting the hand that feeds you and allows you to be free - and you say I am the fool? Look in the mirror, Sunshine.

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:26PM

FedGov has become a parasite so it can feed morons like yourself. We are coasting on momentum that was built before Lincoln was elected, who then became a tyrant and fought an illegal war to make crooks who rob others to feed shills like yourself.

I realize that you are a product of the public brain laundering service, but you don't have to remain so ignorant. We have public libraries in this country that aren't full of the fluff and nonsense taught in colleges these days.

Of course, you might be among the Menshiviks Stalin sent to the basement of the Lubyanka who thought Ol' Uncle Joe was just joshin' them. That is, until they met Blotkhin and the cuffs were hung over a hook in the wall in that special room Yagoda had built to make those executions so much more convenient.

Just in case you haven't gotten the point of all this: Yeah, your a useful idiot.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:02PM

No, you suffer under the illusion that Ayn Rand was correct and only complete freedom stands in your way of being a billionaire. Not true, Chucky, it's you that stands in the way ...

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.29.11 @ 7:17PM

Purple turd "Biting the hand that feeds you and allows you to be free".

Spoken like a true useful idiot. This country's standard of living is high due to capitalism and the god-given rights to life, liberty, and property. If the government provides, then why work? Alas, it does not: it only takes from one group and gives to another to the detriment of all.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:27PM

OMG, how dumb your statement - and where do you think those "God-given" rights came from? The tooth fairy? Do you really think the Poles or the Czechs or the Russians or the Egyptians, or, or, or don't have "God -given" rights? Had our Founders not fought for those rights, do you really think we'd have them today? Or the Americans that fought the War of 1812? Or WW1 or WW2? While God-given sounds good, only the blood of patriots gave us our rights today. Our brave servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan have done their part as well. Not to mention Seal Team Six that killed that freak Osama Bin Laden. So thank the people of the United States for your freedom, which in our country is just another way of saying the United States government.
The government doesn't provide, it assists, it guides, it even underwrites ... our protection, our security, our freedom (of speech, of assembly, from want and fear, of privacy, from tyranny) - things we all cherish. All our freedoms are not written into the Constitution, and if you knew the history of the Constitution, you would know that.
My point was that it isn't lack of freedom in this country that keeps you from being a Billionaire - it's you (Paraphrasing Herman Cain - if you ain't a Billionaire don't blame the government, blame yo'self)!

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:33PM

Well it appears the pattern is forming on PurplePunk, folks:

Spewing ad hominems? Check
Straw Man arguments? Check
And now mind reading? Check

Paradigmatic Lib Tard. Check.

Now Punk, if you'd started with Plato you may have a chance at piecing together the history of "God given," or Natural, Rights, starting, again, with Plato's assertion that no man can ever be completely enslaved (the mind is always free -- an assertion challenged in an interesting way in the book 1984, among other places).

As I read your post, there appears to be hope for you ... so why not drop the Punk Attacks and debate like an adult?

Above you made a Lord of the Flies argument which implied the country would become Somalia without Big Government. That old Straw Man. But here you come closer to turning things right side up in your upside-down Weltschaung. Just remember this:

Natural Rights asserts that there are unalienable Rights that come along with being Human. They are NEGATIVE RIGHTS -- rights to be UNDISTURBED BY OTHERS.

When you speak, you can't be stopped.
When you assemble, you can't be busted up (if peaceable, on public property).
When you're busted, a confession can't be coerced out of you.

And so on. THESE RIGHTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH "POSITIVE RIGHTS" -- a fabrication from the 1960's: The "right" to a "living wage." The "right" to "quality healthcare."

Or the "right" to TAKE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. Which is where you're going in you posts, repeatedly (when you're not doing ad hominems like a Punk) -- an apologist for Big Government, because without ANY government we'd lose our Natural freedoms.

Nice sleight of hand. I'll take the cops and courts, thank you, keep the turtle tunnels and Obamacare, ok? It's not an either/or choice, and WE KNOW THIS. Read the responses. You're not fooling anyone, Punk.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 6:58PM

Yeah, but I don't seem to recall funding NPR or PISSCHRIST or Cowboy Poetry meetings to be among the purposes of government. Defense is; and defense can be interpreted quite broadly. But that's where Bummer wants to cut!

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:02PM

It is the government if the leader is constantly threatening to send his followers "into the face" of wealth earners, Purple.

You are correct in that all of our freedoms are not written into the Constitution. But ALL of the Government's abilities are.

Riff Raff| 11.29.11 @ 7:57PM

The stupidity behind this comment is astonishing. I didn't know people were that stupid. NO ONE is free in Somalia! Using Somalia as an exemplar of freedom and constitutional government is beyond stupid, it's insane.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:28PM

So what is freedom, pray tell? Do you really know? Or do you just prattle on with the right-wing talking points that makes you feel good at parties.

Riff Raff| 11.30.11 @ 1:17AM

You're not only an idiot, you're a rude idiot.

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:43AM

But a shining example of liberalism, don't you think? Rude, insulting, sneering, peurile, facile, lacking in critical thinking, lacking in knowledge of history, lacking in any ability to form his own opinions, dismal at debate or the mature exchange of ideas, excellent at cherry picking facts and drawing nonsensical conclusions from them, excellent at strawman arguments, excellent at repeating cliches from the liberal talking points grab bag, and all around a complete jerk. Yeah, typical liberal.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:36PM

Freedom is the state where nobody can force you to do anything.

Got it? Not too tough. BTW, nice ad hominem, Punk.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:38PM

My responses are to PurplePunk's posts but don't seem to be nesting properly. Just fyi who I'm addressing in my posts.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:14PM

Ahh "content" from PurplePunk. The old "anarchy without government" argument.

I'll take 15% of GDP in Hong Kong -- chaos, yeah?
How about 17% GDP in Singapore?

The STRAW MAN of "You want NO GOVERNMENT" is just plain STUPID, Punk!

Come on, YOU'RE SMARTER THAN THAT ... aren't you? Let's find out!

Meanwhile, here's an OPTIMAL SIZE OF GOVERNMENT RESEARCH PAPER for the grownups out there. You can read it too, Punk.

http://www.house.gov/jec/growt.....nction.pdf

Jim| 11.29.11 @ 1:16PM

"Thier"

Melvin| 11.29.11 @ 8:45AM

Hmm it appears that the American people must do something preemptive, to confront the nemesis.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 9:32AM

You forgot to add Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the list of choices.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 1:45PM

A little extreme, don't you think? Quite disrespectful of those that suffered the Holocaust and the other atrocities of the like of Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Mugabe and Castro. Today is NOTHING of the sort - and YOU talk about someone else telling the BIG LIE? Are you ignorant, stupid or just evil?

Stan Redmond| 11.29.11 @ 2:27PM

Give Obama time. He's only been in office a couple of years.

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:27PM

Yeah, we are slowly descending that direction. Only a brain laundered moron like Purpleguy won't see it.

As I said, he's a useful idiot.

idalily| 11.29.11 @ 8:36PM

Purple is not a useful idiot, Quartermaster. He's just an idiot.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:28PM

You feel better now, my unintelligent little minion?

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:30AM

Yeah, I do, actually. I mean, it doesn't need to be said, really, that you're an idiot, since everyone knows it's true. But yeah, saying it felt pretty good.

Fredrick Ward| 11.30.11 @ 1:25PM

I feel better knowing that you are a wonderful example of liberalism. I will use you as an example for my own children on how a person should not think. I believe you house within yourself every major fallacy of the basic critical thinking college course. You will serve as a good learning example to raise a better generation of truly thinking individuals.

martin j smith| 11.29.11 @ 7:52AM

The Obama Regime thru its Pravda straight ahead for Class Warfare in its campaign of 2012--Working Class, Small Business Go to Hell" or "Drop Dead"!
The OWS is a phoney politically created and inspired phenomenon. The Media is the Message.
I believe we have just seen the start of ramped up violence and this ought to be taken seriously now.
Trying to "reason" or to critique the thinking is also not worth the effort. What is necessary is to
"hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."
I think that most Americans are turned off by OWS. However, even that does not matter. What matters are two things: One the Media is the Message ( that is the slogans,the divisiveness that gets daily reporting --if I can use that word ) and the violence and threats there of. These are nothing but young thugs many of whom have Anti-Social tendencies.

Obama himself I believe as is his regime largely Anti-Semitic. Even those who claim they are Jewish. They are essentially a part of the International Socialist ( or Communist ) Movement which is well known for hatred of Israel--which means hatred of Jews. This is their tradition.

The Republican Candidates for President --all of them-- should now call out Obama's Class Warfare as a central Part of their campaign. And most important of all --it should be put to the American people: Communist Dictatorship or Freedom and Democracy ? Which do you chose ?

CrackerHound| 11.29.11 @ 10:03AM

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South"
~Abraham Lincoln

Which will we choose?

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:16PM

Exactly, the right is obsessed with dividing and conquering. But it has diminishing returns as the American people discover the plan. Whether it's gays, God, or guns they have tried to split this country in every election in recent history. Unfortunately for the right, guns are off the table, gays are supported by the majority of the country and God is NOT a conservative value and the country knows it. What else have they got left? Scream socialism as loud as you can ... weak, very weak.

idalily| 11.29.11 @ 8:41PM

Bull. Obama told his cult followers to bring a gun to the knife fight. He told Republicans to sit in the back of the bus. He told his cult to get in our faces. And you spew this crap that we are the ones who want to divide and conquer? You are full of s*&t. It is YOU and those like YOU who are responsible for the class warfare and hate that exists. YOU, Purple. You and all those like you. Deal with it. Own it.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:32PM

Guess his campaign is working ... good. Im glad he's learned from your guys how to fight dirty. Did you forget the "Obama is a Nazi" and the Clown face Obama and much much worse, while at the same time he was trying to reach the Republicants to work together. You and they smacked him down, so what you reap is what you sowed. it's your own d* fault. Paraphrasing Herman Cain "if you don't like Obama's tactics, don't blame him, blame yourself." It sure is easy to dish it out, but its a b* when it's payback time, ain't it?

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:31AM

Please explain where, when and how Obama EVER tried to "work together" with Republicans? You can't, because it didn't happen. Ever.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:41PM

Obama has a snowball's chance in Hell of re-election. You heard it here first, Punk.

God bless Citizens United and Free Speech!

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:42PM

All the guys who rode the bench in high school are now DNC trolls like PurplePunk.

You didn't get the memo?

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:38PM

Lincoln made possible the mess we have in DC. He waged an illegal war that made the FedGov a unitary state with lip service to the states. The Union did dissolve, and Lincoln did not put it back together, he simply conquered another country.

Also, it should be noted, the GOP was founded as a leftist party. That party has not changed, but the Dems sure have. They used to be the party of the old Republic, which Lincoln destroyed. Now teh Dems of out GOPed the GOP and do all they can to drive a wedge though the country.

I expect the country to break part this time, and there will be no Lincoln to reconquer anything.

The majority of the electorate has forgotten God (the God of the Bible, not the God of their own imagination, such as Purpleguy's), just want gays to get out of everyone's face with their perversion (if you really think the country "supports" gays, you haven't been watching. Quit inhaling meth and Purple might learn differently. They want guns left alone because the rational know that once guns disappear from the people's hands, eveil idiots like Purple, Obama, and the very evil people behind them will make this a Bolshevik hell with everything including a Stalin or Mao like "leader." Sadly, people like Purple are the first on their list to dispose of because they might wake up and smell the coffee, as a number of the Russian Rebels did, but then it will be too late.

It's people like Purpleguy that work to divide and destroy.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:11PM

You really hate America, don't you? Anyone could say all the same things, with a little twist on the names mentioned, about everyone on the right - which basically means you hate everyone - certainly anyone that doesn't agree with you.. I pity you with your poor understanding of America and it's pluralistic society.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:43PM

Punk!

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 2:07PM

So you all hate Obama, and he welcomes your hatred. the other 75% of Americans do not.

Anthony| 11.29.11 @ 2:43PM

Speaking of awards for fawning trolls, we have a winner!! Purpleguy gets a twofer, the Lewinsky/Gobie Award (in honor of the retiring Barney Frank ).
Yep, Purpleguy gets it from Obozo from both ends. And loves every minute of it!!

Ground Control| 11.29.11 @ 3:33PM

Purpleguy is like the Black Knight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." No matter how much he loses, he keeps coming back for more.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:11PM

Wow, I seem to have hit the mark. nice.

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:42PM

You, sir, are certifiably insane. You get ripped to shreds and you think you have accomplished something.

In a way, I guess you have. You've refreshed a few memories here on how idiotic a progressive can be.

Incidentally, that 75% is nothing more than a crack dream. Very few hate Obama, but they hate what he is doing. In your crack world, however, that is the same thing. I'm sure there is a nice padded room somewhere so they can keep you from harming yourself further.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:14PM

What you people fail to realize is that 1/2 the country doesn't think Obama goes far enough - but if you think they will vote for a far right wing ideologue, you are sadly mistaken. Bumbling foolishness hid Bush's ideology for the low information voter, but not your current crop of wannabees running for president. The recent slapdown of the GOP in early November voting is a harbinger of 2012 - but of course, Fixed News didn't cover THAT, so you know nuttin' about it.

Aces and Eights| 11.29.11 @ 8:00PM

One half?! I don't think so. You are delusional.

Ground Control| 11.29.11 @ 7:59PM

This remark proves my point. Amazing that you fell for it. :-)

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:33PM

So how do you explain the drubbing the GOP got in the November elections? Hmmmmm?

Ground Control| 11.30.11 @ 1:12AM

Non sequitur. You make no sense. And, I am NOT a Republican. Nor a Libertarian.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:48PM

Ground Control - You didn't know? PurplePunk reads minds! It's part of the Lib Tard Sack of Tricks -- ad hominem, false argument, trolling, mind reading....

Now, Punkie, I gotta go to Wells Fargo and finalize and Export Letter of Credit, because I have a job. But meanwhile, stop the Punk-Speak. If you want to make inane arguments, well, people can deal with assertions ("75% like Obama") and simply dismiss you as DNC troll-of-the-day, but the ad hominem attacks that earned you the title PUNK...? Those should stop, Punk.

martin j smith| 11.29.11 @ 7:53AM

Pravda= NYT( BTW )

Ironman| 11.29.11 @ 7:54AM

Mr Lantern's brilliant and cleverly erudite commentaries are always welcome.
Allow, nevertheless, a small dissent which may seem like hairsplitting, offered only to suggest an adjustment to a fine piece, in case it is revised for further use.
"Der Antisemitismus ist der Sozialismus der dummen Kerle" was a common aphorism among the revisionist German Social Democrats of the late 19th century, the tendencies led by August Bebel, Edouard Bernstein, and Karl Kautsky. It was understood more as anti-anti-Semitism than, as Mr. Lantern says, a mean-spirited way of narrowing down the Marxist demonology. These were the years when modern anti-Semitism was on the rise in Europe, and notably in central Europe. Bebel's background was, if I remember correctly, Prussian and Catholic, Kautsky was a Czech Protestant, and Bernstein was a Jewish Berliner, but I may be mistaken and, in any case, all three were (as they conceived it) Marxists. They were concerned to keep anti-Semitism out of the growing socialist and labor union movements, and they were quite right to be concerned, obviously: taken over by demagogic political manipulators, the marriage of anti-semitism and socialism disastrously marked 20th century politics. They did not view anti-Semitism as a mistaken deviation from the notion (which of course they held) that workers and capitalists were pitted against each other in a class war, but rather as a deviation, or distraction, from the enlightenment that, thanks to the Social Democrats and other socialist parties, the workers would eventually acquire. In this sense, it was more on the order of Marx's famous "religion is the opiate of the people."
The reference to the arch-villain in "1984" is witty but, again, slightly misses the mark because what Orwell had in mind was the form of the Big Lie used by totalitarians to crush their rivals within their own organizations. Whether it was Stalin blaming everything on Trotsky (original name Bronstein) or Hitler killing off Roehm and his men, the idea was to blame any failing on traitors within the "movement", maintaining a state of perpetual paranoia and terror. This is not quite the same political function as blaming Jews on Wall Street or something of that sort, which I think is what Mr. Lantern has in mind when he uses this trope.
This said, the piece is thoughtful and raises disturbing questions about our evolving, or regressing, political culture.

CrackerHound| 11.29.11 @ 10:18AM

So....basically, courting Marxism is ALWAYS like playing with fire.

Hell, even if communism "when properly tried" works to the benefit of all...it too ALWAYS devolves into a brutal tyranny due to the unalterable path of human nature.

Look at the EU.
I see a union of socialist states that is now beginning to morph into an undemocratic government that will be centrally controlled. It looks like Germany will finally take over the whole continent (while it is not their desire) without firing a shot. Actually, a shooting war is not out of the question. Fairly soon in the EU there will be no more private property and everyone will work for the state.
It always goes this way...be leery when governments do things to make things more fair.

"Fair" is always code word for governmental confiscation of wealth, property and freedom.

JimH| 11.29.11 @ 12:44PM

Anti-Semitism as the phrase is understood these days, specifically anti-Jew, arose in 19th century Germany as a replacement for a more accurate but less scientific sounding German expression Judenhass which meant Jew-hatred.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:53PM

How about blaming part of your own government, hmmm ... maybe "Tea Party Republicans defending Millionaires and Billionaires!"

So, I agree with your hair-splitting. Still I'll tip my hat to Green Lantern for picking up on the Anti-Semitic meme -- when fighting Alinsky fire, use Alinsky fire, right?

So ... yeah! We must STOP OBAMA FROM ALLOWING THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AND THE PERSECUTION OF WALL STREET JEWS.

Holocaust: Never again!!! DEFEAT OBAMA!!!

SC Mike| 11.29.11 @ 8:08AM

If folks were fighting over a fixed amount of annual income, there’d be greater merit in arguing over the income distribution. The NBA is a good example, where there’s a pie of more or less fixed size that the owners and players are fighting over a static amount from which the players want a larger slice.

But overall the pie and not finite and the numbers bandied about show that folks at the top are finding creative ways to create new streams of income, primarily through capital gains and other forms of wealth creation. That’s what the Microsoft’s, Apples, and Facebooks have done, created valuable enterprises that others want to invest in.

There’d also be greater merit in arguing about all this if year after year the same folks were always at the top of the heap. It may seem that way, but the 1% (or .001%) today does not look much like the top of the heap in 1979 or 1989. The Steves, Jobs and Wozniak, and Bill Gates or Paul Allen still had to work for a living in 1979; others have had a year near the top then collapsed in flames. I’d like to see the Social Security statement for Donald Trump just for a giggle, what a rollercoaster that must be.

And so it will be while the economy is relatively free.

George S| 11.29.11 @ 11:37AM

The NBA doesn't have a fixed, one pie, zero sum distribution of income. The players are free to solicit investors who will buy into construction of a stadium in as many cities as they can afford. They can go through the legal and regulatory process, fend off environmentalists and shady politicians, oversee construction, engage marketing and advertising, negotiate TV and radio broadcast rites, hire management, lawyers and accountants, arrange accounts with airlines and hotels, and the other headaches that capitalists engage on a daily basis. By the time it is all said and done, the players may be too old to play at a level that attracts paying customers. That's why they cannot earn those millions without the NBA.

Also, how much more money will we all have if Gates, Jobs, et al, weren't born? They're not stealing the pie... they've brought it into existence.

Rob Schapiro| 11.29.11 @ 8:08AM

Seeing we're about to repeat the mistakes of the 30's, I have a sinking feeling the type of system we are drifting into is not socialism but fascism.

Massive layers of central government control, unelected czars passing regulations, cronyism, frequent police brutality against unarmed citizens, a feared IRS enforcing a tax code most citizens don't understand and imposing out of proportion penalties, class warfare directed by the government against private sector success, violent mobs ready to move on command.
Am I wrong?

CrackerHound| 11.29.11 @ 10:46AM

No Rob...you are not wrong.
It seems to me that the writing is clearly on the wall. How can it be anything but what you suggest?

Although I would ask; is facism the correct form or is it more acurately communism of the Soviet and Cuban model?

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 11:11AM

Not even close to either one.

The Knife| 11.29.11 @ 11:41AM

The corporatist model is the right one. The American and European left learned that there were better shakedowns in this form. That would make them fascists. Like the fascists of yesteryear they dress themselves up in some fairly shallow dogooderism but the results speak for themselves. When they got their man in office they have taken to declaring what is and isn't American in an amusingly jingoistic fashion. They already have a significant antisemitic strain which usually receives little comment. If they develop some racial theory they will be full fledged Nazis. The denial from the DReds and Jack Londons is something their Great Grandaddy Mussolini didn't have to deal with. He was proud of what he was but these guys go to great efforts to avoid considering themselves.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 12:05PM

Which corporatist model?

CrackerHound| 11.29.11 @ 1:04PM

I have always thought that facism comes with a great deal of nationalism....not so under Barry's puppet regime

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 2:12PM

Facism, Naziism are all 'isms' of the right, not the left. I could see Newt Gingrich becoming the next Fascist Dictator. Bush could have been, but he was too dumb. Gingrich has no morals, so yes, he could do it.

The Knife| 11.29.11 @ 2:35PM

Don't look in the mirror, purp. You look stunning in your brown shirt.

Drunken Sailor| 11.29.11 @ 2:43PM

You do realize what Nazi stood for don't you?

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party)

AhiaGuy| 11.29.11 @ 3:37PM

Also, the Italian fascists who coined the term (Fascisti) were Socialists. Mussolini got his start in politics working for Italian Socialist newspapers, first in Switzerland and then Italy.

Watch now as Purpleguy blows a fuse trying to refute those truths...

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 3:49PM

Yes. Mussolini was a socialist. Then he was expelled from the Italian socialist party for agitating for Italian entry into WWI and he created a new political party that wasn't socialist. Fascists came to power in Italy because (in significant part) of their willingness to murder and terrorize socialists on the behalf on more conservative political interests. The right wing power bases in Italy that supported or acquiesced to the fascists (broadly speaking, the military, industrialists, large landowners and eventually the Catholic Church) did so because they saw the fascists as a tool to protect them from the socialists. They may not have liked the fascists, but they feared them a lot less than they feared socialists.

The Knife| 11.29.11 @ 5:07PM

You look beautiful in your brown shirt as well.

"I’m Standing Between You and the Pitchforks" - Obama

This is how the shakedown happens. Mussolini used it on business interests in Italy. Obama is still using it on Wall Street, banks and frankly all businesses. The other technique is to give government subsidies to rail companies, green energy companies, etc. and get political kickbacks. You need to reflect on your bad deeds, DRed. Look into the mirror and take off that hideous brown shirt.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 5:25PM

What Mussolini did was provide people who were willing to beat and murder the workers and peasants FOR the business or large landowning interests. Political kickbacks are bad, obviously, but they're not something that's exclusively fascist. You're throwing around that word way too loosely.

Seek| 11.29.11 @ 5:05PM

The fact that Nazis were nominally "socialists" doesn't mean they were on the Left. National Socialism was a distinct mutation of Rightism unlike anything seen before. It social character was very different from Marxism. And America had its own home-grown supporters of Germany during WWII such as the German-American Bund, the Silver Shirts, the Columbians and the Mothers' Movement. Not a Leftist in the bunch.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:29PM

You do know that Nazism is fascist and they hated the Socialist party and the Communists - or did Fixed News skip that part for you? They took the name, but the State ruled, not the people. Are you ignorant, stupid or just evil?

AhiaGuy| 11.29.11 @ 7:31PM

"You do know that Nazism is fascist and they hated the Socialist party and the Communists..."

Pur, DRed, Seek, et al, if you actually would read a little history, you would know that it is typical of parties on the Left to eliminate their rivals, as seen in the French & Bolshevik revolutions, for starters. The National Socialists in Germany & the Fascists in Italy did the same.

"...the State ruled, not the people." And exactly where, other than your utopian dreams, did Socialism ever make a distinction between the state and the people? It is one and the same, except the nomenklatura always take over.

Again, if you would actually study a little history, you would find that the National Socialists and the Fascisti exhibited all the hallmarks of Socialism: public works, control of private industry, nationalization of major industries, forced egalitarianism, free health care, demonization of individuality and capitalism, promotion of abortion and euthanasia yadayadayada...give me a tenet of Socialism and I can show you its implementation in Germany & Italy.

As the saying goes, "If it quacks like a duck..."

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 8:03PM

There are a host of European democracies that have had socialist governments where the state and the people were distinct. You're confusing socialism and communism. As for your list of the 'hallmarks of socialism' that you allegedly found in Italy and Germany, fascist governments were absolutely against egalitarianism. One of the central ideas of fascism was the superiority of a certain native people (the raza latina in Italy, the true German volk for the Nazis, etc) and the subjection of inferior ethnic groups. The fascists were also not anti-capitalism. They were against international capitalism (especially in Germany, because Hitler equated international capitalism with the Jews). Private industry was certainly not controlled to the degree that it was in the Soviet Union (where it didn't exist). Many capitalists made a lot of money in fascist states. And public works? How many governments in history have not undertaken public works? Abortion was illegal in Fascist Italy, where the Catholic Church maintained a great deal of power, and also in Nazi Germany. Fascists were very into the expansion of the chosen race. But yeah, they both had free health care.

Fredrick Ward| 11.30.11 @ 1:32PM

DR,

Purpleguy is only doing his due diligence as taught by the drive by media. Blame the right for all ills that the liberal socialists are actually perpetrating against this country. They will do that even more when this new attempt at socialism falls flat on its face and brings this country even lower.

JimBob7| 11.29.11 @ 4:50PM

Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Socialism are ALL from the left. This is merely another instance of the Big Lie pretending that they come from the conservative view but they have always been the perview of the left, in their attempt to seize control and impose a "benign" dictatorship. Calling fascism right wing is a lie from the 1930s when the "intelligentsia supported stalin's wars of conquest against all comers. Purpleguy needs to stop eating the purple acid.

Seek| 11.29.11 @ 5:06PM

And perhaps you need to stop reading bad books by Jonah Goldberg.

Nick| 11.29.11 @ 6:29PM

Seek,

Mr. Goldberg's excellent book, Liberal Fascism, is full of end-notes. Cite one error in the book.

Just because a book disagrees with your faulty worldview, doesn't make it bad. It makes your reasoning bad.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 6:47PM

http://mises.org/misesreview_d.....ontrol=326

There's a non-liberal pointing a host of simple factual errors in that book.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 6:48PM

Whoops. Meant to say 'pointing out'.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:15PM

Hahaha ... smackdown.... luv it.

Nick| 11.29.11 @ 8:03PM

DRed.,

I counted seven, possibly eight, "errors" from Mr. Gordon. These "errors" are really no more than mere quibbles and differences in interpretation.

I don't have the time at the moment to check the accuracy of Mr. Gordon's claims, but, do you really consider 8 quibbles a "host of simple factual errors"?

Not to mention, none of Mr. Gordon's objections repudiate the premise of Mr. Goldberg's book, at all. Which Mr. Gordon readily admits.
Nice try, though.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 8:16PM

I gave you the most gentle criticsim I could find so you couldn't fall back on your standby position of alleging liberal bias. The general idea is that someone who is allegedly teaching you about history while making simple errors is not a particularly trustworthy source. If you look at the errors of interpretation Jonah's making, it's clear he hasn't actually read the source materials he's discussing. That's to be expected, as I'm sure he didn't have a whole lot of time to write the book and he's not exactly a professional historian. But it does raise some doubts about his overall understanding of the matter he's discussing. And you claimed that not one fact in Jonah's book could be disproved. You were wrong. Just take it like a man.

Nick| 11.29.11 @ 11:22PM

DRed,

Mr. Goldberg never claimed to be a "professional historian," so, this is a straw man. The point of his book was two-fold. To show that fascism had it origins in the political left. And, to show that there were plenty of liberals of that time who didn't have a big problem with fascism.

Also, I NEVER claimed that there weren't any errors in Mr. Goldberg's book, another straw man. That would be silly, as all books contain some type of error, or typo. I've been asking liberals this question for almost 3 years, and, you were the first to somewhat answer.

I would ask the question to show that those who trash Liberal Fascism haven't actually read it. They have just read others who trash it. Since you only provide a link, and not your own arguments or list of errors, I will assume that you have never read it, either.

Finally, the examples provided by the author of your link, are nit picking, and, therefore, do not rebut the premise of the book, at all. As Mr. Gordon admits.

So, in the final analysis, I don't have to take anything, like a man, or otherwise. Although, I'm sure Brawny Fwank would like me to!
Again, nice try.

DRed| 11.30.11 @ 12:33AM

Damnit, I wrote a long (and rather witty) response, but this site seems to be having problems. Anyhow, the short of it is, I won't have it said that DRed shrinks from a challenge, so I'll suffer through this piece of nonsense and specifically refute some of it for you. We'll see how you like them apples.

Nick| 11.30.11 @ 4:59PM

DRed,

I can hardly wait!

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:35PM

You said, "cite one error" and so he has 8 times over and now you backtrack... he caught you with your pants down and you don't like it ... tough. you set it up, now deal with the fallout like a man.

Nick| 11.29.11 @ 11:27PM

Purplejack-ass,

Yes, that is what I wrote. And DRed attempted to provide an error, but, failed. I have not backtracked, at all. Did you even read DRed's link? Apparently not.
It's way over your head, anyway. Leave the grown-ups alone to discuss these complex topics, okay?

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:36PM

Missed that in history class, did you? Much as you try, you cannot rewrite historical fact. Communism is of the left and Fascism is of the right. You can change your interpretation, but not the facts. Republicanism is of the left, Conservatism is of the right. The Founders were of the right, the loyalists (to the British Crown) were of the right.
So do you also think militarism is of the left too? pfft. You do realize Japan was fascist too before WWII? Do you live in alternate reality? Oh, that's right, you do - Fixed News and Rush Loudmouth's echo chamber. Did you also know that Fixed News viewers are dumber than people who don't watch it? It's a factoid I'll bet you didn't hear on O'Really, did ya?

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.29.11 @ 7:32PM

Fascism is socialism of the wealthy elite and communism is socialism of the proletariat, whose leaders have proven time and time again that they'll turn on those that helped them to power. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, etc... murdered their associates if they represented any plausible or implied threat. They murdered tens of millions of innocents as well.

Same ideology, different leadership structure.

Riff Raff| 11.29.11 @ 8:02PM

Too bad the last history class you took was in the second grade. Most of what you "know" is wrong.

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:48PM

What a maroon! Naziism, Fascism, and Communism are forms of the same thing you dolt. A Nazi is to the right of Stalin only in comparison. Rightists are true anarchists. The three philosophies above used anarchy to gain power because anarchists are too naive to see what they are doing to themselves and their country. all three are kissing cousins.

Purple, you are simply a simple minded man. someone to be pitied because of your abysmal ignorance.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:21PM

"Rightists are true anarchists. " Oh, you mean like Ron Paul ? He who wants to legalize marijuana and heroin? Libertarians are sometimes so far right they are left... LOL. Stalin wasn't actually a communist, I'll give you that, he was a fascist dictator - Marxist communism the Soviet Union never was. Nevertheless, the Nazis were right-wing fascist dictators, supported by and supporting the Corporatocracy, whether IG Farben or the Krupps werks and state control.
Tell me, taking the right of collective bargaining away from workers helps who? Guess which side you are on? Hint - not the working people.

jokin| 11.30.11 @ 11:05AM

No, PurpleBarney, I'll take FDR's side in the collective bargaining issue with respect to public sector employment. We live with impending economic doom due in large part to the liberal folly of collective bargaining wish-list-granting to the public sector unions. The fiduciary and legislative malfeasance of the last 50 years should consign every politician who ever signed these giveaways and outright thefts of the public treasury to permeanent central square display in The Stocks.

So, yeah, any thinking person is on the side of the American taxpayer, we would be Somalia without them.

Despite your obfuscations, it really is simple when boiled down to basics-
the real debate that your side has taken away-

Right- Limited Government, Laissez Faire, Individualistic, Republicanism, Gun ownership, Trust in the Invisible Hand in the marketplace.

Left- Statism- (ie, communism, fascism, socialism, pure theocracy, authoritarianism, democracy and tribalism), Gun control, Elitist rule- aristocracy, classist, surreptitious imposition of identity politics.

skip| 11.30.11 @ 12:58PM

"Fascism, Naziism are all 'isms' of the right, not
the left."
(Purpleguy | 11.29.11 @ 2:12PM)

An individual has unalienable rights.

An individual's unalienable rights cannot violate the unalienable rights of any other individual or group of individuals, the collective's unalienable rights.

The line between the individual and his unalienable rights and the collective and their unalienable rights is extremely thin.

The conservative errs on the side of this extremely thin line toward the 'right', the individual's unalienable rights.

The liberal errs on the side of this extremely thin line toward the 'left', the collective's unalienable rights.

Social rights relate to the interaction of the individual and the collective.

Political rights relate to government and the conduct of government.

Economic rights relate to the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Liberty is freedom to enjoy social, political, and economic rights without arbitrary control.

Tyranny is arbitrary control oppressing the freedom to enjoy social, political, and economic rights.

Tyranny, oppressing liberty, through the conservative 'right' side of the extremely thin line, erring toward the individual's unalienable rights, is the absence of government arbitrary control.

Tyranny, oppressing liberty, through the liberal 'left' side of the extremely thin line, erring toward the collective's unalienable rights, is excessive government arbitrary control.

Anarchy is the absence of government arbitrary control of social, political, and economic rights.

Totalitarianism is excessive government arbitrary control of social, political, and economic rights.

Socialism is a totalitarian form of government with excessive arbitrary control of social, political, and economic rights.

Communism is a totalitarian form of government with excessive arbitrary control of social, political, and economic rights.

Fascism is a totalitarian form of government with excessive arbitrary control of social, political, and economic rights.

Tyranny, oppressing liberty, in the form of anarchy occurs when individual rights are absolute, when the extremely thin line is as far 'right' as possible.

Tyranny, oppressing liberty, in the form of socialism, communism, and fascism occurs when collective rights are absolute, when the extremely thin line is as far 'left' as possible.

Purpleguy specifically, and liberals generally, consistently reveal they lack the reason and experience to determine what social, political, and economic rights are.

Purpleguy specifically, and liberals generally, consistently reveal they lack the intelligence and honesty to even differentiate between liberty and tyranny.

Purpleguy specifically, and liberals generally, consisently reveal they base their words and actions on emotional prattle and completely ignore reality itself.

Purpleguy specifically, and liberals generally, consistently reveal they lack integrity.

Purpleguy specifically, and liberals generally, consistently reveal that they are idiots.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:56PM

Hey PURPLEPUNK:

NAZI = National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party

FASCISM IS A BRAND OF SOCIALISM involving national control of productive assets. Like GM.

Am I saying the Demonrats under Obama are Fascists? On balance, no. Just saying that brush won't tar those calling for LESS government power. Only an idiot, useful or otherwise, would assert that.

Go back to school, Punk.

Mimi| 11.29.11 @ 8:18AM

The LIES of the Left are coming at us at a frightful pace ! Lets be quick with a response, Get over to the Board of Elections....find out the rules for the coming primary in your area. We have a lot of newly informed Patriots and most would be grateful ( intheir busy hectic lives) To be handed a registration form...Alot of people have moved and may need to register, at their NEW polling place!
In our country, we are not EUROPE...we fought a war in 1776,,,rejecting their ways....Wehave the GLORIOUS GIFT OF THE CONSTITUTION....We will solve our problems as always at the VOTING booth. Timothy L. Pennell's list was scary....this present SCOURGE we are facing...will end with the VOTE.....The many numbers who do not generally vote...MUST at this grave hour, stand up!!!

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 2:13PM

For whom? Romney? Gingrich? Please ....

Mimi| 11.29.11 @ 6:11PM

We need the most republican votes we can get to give us a wide collective choice in the primary.
This also will encourage the many non-voters.
Our win in the Nov.2012 election should be massive! A clear denuciation of the LEFT !

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:36PM

Unfortunately, you are so far right, everyone seems to the left ... so dream on.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:59PM

Mimi - If you're in SoCal I'd like to invite you to the massive FREE BOOZE PARTIES we're sponsoring at most college campuses and in the 'hoods.

Free booze. All night. Monday, November 5, 2012.

Punk ... you can come too. You especially.

mitch poremba| 11.29.11 @ 8:20AM

Was hoping to email Green Lantern directly, this was a good article, right on the money, yet more to cement his facts and make them stronger is people should study "The Rise of the Third Riech". I'm not calling anyone Nazi or names, but the German people were in a depression, they just wanted to live, take care of their families and have food, so someone came along and promise them everything they wanted to hear, sound familiar? Their freedoms were slowly being taken away, until it was too late for them to see how they were mislead, let's see how that compares to us today, we have people that say the TSA is fine as long as it keeps us safe in the sky's, we have people who think that wealth should be redistributed, people who want homes but couldn't aford them and of course, our politcians who believe in big government and being big brother, both parties. People just want to live their lives, support their families and work, but the minority changed the diection of Germany in the 1930's and the minority has changed this country for the worse, yet people keep these liberal republicans being voted in, along with a Progressive like Obama (I voted for Bush and at the end, I wanted him impreached for protecting his friend that made a big mistake in sending the tow border agents to prison). There is so many examples of what is happening to our country just like what happen to Germany, I sure hope the people wake up and take a interest before it's too late, and change our direction.

CrackerHound| 11.29.11 @ 10:55AM

National Defense Authorization Act ,Section 1031 from the bill up for a vote this Wednesday:

“Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force…includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…Detention under the law of war without trial”.

erp| 11.29.11 @ 8:56AM

Sorry -- like a lot of other things that are CW, this one isn't true.

In my long life the only anti-Semites I've ever encountered are from the left -- the further to the left, the worst their hatred for the fat cat money boys, their code for Jews.

Our side has to stop buying into the media's semantic manipulations.

Louis Jenkins| 11.29.11 @ 9:23AM

I hear the sounds of jack booted thugs marching down the street. Heil Obama. Our nation has become imbalanced. Obama is looking for a win next year and he will stop at nothing to achieve this. And if he does, the rest will be history.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 9:28AM

I was taught that the Bonus Marchers were World War I veterans who had been promised a bonus from the government, payable in 1945, who marched for the purpose of asking Congress to make the payout early.

I don't remember being taught that Congress failed to keep the promise. The issue was whether or not they would pay the bonus a few years earlier.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 9:31AM

The Occupier are nothing like the Brown Shirts. The Brown Shirts were composed of lots of veterans and their compatriots, who believed in discipline and who organized in paramilitary units, wearing uniforms and the like.

The Occupiers are not disciplined enough (and never will be) to organize themselves into Brown Shirt-like battalions and engage in street fighting with (I guess) the right. They have neither the willingness to discipline themselves or the willingness to get their noses bloodied (or risk same) for their cause(s).

Dr. X| 11.29.11 @ 2:15PM

I agree. This article very mistakenly conflates fascist and Marxist movements of the 1930s, when in reality they were very different -- antipodes, in fact.

If you carefully study the 1920s and 1930s, the Occupiers are nothing like the Brownshirts; rather, they are more like Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacists, the Bavarian Soviet of 1919, the Spanish Republicans, or Bela Kun's Hungarian Communists.

The Brownshirts, as Bill correctly points out, in many cases were comprised of veterans and working-class men who were willing to take on the Communists when the Weimar Government and the police could not or would not. The anti-Semitism of the National Socialist movement was largely the result of Hitler's personal animosities, and was not characteristic of Spanish or Italian Fascism or Hungarian Fascism. Indeed, Hitler's anti-Communist and anti-Soviet ally, Admiral Horthy of Hungary, refused to deport the Jews and Hitler deposed him as a result.

Above all else, the fascists of the 1930s were anti-Communist, and they formed paramilitary organizations to take on Commies in the streets when their governments were impotent in the face of the looming Soviet threat. OWS is fundamentally a communist movement. They would have been on the side of the Spanish Republicans or the Spartacists.

(Maybe what we NEED today is a brownshirt movement to tear down those tents...)

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 2:57PM

That's quite the fascist apologetic, Dr. It wasn't just communists and socialists that the fascists hated. They also harbored a violent hatred of liberalism (in the classical, not contemporary American sense). The fascists saw liberal democracy as weak and corrupting and wanted to destroy it.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 5:22PM

The Nazi philosophy deprecated Western democracy as an unstable creation of those who feared and hated tribalism and its consequences (war, the warrior culture, racial purity, etc.). Nazi philosophy saw tribalism, which they called "culture," their idea of the proper existential situation of peoples, as the best and most natural expression of human social imperatives. In most of the West, tribalism had long since been rejected in favor of societies where multiple cultures often lived together, bound by allegiance to a monarch, a parliamentarian, or a constitutional form of government, what the Nazis called "civilization."

The Nazis had an interestingly schizophrenic attitude toward tribalism, or "culture." They recognized the use of the word "culture" as a synonym for refinement, artistic orientation, politesse, etc., and their tribalism led them, I think Goebbels (maybe it was Goering), to say, "when I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my revolver."

But it was definitely Goebbels who defined the conflict between Nazis and fascists and the democracies as a conflict between culture and civilization. This is a fight that was ended a half-century ago, but has revived itself in what is going to become a religious war.

Dr. X| 11.29.11 @ 5:44PM

Yes. That's correct. Fascisms developed in countries where democracy was an utter failure. You must remember that Woodrow Wilson refused to negotiate with the Kaiser and forced his abdication, insisting on a democratic Germany. It didn't work. A democratic Spain and a democratic Italy turned into absolute chaos.

Fascists correctly understood that their democratic governments were ripe for subversion by the Soviet Comintern. Fascists were not correct about everything, but they were right about some things. It's also important to remember that Nazi Germany was the exception, not the rule. Mussolini lasted 22 years and Franco lasted 39 years. Mussolini was in many ways a theatrical buffoon, but Franco actually did a lot of good for Spain, and kept it from becoming the peninsular equivalent of Cuba. It later became an important U.S. ally in the postwar period.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 5:57PM

World War II, started by the fascists, killed something like 60 million people. But what-Mussolini made the train run on time and Franco only killed a few hundred thousand people and oppressed the Spanish for a few decades? Take your revisionist bullshit over to stormfront.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 6:37PM

People who advocate for "diversity," meaning societies in which people do not meld together into one group that accepts commonly-held standards, it seems, are more like the "culture" advocates than the "civilization" advocates. That thought just popped into my head, and I haven't thought it through yet, but it's interesting. It suggests why people who call themselves leftists seem so fascistic.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 6:38PM

Diversity is indeed kind of tribalistic, don't you think?

Maybe not.

Old Soldier| 11.29.11 @ 3:52PM

Yes - fascists of the 1930s were anti-Communist. It was a family fight. The were convinced that they had socialism correct and the communists had it wrong. It was different tyrants and statists fighting amongst themselves.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 4:08PM

They were more than anti-communist. They were anti-socialist as well. Hitler, in particular, loathed socialists (Italian fascism is more complicated). He thought they stabbed Germany in the back in WWI. Look at who invited the fascists into power. You think Franz von Pappen and Paul von Hindenberg were some sort of crypto-socialists? King Victor Emmanuel III was a socialist? Give me a break.

JimBob7| 11.29.11 @ 4:53PM

National Socialist Workers Party. Nazis are socialists. Learn some history, and quit spreading lies.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 5:06PM

I guess North Korea is Democratic? I've read a decent number of books about fascists-I have yet to come across one that explained how they were really socialists who harbored a murderous hatred for socialists.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 5:26PM

Was the League of the Archangel Michael a bunch of socialists too?

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:07PM

DRed: Sorry, but the whole point of the Soviet/Nazi fight was two totalitarian states duking it out for domination. Both of them used the State to control means of production in enormous ways. For example, Hitler's fiance prevailed upon him not to ban productions of tools needed to give women permanent waves.

Seek| 11.29.11 @ 5:08PM

Words alone don't describe a movement or party. Any number of contemporary European political parties, for example, have the word "Christian" in them. Does that make them Christian in any meaningful sense?

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 5:28PM

The Nazis were only socialists in the sense that they subordinated their economic system to the government. Otherwise, they weren't socialists and did not have a socialist system at all. I have no idea why they called themselves National Socialists, but it had nothing to do with any of the commonly-understood indicia of socialism. Maybe what motivated them to use that term is the same thing that motivates European socialistic political parties to call themselves "Social Democrats" or "Christian Democrats."

Dr. x| 11.29.11 @ 5:58PM

Well, you're getting hung up in the "socialist" nomenclature. It's quite simple, really. Fascists WERE socialists - "Nazi" is an acronym for National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalisozialtische Deutsche Arbieter Partei). They never called themselves "Nazis," by the way -- always "National Socialists."

But they were opposed to INTERNATIONAL socialism -- aka Soviet Communism and global socialism as theorized by Karl Marx. There's a big difference between Soviet socialism and National Socialism -- so big that the entire purpose of WWII in Europe was to decide the question. What we fail to understand from an Anglo-American perspective is that the entire Western Front was a sideshow -- Hitler wanted to conquer the USSR, period. You really can't understand Nazism without grasping this fundamental fact. France, Britain, and all that were merely a strategic inconvenience for him.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 6:24PM

Perhaps one factor (other than expedience) that made a non-aggression pact between the USSR and the Third Reich desirable was Stalin's decision to abandon the world Communism revolutionary struggle and maintain "communism in one country."

Of course, it wasn't precisely one country, when you take into accout Byelorussia, Ukraine, and the Muslim -stans in the South.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:43PM

it's a name, dweeb. It was nasty trick played on the people. the Nazis were as fascist as possible, as far right as possible. the Left may own the communists, but the right owns the Nazis.

Dr. X| 11.29.11 @ 6:57PM

Your ignorance of the subject upon which you are commenting is astounding. There was no "nasty trick." The Nazis were, in fact, socialist. The Nazis were not "far right." Fascism was a Third Way, neither Left nor Right, opposed to both Communism and democracy equally.

If you want to resort to ad hominem attacks like "dweeb," you're simply revealing what a pathetic, ignorant twit you really are.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:24PM

Why, then I fit right into this motley crew of n'er-do-wells. So, you are saying that Fascism was down the middle of the road and Democracy is on the right? Hahahaha, stop it, my side hurts ... LMAO.... You sir should read more broadly, not confined to the rhetoric of the right that campaign ceaselessly with propaganda, aka, the Nazis, to convince the unintelligent that they are right.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 7:01PM

The fascists have far more in common with the far Left than they do with the far Right. To use the term "fascist" as the equivalent of "right" is disingenuous and does not advance the debate.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 7:10PM

Nobody was "tricked" by the term "socialist" in the National Socialist German Workers' Party; everyone knew that the Nazis would both fight the revolutionary Communists and provide leadership with a backbone as an alternative to the spineless and ineffectual Weimar Republic. What they didn't know was that the Nazis would reduce Germany to the status of a ravening beast and cause its near-utter destruction. It wasn't idly considered, the Morgenthau Plan, to turn Germany into a non-industrialized, pastoral nation, where the Germans were cowherds and milkmaids, living on farms.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:25PM

Ruh-roh, a supporter of Hitler? Seriously?

Ground Control| 11.29.11 @ 8:20PM

"Fascism" is a term coined by Benito Mussolini and specifically refers to his attempt to re-establish the imperial power of ancient Rome. The word "fascism" is derived (quite deliberately) from the ancient Latin word "fasces" (pronounced "fass-keys"). The fasces was a ceremonial weapon, a double edged axe with a bundle of wooden rods lashed to the axe-handle. It represented the "Imperium", the power of the State. The rods represented the power to torture and the axe the power to execute. The fasces was carried (it was ceremonial, so it was never actually used) by the "Lictors" the formal escorts of the high officers of Rome. Consuls were escorted in public by twelve Lictors. Anyone who carried the Imperium was escorted by Lictors, and legally could torture and execute someone on demand, if he were legally justified.

Mr. Purpleguy, such power is anathema to modern American conservative values. We believe in LIMITED government powers (not anarchy) and the freedom provided by a Republic. A Republic provides just enough government to allow people to conduct their private affairs with a legal framework under which disputes can be settled. There is no way in Hell that you can tell me that Democrats in general, and Obama specifically, believe in such a system. Every act of Congress by Democrats, every executive order by Obama, are geared toward increasing the power and scope of government and are part and parcel to dictatorial power.

There is so much that you think you know, but which is demonstrably false. Clearly, your "education" in history is substandard, and grounded in propaganda, not fact.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 8:39PM

Well yes. YOU believe in limited government. Bully for you. You're not a fascist. Neither are the overwhelming majority of Americans. But (allegedly) small government conservatives aren't even the only types of conservatives in America. Saying that someone is right wing does not mean only that they are a small government conservative in the contemporary American sense.

I'm actually surprised that none of you have pointed out that there are fasces, right now, on the wall of the oval office.

Dr. X| 11.29.11 @ 9:36PM

E pluribus unum -- out of many, one.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:49PM

Do you really believe that Ronald Reagan believed in limited government? Or Richard Nixon? Or especially Dubya?
And it is funny that I see the same thing about you people, believing the propaganda you have been fed. I know this because I do read conservative literature and listen to conservative news prgms and you use some of the same phrases as your masters do.
So, tell me, in your limited government world view, where is the Interstate Highway System? Where is the Transcontinental Railroad? Where is the Nationwide Electric Grid? Where is the Hurricane Center? Why is the National Guard in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why did the Republican TARP program bail out the largest banks? Where are narcotic laws and food and drug safety laws? How about clean air and clean water?
Tell me, how do these all fit in your limited government milieu? You say "just enough government". Who gets to decide what's enough?
Why did the government provide more to our society since it's founding? Any ideas?

Ground Control| 11.30.11 @ 1:15AM

"Who gets to decide what's enough?"

The People do, through their elected representatives in the several States. That decision is manifested as the US Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. And right now, about two-thirds of what the US Government does (including your precious socialist programs) are flatly unconstitutional.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 2:05PM

PurplePunk said - "You sir should read more broadly, not confined to the rhetoric of the right that campaign ceaselessly with propaganda, aka, the Nazis, to convince the unintelligent that they are right."

ALINSKY ALERT: Accuse others of your own tactics.

Punk ... we've had enough of you trying to rewrite history and redefine terms: YOU ARE A NAZI, A SOCIALIST, NAZIS WERE SOCIALISTS ADVOCATING STATE CONTROL OF CAPITAL.

LIKE YOU DO NOW.

The other commentors see this. You lose, Punk ... we're on to you.

Appleby| 11.29.11 @ 9:42AM

First of all, it isnt * raising their sites*; its *raising their SIGHTS.* As in properly aiming a gun at a target. Spell-check tells you that your incorrect word is spelled correctly; it does not tell you that your word is incorrect.

Second, Google will be going nutz trying to figure out why everyone under 40 has googled Emanuel Goldstein. Good for them.

Finally, these are the End Times and what was written in the Book of Daniel is now evident to anyone who can read; and if you cannot read, Bible Gateway has an audio Bible and you can listen. But you ought to do one or the other because its all happening right in front of your eyes.

Jack London| 11.29.11 @ 9:45AM

'The Occupy Wall Street crowd, as anyone who has studied 1930s history can see, is only one or two steps away from becoming the Brown Shirts of our era.'

Don't worry Mr Lantern - those nice men in white coats are here to help you.

Riff Raff| 11.29.11 @ 10:55AM

"Don't worry Mr Lantern - those nice men in white coats are here to help you."

The voice of experience.

George S| 11.29.11 @ 11:51AM

Those men in white coats are health services union members who are assured of lifetime employment and free medical care as well as a guaranteed pension that cannot be matched in the private sector. Which means more of our pie is taken away so their pie will always be there.

Yet no one in OWS seems to concern themselves with government enforced unequal income distribution -- only the voluntary income transfer towards goods and services we want or need are vilified. Why is that?

Resistanceisfutile| 11.29.11 @ 10:37AM

This is not Brownshirts, or Bonus Marchers. These groups had some discipline and some sort of cohesion. OWS could never, never, make a dent in the greater polity of this country. The stability of this country is anchored by the "bitter clingers" with their guns and God. They are not directly active, but, rather, reactive; that is, if the Government, or its surrogates (e.g. OWS) tries to impinge more directly on the middle Americans, then they will defend themselves. But there is no revolutionary aspect to the bitter clingers. This is why it is so important to the left to get the Supreme Court to get rid of Second Amendment protections for the people of this country. As long as this pesky right exists, then, in my estimation, the people of this country cannot be subjugated by force; better for the left to use the boiling frog model!

martin j smith| 11.29.11 @ 10:44AM

Which candidate if any can best put up the best opposition to the Socialists ? That is the ultimate question for the 2012 election for President.

RCV| 11.29.11 @ 10:59AM

Norman Thomas is running again?

Jeremiah| 11.29.11 @ 11:03AM

I am that one sinister individual. My name is Montgomery Burns. And if those grubby fools come anywhere near me, you may trust that I will release the hounds.

howard lohmuller| 11.29.11 @ 11:17AM

Anyone with an IQ of 100 knows that Socialism has failed where ever it has been tried. There has been ample discussion of the failure of the Soviet Union and its successful turn to Capitalism in the 1990's. Ditto Communist China and Socialist India and Cuba. Presently Socialist Europe is failing. How could anyone miss these signs?

The answer is that there are many whom are in the habit of or want to be on the dole. Failure is for the future. They feel their lives could be better now and they will worry later about their future. Take the money and run, rather than work wills wealth. Liberal politicians and unionists are holding out promises of free financial security the way a trainer of dogs holds out meaty morsels to get them to do their tricks.
The occupiers are simply the useful idiots whom deliver the message.

PolishKnight| 11.29.11 @ 12:02PM

This is the religion of the left:

They believe that buying into leftist ideology makes them "smart" and superior to losers who are on the wrong side of history as they see it. Considering that Europe is largely socialist along with their leftist agenda portraying the USA as bad, they have a point.

So in their view, the unbelievers, the heretics, will be the ones tossed aside after they are done with them. Like the white working class males that the NYT reports that Obama is toying about openly dumping. Leftists always believe that it's SOMEONE else whose the useful dupe and that their savior would NEVER betray them because they've been told they're special.

And Howard's term is right on spot: Useful idiots. What white male would buy into this nonsense? Or for that matter, anyone really? Nearly all the left's special interest groups are in it for the handouts and the dogma useful to hide their true agenda. I laughed when a leftist said I was selfish for not joining him. Yet, he had no problems indulging "selfish" unwed mothers, welfare recipients, government unions, etc...

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 6:47PM

It's not that socialism has failed wherever it's been tried; that's not entirely true. Some modified political systems that incorporate forms of socialism seem to have survived, e.g., Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, etc.

The main thing current events seems to highlight is that economic systems that fall under the general rubric of "command systems" seem to go broke, as do modified free-market economies that have a significant welfare safety net incorporated into those systems. "Pure" free-market systems seem to survive hard economic hard times better.

Also, current events show us something that should be compelling to us: when a government passes laws that entitle people to receipt of government money in any significant amounts, they will NOT give up those entitlements. Reason does not work; people are responding viscerally to the loss of material aid when government talks about ending things like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Ground Control| 11.29.11 @ 8:29PM

The obvous explanation is that those systems that employ limited "socialism" in fact are supported by a robust capitalist economy. Even Sweden has a healthy capitalist economy and it is from this surplus that the government draws from, to support its limited socialist programs. Absent this capitalism, its socialist programs would be deprived of cash, and its programs would collapse. This is what is happening in Greece, Italy, and elsewhere. The capitalist economies that supported the social programs are collapsing from the burden of overreaching socialist governments, with their ever increasing demands on the private wealth of hard working, prosperous people. When the freebies dry up, the bums take to the streets, just as they have for thousands of years, and just as they are in the OWS "movement."

RICHARD| 11.29.11 @ 12:13PM

The "Occupiers" will never become the "Brown Shirts" of today because the "occupiers" are effete, skinny, puny academics with big heads and scrawny bodies. Brown Shirts need to have a few muscles other than in the head.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 1:11PM

the "occupiers" also are just regular people, not far right-wing fascists that want to dictate to everyone.

Indiana Alex| 11.29.11 @ 1:39PM

Worse, far left wing fascists that demand nothing more than the property of others.

Old Soldier| 11.29.11 @ 3:56PM

The Occupiers are worthless socialists - like the Brown Shirts and their National Socialist successors.

The difference - the Brown Shirts had competence and guts.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:27PM

Oh, you mean like the Tea Partiers that beat up on a man in a wheel chair types? Like them? You see, everyone has extremes .. pointing them out doesn't change their message or their power - I'd a thought you would have learned that from the Tea Bagger movement.

Stammon| 11.29.11 @ 9:04PM

Good Lord you are ignorant. It was the SEIU crashing a Tea Party rally that beat up that man in the wheel chair.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 2:08PM

PurplePunk has debased to outright lying now....

Alinsky is Dead. As is Obama (figuratively) next November.

(Walking Dead now. Or Brain Dead. You decide.)

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 6:52PM

It's not that the big heads have any brains in them. They're just swelled up more than usual.

Franco| 11.29.11 @ 12:30PM

As a rich, fat, hoggish, hook-nosed, money-grubbing Jew Zionist exploiter of decent union folks, I can only say that, after a long hard day of drinking the blood of innocent Gentile babies and dancing a satanic hornpipe to the tune of golden coins (stolen from the closed eyelids of decent honest dead union folks) clinking in my shorts, I must say, it's good to be the king!

Drunken Sailor| 11.29.11 @ 2:44PM

And here I thought I was the only one that enjoyed those things.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 12:58PM

"the main propaganda line for socialism -- there is a small, infinitely powerful, infinitely wealthy cabal at the center of society that controls the entire economy " - that sounds like the 1% vs. the 99% argument we are having today, does it not? I guess Socialism is alive and well on the wealthy 1% right.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 1:04PM

"So why anyone would want to revive the politics of a "low, dishonest decade," as W.H. Auden described it, that led directly to the outbreak of World War II? ... here we are back in 1935." - If true, maybe it's because it followed the profligate '20's where anything goes, under Coolidge and Hoover, R's I might remind you... similar to Bush's 2 terms ... It does seem history is repeating itself and the right will lose as they did before. The 1% went too far in amassing wealth at the expense of the "masses" in the 20's and have done so again. So they will reap the same that they sowed in the 1920's. This country is for all of us after all, not the elected, connected or wealthy. Time we take it back from the 1%.

Jack London| 11.29.11 @ 1:12PM

Hey Purp - you've forgotten what AmSpec and the GOP will be asking at the election to make us great again:

'Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country's billionaires'

CrackerHound| 11.29.11 @ 1:16PM

The bottom rung of the 1% is $375,000.....many small business owners. Just admit it, you guys hate capitalism and are, at your core, staunch communists.

DTOM| 11.29.11 @ 5:59PM

Or they are just ignorant, stupid, or just evil..."

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:38PM

Actually, no, since I am in the 2%, not quite 1%, I am more than happy to share with you unfortunates that can't get there. I am not selfish, self-centered or self-hating like so many wannabees seem to be. So, no, not communist, not even that much left wing - but to you people I sure do seem left. You have forgotten where your true place in life is, and since you have, this country has been in decline. I might add that started around the time Mr. Reagan showed up and wouldn't enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust act. And so corporations continued to grow and pushed smaller business out of business, until now we have multi-national corps that couldn't give a rat's ass about your job or living. They can just go make money overseas and continue to thrive while America dies on the vine of the ineptitude of the Republican leaders. They not only have handed the country over to corporatism, they provide the best government money can buy and have run up 10.7 Trillion in debt to "starve the beast" so we can "drown the government in a bathtub". "Deficits don't matter" - do you really believe that, Ronnie Reagan? The country we have left is what Reagan and bunch have not yet picked clean. But they are still trying .... and you are all so happy to help them do it because they have convinced you the Left is the problem, not themselves (the 1% and their political hacks - recall the other Koch brother by another mother? )

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:11PM

I thought it was $500,000, Cracker. You mean, I MIGHT actually be closing on the 1%. Cool!

Ground Control| 11.29.11 @ 8:30PM

London, this is horse manure and you know it.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 2:14PM

China: "Well take your billionaire's money. Thanks!"

Notice how actual billionaires like Buffett don't give their money to the government, they give it to something useful, like Gates' charity.

Buffett's GIFTING of $20 BILLION to Gates Foundation will "COST" (in the vernacular of PurplePunk) the US Treasury $11 BILLION IN FOREGONE DEATH TAX.

That Buffett sure loves Obama's Big Government though ... right! Uhhh ... right...?

PurplePunk -- turning purple upon reading this?

Well, Punk I make fat stacks helping people offshore and remove their wealth and income from the grasp of people like you (and long-term linkage to the US Dollar).

Purple now, Punk? It's a free country, right?

CrackerHound| 11.29.11 @ 1:34PM

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. “
“When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
~Adrian Pierce Rogers

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:43PM

Name one wealthy individual does not take from someone else to make his own? So what? That is how the world works. The government just does it the other way around and the wealthy don't like it - but why don't you? You aren't the 1%, not even close I'm sure. You have been hoodwinked and I wouldn't want to be the hoodwinkers (Karl Rove) when y'all figure it out.
You suffer from the illusion that everyone that doesn't hate the government is lazy, stupid, non-working idiots. You are so wrong - but you haven't the mental acuity to see through the mountain of propaganda to make you believe that. Either you are ignorant, stupid or evil. Wake up!

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 2:15PM

Me.

Indiana Alex| 11.29.11 @ 1:43PM

Equating the governace of Hoover and Coolidge? Sort of like Reagan and Bush? I guess you have to be completely ignorant of history to end up with such a convoluted mind set.

George S| 11.29.11 @ 3:31PM

When you say "take back" I assume that what the 1% has was once yours and it was taken against your will. So...

Take back your money that you spent on the computer to write your post. Return your computer and software for a refund. Then do not ever use computers again. That is the sure-fire way of keeping the rich from getting richer -- no more money for those Google or Facebook billionaires.

Take back the money you spend on gasoline and heating oil. Exxon-Mobil's corporate greed will be no more. Hurray. Just dig down in your own backyard... you'll find oil for yourself. Maybe. Or you could just cut trees for firewood to keep warm and cook.

Take back your checking account and debit cards. Ask your boss to pay you in cash. No more banking billionaires will be created when there are no longer any depositors.

Take back your money you spend on movies and television. Throw out that TV and do not go to movies. That prevents the 1% from getting rich from entertaining you.

Take back your baseball, football, basketball and other sports dollars. That will result in the 1% from getting rich off of spectator sports.

Take back your health insurance dollars by dropping your insurance. No more 1 percenters making money off your illness or misfortune. How cruel can they be!

Take back your life by not shopping at grocery stores or department stores. They are owned by the 1 percent.

See, it's easy to take back what belongs to you. Just don't give it up in the first place.

Jack London| 11.29.11 @ 4:36PM

So George, I've asked this of people here before and never had a coherent reply - is there a point at which you think wealth inequality will become (or indeed has become) unsustainable for a social democracy? Let's say 1% own 75% of wealth in say 2030 – will this be just fine with you? Or instead of your ridiculous 'give back your computer' etc list, how about taxing capital gains properly?

I see Steve Jobs was worth $7 billion when he died - couldn't take it with him, could he?

gary siebel| 11.29.11 @ 4:55PM

Interesting article in the SF Chron detailing the tax advantages of Jobs' heirs selling their stock. It inadvertently reveals the deep corruption of the RW economic philosophy and nonsense such as Gilder's and the Laffer curve (not that liberal econ theories are any better). Apparently, if the heirs sell now they can save 837 million bucks in taxes.
Simultaneously ridiculous and outrageous! They lifted not a finger to build that capital yet they could deprive our income starved government just so they will have another billion with which to play, as if the several billions remaining would not be enough. A philosophy that promotes greed is a philosophy that promotes treason.

It will be interesting to see what they decide to do.

Indiana Alex| 11.29.11 @ 6:11PM

Why, because your useful idiot philosophy suggests that the government has first claim on the property of the dead?

Now, who has the corrupt philosophy?

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 2:27PM

I'll assume they get a "step up in basis" which means they could sell all their stock and pay $0 in Capital Gains Tax.

If that's what you're talking about ... tough beans! Without the "Bequest Motive" -- say, 100% Death Tax -- human beings would have no choice but to gamble their fortune away ... OR MOVE IT OFFSHORE OUT OF REACH OF THE GRASPING HANDS OF PURPLEPUNK, JACK LONDON AND OBAMA.

I'll help you. You'll find my website when searching on the subject.

JimBob7| 11.29.11 @ 5:25PM

Let's say we have 47 percent of the population that pays no income tax, is that too high in your opinion? Where in the U.S. Constitution is there a provision to seize money from the productive, and give it to the unproductive, no matter how attractive the unproductive?

Jack London| 11.29.11 @ 6:19PM

You'll be telling us next the poor and middle class don't pay much higher proportions of their incomes in local, state and payroll taxes than the well off. We have one of the least equitable taxation systems and also lower tax overall relative to GDP than for some time, thanks to lower tax on the well off and the far less than the nominal corporation tax rate actually paid.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 2:30PM

JimBob -- You can LEGALLY avoid paying income taxes. Tax Avoidance is not a crime.

Jack London -- WHY do you think Americans own companies that "ship jobs overseas"...? BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU. You are not to be trusted, you're too covetous and greedy.

Indiana Alex| 11.29.11 @ 6:09PM

How about this one, Moe? There is no way that any sort of a democracy would survive in the feudal system that exists in your own miserable failure of a world.

What we have is not the miserable muck diving feudal system that exists in your miserable, envious world that grants you rights to someone elses property.

What we have is a free economy, where someone can get very rich by providing a service that increases the standard of living for others.

Let's take Mr. Jobs, as it seems you don't think he deserved so much wealth, or at the very least you would like to have some and give some to other deserving, law breaking squatters.

I didn't like the man one bit, but he sure the hell increased my standard of living by allowing me to purchase a single song rather than a terrible album, and carry thousands of these single songs on my person with almost no weight whatsoever.

I am so sick of you useful idiots and your complete disregard for property rights, and dismissal of the characteristics required to succeed. You remind me of my cross dressing college roommate that never made anything of himself either.

What this economy offers, like nowhere else in the world is mobility. The only problem is that useful idiots like you, favor policies, like those implemented by this administration that offer far fewer oportunities for that mobility.

Oh, yes, you also have to work very hard to be uncommonly successful at whatever you do in this country. But it's so much easier just to take someone else's property, isn't it?

Jack London| 11.29.11 @ 6:26PM

'What this economy offers, like nowhere else in the world is mobility. '

You're wrong about most things but I'll take this shocker - we currently have about the lowest social mobility of any developed country. You need to get some learnin' my friend.

Indiana Alex| 11.29.11 @ 6:47PM

And just how would would I expect someone, like yourself who is so ignorant of history to understand simple concepts like "freedom".

You useful idiots are not fooling anyone. You preach confiscation of private property and suggest that those promoting freedom are "fascists".

You have to be almost purposely ignorant. In fact, you are quickly becoming parodies of yourselves.

It would be almost laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Indiana Alex| 11.29.11 @ 6:55PM

Learnin' - you're the jackass that suggested Coolidge and Hoover followed the same economic policies? I understand that you have trouble with coherent thought, but please, "Mr. Sound of One Hand Clapping", if you're going to make an assertion first - don't make an ass out of yourself.

Your thoughts are completely empty and you continue to make a fool out of yourself with just about every word.

You remind me of the current President. He, and other libs think he is so smart, when if he ever says anything of substance, it is completely wrong.

Jack London| 11.29.11 @ 7:11PM

Hey calm down Alex. You made a statement on mobility, so now just go and do a bit of browsing about it and report back. If you don't know where to look I'd be happy to give you some help.

Indiana Alex| 11.29.11 @ 7:24PM

I made quite a few statements, Jackass. I also didn't make an idiot out of myself for which you have quite a knack.

You are proving quite useful though. I'm showing my children the utter futility with which the left attempts to debate.

Common tactics include made up"facts", repitition of other's previous nonsense, complete ignorance (See Jackass's Coolidge/Hoover comparison).

The beauty of this lesson is that the entire realm of nonsense espoused by you useful idiots can be studied and mastered by following only one true blue idiot.

After that, it just becomes so predictable and repetitive that they almost bore one into submission.

Almost.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 2:32PM

Shout-out to Indiana Alex: SPOT ON, MAN!

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:42PM

Uh, huh, Jack---my dad made about $40K a year when I was a kid. He now co-owns his own business and drives a paid for caddy in addition to supporting my idiot left wing sister and her spawn.

Me---I graduated from UCLA with $80,000 in debt, an MD, a psychiatric residency completed, and a 5 year old Nissan Sentra that died 4 months after I graduated. (I kept telling those assholes my engine heat was going into Red, but they didn't listen...)

I now am very close apparently to the lower end of the top 1%, 18 years later....

Hard work and education makes it here, my friend. Be nice if you had actually LIVED abroad and KNEW some Europeans, especially some successful European businessmen like my college roommate who transferred much of his business to Rhode Island from West Germany...

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:16PM

Billions in wealth that WASN'T there before---and, by the way, I loved Toy Story.

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 8:19PM

You've made my point... did you know that India bans corporations? The family business is a bulwark of the Indian economy,like it used to be for America. Not so anymore ... the corporo-militari-politicos have screwed this country because of their greed.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 2:50PM

Now THAT is an IDIOTIC STATEMENT.

Have you HEARD of Google? "Small business" aggregates to FAR MORE employment and income than "Big Business" -- HERE IN AMERICA.

Today, not "used to be."

"Small, family-owned?" You mean ... hmmm ... like the S CORPS THAT PAY TAX ON CORPORATE PROFITS BY INCLUDING IT IN PERSONAL INCOME?

You mean "Job Creators?"

You mean people who think you're a Punk?

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 2:22PM

Punk, you know, now I am certain you're a troll, I just don't know if you're ripping off your DNC paymasters with your feeble grasp of history (leading to you getting shot down constantly) or just DOING A GREAT JOB PRETENDING TO BE AN IDIOT.

My hunch is the former.

Coolidge and Harding SLASHED SPENDING.

Hoover INCREASED IT 50%.
Hoover DRAMATICALLY INTERVENED IN THE ECONOMY.
Hoover PUSHED MASSIVE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING.

JUST ... LIKE ... OBAMA.

Hoover was a Republican, but a "Progressive" aka Libturd. Coolidge was a CONSERVATIVE.

HOOVER FAILED. OBAMA FAILED.

So your Punk-choice might be "Another FDR" -- yeah another GUY WHO SPENT EVEN MORE AND PROLONGED THE DEPRESSION FOR A DECADE.

That's Obama's (would-be) Second Term.

Or ... we DITCH THE PINKO RETARD BIG GOVERNMENT CAN WORK IN SPITE OF IT NEVER HAVING WORKED CRAP and ditch the Fool.

The One and Done, Punk. One and Done.

Seek| 11.29.11 @ 5:10PM

Didn't Angelo Codevilla have a long article in TAS called "The Ruling Class" that argued something along this line?

scythe| 11.29.11 @ 1:33PM

No. It's George "Schwartz" Soros who is behind the one individual who is killing the system: Obama.

martin j smith| 11.29.11 @ 2:00PM

We have a weak Republican Party and an aggressive
violent Socialist Party/ An Rx for disaster. As in Weimar after WWI.

martin j smith| 11.29.11 @ 2:09PM

We also have a field of candidates which is giving me very uneasy feelings. Except for two and a half of them(Paul,Huntsman and Romney is the half ) I will vote for any one of them against ( not for ) Socialism. Period. We we need is either more aggressive voting to kick out bad people in the Republican Party or if that fails a third party--in a last resort. But we must cleanse the Republican Party of those people who want to make deals with Communists and Socialists. No--we want candidates who will stand their ground, state their ideas clearly and show they really are hearing the people. We do not want a King or a Dictator, We want what our country was founded on-A Representative Republic.

CrackerHound| 11.29.11 @ 3:05PM

You have summarized the Tea Party's mission statement to a tee....and if we don't get much more aggressive, that transformation of the Republican Party that you wish for will not happen.

We are fighting uphill my friend....against majority media propaganda, the education departments institutional indoctrination, forced unionization, etc.

Any person we put up as a nominee to the right of Romney will be blasted as extremist and dangerous....yet OWS crowds and Obama are civil and mainstream. It is all too Orwellian for me.

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 3:42PM

You know what's Orwellian? Calling almost any contemporary American politician a fascist. Or a communist, for that matter.

Nick| 11.29.11 @ 6:46PM

DRed,

Blame it on your bleeding heart liberal fore-fathers. They started calling conservatives fascists back in the 1950's. It just took us conservatives a while to learn to bring a gun, instead of a knife, to a gun fight.

By the way, do you have any more videos of the dirty, smelly, raping, defecating, hippy protesters getting kicked out of parks across the country? Did you see the one where the police pepper-sprayed those dirty, smelly, law-breaking, hippies at U.C. Davis?

That sure was a keeper! That's why it went viral, because it was so great.
If you have any others, please link, okay?

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 6:57PM

Well, the fascists tended to ally with conservatives while in power, so it's somewhat understandable. But yeah, it's a word that's wildly overused.

Fascists did love to glorify violence, though. Just saying.

Nick| 11.29.11 @ 8:11PM

DRed,

Which conservatives would that be?

Violence should never be glorified, of course. But, giving the equivalent of a spanking to adult children is not violence, it is necessary to make them better citizens.
If they had just listened to the police, and vacated the premises, they wouldn't have been peppered-sprayed, now would they?

DRed| 11.29.11 @ 8:55PM

I thought you people hated big government telling you what to do?

Well, for a start, in both Italy and Germany the fascists were never able to achieve an electoral majority. In both countries they were invited to take control of the government by conservatives who thought (mistakenly) that they could control the fascists and use them against communists, socialists and liberal democrats. If this is where you tell me that the King of Italy was a left winger, we should both agree to stop wasting our time.

Nick| 11.29.11 @ 11:41PM

DRed,

When police officers do their job, i.e., restore the peace, that is NOT "big government telling us what to do." Your attempts at linguistic and logical jiu-jitsu fail miserably.

" In both countries they were invited to take control of the government by conservatives [...]."

Yes, because the "conservatives" in 1920's Italy and Germany were exactly the same as modern day American conservatives, correct?
And liberals call conservatives simplistic, hah!

Also, this makes it completely okay for lefties to use guilt by association against conservatives. But, when conservatives, rightly, show that the dirty, smelly, raping, hippy protesters are committing crimes, this is denounced by lefties because we are tarring with a broad brush.
Hypocrites.

DRed| 11.30.11 @ 9:36AM

No, they were different. But they sure as shit weren't left wing, which is the point. You're putting words in my mouth because you can't refute my point.

I didn't realize we had no right to peacefully protest in America, Nick. My bad.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 3:14PM

The Nazis, like Mussolini, preached SOCIALISM -- Peronista "prosperity for all" ... their CONTROL OF INDUSTRY made them Fascists.

And like EVERY OTHER SOCIALIST REGIME they ended up with a HIGHLY UNEQUAL SOCIETY -- the Governing Class eats caviar (and eggs, in Dr. Strangelove) while everybody else suffers, gripes and complains ... in equal misery.

Great vision for the United States, LibTrolls!

No, really, THANKS!

I know, I know ... it will work THIS TIME ... so you say.

Right?

And it's worth spewing lies, mis-labeling conservatives (occasionally the Founding Fathers) as Fascists? It's worth SELLING YOUR SOULS?

Apparently. Organizing for Obama has plenty of useful idiots. They're not all in the parks. Or here....

Nick| 11.30.11 @ 4:53PM

DRed,

Even if their conservatives were right-wing, it doesn't follow that this made the fascists right-wing. This is faulty logic. Ever heard the expression, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

If you had read Mr. Goldberg's fine book, you would know that the commies and the fascists were fighting for the same group of people. The fact that business men wanted to use the fascists, who were new, to fight the commies, who they knew wanted to confiscate their property (as they had done in Russia,) should not be that surprising.

This completely refutes your point.

Also, who claimed that we don't have the right to peacefully protest? Not I.

Those dirty, smelly, law-breaking, hippy protesters were not peacefully protesting. They were blocking the entrance to a building and disobeyed the lawful orders of the police. They were given plenty of opportunities to disperse. They paid the price for acting like adult children.

Is this really that hard to understand? Maybe you have spent too much time with the hippy pot-heads, hmmm?

DRed| 11.30.11 @ 5:47PM

No, it doesn't necessarily follow that they were right wing for working with right wingers, but it's certainly suggestive. When you combine that with the fascists murderously violent opposition to left wingers it's pretty hard to conclude they were actually left wing themselves. Left wing politics is generally universalist. Fascists were exclusionary nationalists. They supported economic autarky, instead of globalized trading. European left wingers are traditionally stridently anti-clerical. Hitler had no problems with the church as long as it stayed out of his way. Mussolini allowed the Catholic Church a lot more influence in Italy than it enjoyed under the monarchy. They strongly supported a belief in a traditional family. They crushed organized labor. They murdered intellectuals and imprisoned homosexuals. None of this is left wing. How do you expect me to believe that despite carrying out a violently aggressive anti-left wing program, the fascists were in fact leftist? It makes no sense.

And yes, the fascists competed with the communists for the support of the working. But they did it in different ways. Fascists didn't support a class based struggle. They supported an ethnic based national unity, while communists were fighting for the overthrow of society by the working class as part of the struggle for global worker revolution. It's totally different.

Nick| 12.1.11 @ 12:13AM

DRed,

It might be suggestive, except for the fact that Mussolini's dad was a hard-core communist and also raised little Benito to be a commie. Or, for the fact that Il Duce rose through the ranks of various marxist groups in Switzerland and Italy. Or, that he left Italy to avoid military service (a very lefty thing to do, by the way.) Or, that he participated in union riots and edited socialist newspapers. I could go on and on.

"Hitler had no problems with the church as long as it stayed out of his way. Mussolini allowed the Catholic Church a lot more influence in Italy than it enjoyed under the monarchy."

WHAT?!?
Do you know any real history? Mussolini hated the Catholic Church. He believed the communists weren't harsh enough when dealing with the Church and the monarchy. This, along with his support for Italy's entry into WWI, is what got him expelled from Partito Socialista Italiano.

Hitler, also, hated the Church and all Christians. Do you have any idea how many priests and nuns were murdered in the Holocaust? Here, read all about it:

http://www.catholicculture.org.....recnum=472

How about all the Protestant clergy that were murdered? Ever heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

You shouldn't comment on these subjects if you are really this ignorant about them. You were partly right about left-wingers being "stridently anti-clerical," except, it isn't restricted to just the European lefties, it's ALL of them. They're so stridently anti-clerical, they end up killing them. It started with the Mexican revolution, and hasn't ceased.

"They crushed organized labor. They murdered intellectuals and imprisoned homosexuals."

So did Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. I suppose they weren't left-wing as well?

"Fascists were exclusionary nationalists."

Don't democrats claim to be nationalists, at least in public?

Are you even aware of how the Left/Right political/philosophical dichotomy started? Ever heard of Hegel?

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 12:54AM

Yes, Mussolini was a socialist when he was a young man. Ask all the socialists the black shirts murdered how socialist he was when got older. Do you think people never change their political beliefs? And Hitler-come on, you don't expect me to believe Hitler was also a secret socialist.

Mussolini might have hated the Church, but he had no problem cutting deals with them when in power (as an aside, he also let the monarchy remain. He had his kids baptized, he had a religious wedding and most importantly, he signed a concordat with the pope granting the Church a lot of influence in Italian affairs. Why would he do all that if he was an anti-clerical leftist? Guess who gave the Catholic church the land for the Vatican? Benito Mussolini.

Hitler was significantly more anti-clerical than Mussolini, but that's in part because churches in Germany resisted the fascists more than they did in Italy. The Catholic Zentrum party, along with another right-wing party (sense a theme?), the People's party were the two parties in the Reichstag that passed the Enabling Act establishing Hitler as dictator. This doesn't mean the fascists were conservatives or religious, but these are the groups they shared a commonality of interests with.

And no, Democrats don't claim to be nationalists. There's a difference between being a patriot and being a nationalist.

After I slog through Liberal Fascism I'll send you some books on fascism that you might find interesting. Deal?

Nick| 12.1.11 @ 9:00PM

DRed,

"Yes, Mussolini was a socialist when he was a young man."

Wrong. He was always a socialist. Fascism was his attempt at a better, tougher socialism.

"Ask all the socialists the black shirts murdered how socialist he was when got older."

That's what totalitarians do. Lenin and Stalin killed many socialists. Did that make them right-wing? Ever heard of the Night of the Long Knives? Hitler killed many nazis, including Ernst Rohm. (Rohm was a well-known homosexual, by the way. Hitler and most of the other nazi leadership had no problem with his perversions. Only Himmler really had a problem with Rohm and his homo buddies.)

"Do you think people never change their political beliefs?"

Of course they do. But, Mussolini didn't go from hard-core marxist to right-wing conservative, it just didn't happen. This is propaganda that came out of the Kremlin, after WWII.

"And Hitler-come on, you don't expect me to believe Hitler was also a secret socialist."

I don't claim that Hitler was a marxist like Mussolini. Marx was a Jew after all. Hitler doesn't seem to have a political viewpoint before WWI. But, Hitler did believe his National Socialism was superior to world-wide socialism, i.e., communism.

"Guess who gave the Catholic church the land for the Vatican? Benito Mussolini."

Where do you get this garbage? Or, do you just make it up? Do you even know what a concordant is? It is a treaty. So, the Holy Father made a treaty with the King of Italy, not Mussolini. And, no land was given. It was always the Vatican's land. It was stolen by the King, in the 1860's. A pope has been residing on Vatican hill since Simon Peter was martyred there in A.D. 64/7.

"Hitler was significantly more anti-clerical than Mussolini, but that's in part because churches in Germany resisted the fascists more than they did in Italy."

Did you read my link? How did all of those bishops, priests, and nuns resist him? You need to learn more about this history, I'm afraid.

"And no, Democrats don't claim to be nationalists."

I think President Downgrade has claimed to be acting in America's national interest, hasn't he? Especially, when he uses drones to kill American citizens, correct?

"After I slog through Liberal Fascism I'll send you some books on fascism that you might find interesting. Deal?"

Sure, give me the titles. I'll check them out. But, I think I've shown that you don't know how fascism came about. You never answered my question: Do know who Hegel is? Do you know how the Left/Right designations were first used? The right-wing had nothing to do with what we call conservatism, today. It had to do with monarchists and atheists.

Fascism has nothing to do with conservatism, classical liberalism, or monarchism. Hitler, like Mussolini, liked Nietzsche's idea of the Super-man and Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. Read about it here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26468

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:33PM

Dred: Yup, totally different---except in the amount of tortured people, murdered minorities (Ukranians in the case of the Soviets), and the number of graves. That's very similar for both Totalitarian regimes.

Of course, the worst by far is the Caliphate, with 270 Million murdered over 1400 years, and the incredible misery that Islam has brought down upon almost all who live under it.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:26PM

We do have a right to peacefully protest in America, DRed. How this is equivalent to raping women ( documented extensively) and crapping on police cars (film at 11) and attacking rescue workers (documented extensively) is a bit beyond me, however.

The Tea Partiers left their Washington DC campgrounds spotless, and they were a lot larger in meeting than the OWies

AhiaGuy| 11.29.11 @ 3:39PM

I wonder what Krugman's annual income is? I wonder if he's as rich as Michael Moore, or if his house is as big a "McMansion" as Moore's?

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:27PM

He is quite wealthy as a senior professor and academic superstar at Princeton, including his personal Nobel Prize Winner parking space.

Oldefarte| 11.29.11 @ 4:46PM

This socialism crap has been going on my entire substantial lifetime, and I'm sick and tired of being forced to endure same. Basically people are so-called rich [translation, according to Democrats: ANYONE WITH A JOB AND INCOME] because THEY '''''EARN''''''' IT by working 24-7 and by using their intelligence/education to produce said income in varying degrees. There are trillions of MILLIONAIRES & BILLIONAIRES out there because basically they've gotten off their collective BACKSIDES [translation: arses], become educated and gone out into the world and worked like to dog to financially support themselves. Why? Simple, because of their WORK ETHIC, that's why! If the lazy and stupid idiots of the Wall Street Occupy movement would spend half as much time towards doing likewise, maybe personal wealth would be earned by them as well. These OWS moron types are simply lazy and whine/moan/groan about their lack of wealth compared to others, when the simply reason for same is their laziness and their stupidity. This country has had FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION availabel to all since 1954, and typically there are the stupids who refuse to take advantage of same and to qualify themselves for the intellectual abilities required to go forth into the world and to earn wealth. Then they sit on the street corners moaning/groaning and crying about their inequality. Oh and as to the Jewish population and their collective control of wealth, yeah that's entirely true. Why? Simple because Jews are collectively extremely hard working people/individuals, who devote their lives to becoming educated and thereafter to entering economic fields [law, business, medicine, entertainment, etc] whereupon their gained education/intelligence becomes displayed and productive in wealth aquisitions. Jews are wealthy because they are smart and use same to garner wealth. Those of us with the intelligence to understand this applaud them for their dedicated productive activities to society in general. It ain't rocket science, but maybe to some it is so!!!!!!!!!!

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 3:15PM

Hear HEAR, Old Farte!

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:28PM

George Gilder. Thanks, Oldefarte.

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:29PM

Oh, and as Oldefarte knows, FDR's proudest achievement as a member of the Harvard Board of Trustees was to limit the number of Jewish kids attending Harvard.

gary siebel| 11.29.11 @ 4:46PM

Interesting that you would both cite Auden !!!! and use a pen name. Until you come out from the closet you are hiding in, you are exemplifying that which you decry. Why hide?

And just remember, it was the Repubs who started class warfare with Reaganomics, and there has been no let up since. So if you are feeling your feet are too close to the fire, get used to it because it will get bigger, and you started it.

JimBob7| 11.29.11 @ 5:27PM

Class warfare started with Pres Woodrow Wilson, who re-segregated the federal workforce. Learn some history and quit embarrassing us with your ignorance.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 5:34PM

Class warfare in the United States began in the latter part of the 19th Century, during the early days of the labor movement, when the Marxist class analysis was widely adopted by American Marxists and anarchists seeking to organize American working people. It continued during the Progressive Era with the IWW, and up to the first Red Scare in 1919, then got legs during the Great Depression and hasn't receded since.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 5:38PM

When you talk about writers of articles hiding behind pen names, do you mean writers like Cato, Publius, and -what's that name that Benjamin Franklin used to use?- ?

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 5:39PM

Or Mark Twain?

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 6:20PM

Ben Franklin = Silence Dogood

marshcope| 11.29.11 @ 6:29PM

There was probably class clashing in America way back in the 1600, when someone griped in Virginia that the Byrds and Randolphs had too much money and power, and the sons of liberty in Boston targeted the Oliver family as being rich and suckups to the King.

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 6:55PM

Good point: the American Revolution was the first of the bourgois revolutions. Marx's analysis of the American Revolution was that it was the bourgeois class, who had most of the money, taking the power from the aristocratic class. This is more obvious in the French Revolution, but it's arguably true for the American Revolution too.

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 3:26PM

Bill, just from memory -- I don't recall the "bourgeois class" in the Colonies murdering 42,000+ "aristocrats" and TAKING THEIR MONEY.

The British lost their TAX REVENUE from the Colonies, so if your analogy holds the bourgeoisie in America threw off the yoke of the aristocrats in England, whereas the French were all in France.

The important distinction is the TAKING of property from "the rich" and the MURDER of so many.

I'm loathe to accept ANY comparisons between the American Revolution and the French Revolution, due to the latters' incredibly inhumane actors, versus our liberty-loving Founding Fathers.

Oh, and them Frenchies, Occupy Bastille? GOT THE RICH ALL RIGHT, SLAUGHTERED THEM BY THE THOUSANDS.

And FAILED, ending up with a DICTATOR IN CHARGE.

The fate of EVERY "Peoples (aka Mob) Revolution" -- Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Peron, it's all a question of degree -- is MISERY FOR THE PEOPLE. Excepting the OVERLORDS, of course.

Peron, Pelosi, Mao, Obama ... what's the difference?

DRed| 11.30.11 @ 3:38PM

Timmy? Is that you?

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:34PM

Thomas Paine is NOT Tim* or Clint, DRed---quite the opposite.

POST American| 11.29.11 @ 11:02PM

---------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012----------------

marshcope| 11.30.11 @ 4:27AM

Maybe one angle of the American Revolution someone could look into, or already has, is what the American kid who enlisted to be a PFC under Washington thought of the line of redcoats he faced on Long Island or at Brandywine. Did GI Caleb or Asher think that the Brit or Hessian Grunt coming at him was in a red coat because he he had been Impressed because he was very tall or had enlisted to get a regular meal and some gin, as Wellington said of his own troops. The thoughts of the Continental soldier as to Why I am here in line has probably been studied, but I have yet done the study I should do as to what the soldiers on both sides thought of one another.

marshcope| 11.30.11 @ 4:53AM

Maybe what I was trying to get at with my last comment was what the social class outlook of the Continental soldier may have been during the 8-year war. On getting back to the 1930s, some time during FDR's coming to Power, he said in a speech about current times, "We spent 9 years worshipping the Golden Calf, and have suffered 3 years of the Scourge" Was that a true summary of the roaring 20s, or was it the view of an upstate NY patrician being snippy about all the Roaring of the last decade?

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 3:30PM

It was FDR being honest AFTER HE LIED HIS WAY INTO OFFICE:

A quote from FDR during the 1932 Presidential campaign: "This is the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all our history."

OR THIS, a quote form FDR's running mate, John Nance Garner: "He (Mr. Hoover) is leading the country down the path to socialism."

Then once in office? An individual mandate!

Oh wait, that's Obama.

The more thinks change, the more they stay the same....

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 3:32PM

To clarify: It was FDR being honest that his snippy patrician "expert-texpert" ass was going to RUN THINGS and not let all those NON-BLUE BLOODS (harrumph!) make money!

No no, Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry -- nobody else is ALLOWED to get rich. It hurts their relative standing....

Bill| 11.30.11 @ 9:07AM

Obviously, attitudes of Continental soldiers toward the British Army and attitudes of British Army soldiers toward the colonists varied from person to person, but there are some attitudes that seem to have been generally shared that have come down to us.

For the Hessians, the colonials probably were seen as the particular people they, as mercs, were now to fight, a job to do for the pay they were to receive. There are stories of Hessians who, after some contact with the colonials, deserted and went over the the Americans, but the majority served loyally.

For the British soldier, Americans were probably seen first as rebels. They were classified as untrained rabble and the Brits expected to crush the rebellion handily. The British Army had never been defeated up to the American Revolution, and the Brits knew colonial militia forces from the French and Indian War fifteen years or so earlier. They had contempt for the colonial army when they weren't outraged by their rebelliousness.

The colonials were intimidated by the power of the British Army. The balance of power between the fighting forces was not totally unlike the one that existed between the Viet Cong and the U.S. Army in Vietnam days. The colonials expected to be beaten, and they were, for a couple of years. The low point was at Valley Forge, and the Battle of Trenton marked a turning point, when the Brits were defeated by a colonial army trained in 18th Century tactics by Kocziusko and Steuben, and issue uniforms and standardized arms. In the South, irregulars like Francis Marion galvanized the colonists a bit better than was done in New England. In the South, a few British atrocities made the colonists hate the British.

POST American| 11.30.11 @ 10:53PM

"The KOREAN WAR, and NOT the long gone
world wars, is rapidly emerging as the pivotal
moment, the pivotal CON-flict, of the 20th
century viz a viz the 21st."
---WHO just said that?

KOREA --The 'CON--V--knee--ant-ly'
'forgotten' war.

------much like the Globalist RED China
sellout and TREASON OP.

-----------------Could it be?

------------------------------HMMMMM-----------------

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|20 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|10 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|13 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|26 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|2 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|9 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|7 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: “Why I Am a Republican”

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Special Report

Back to the 1930s

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (275) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Riddler| 11.29.11 @ 6:33AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 11.29.11 @ 7:34AM

C Smith| 11.29.11 @ 11:54AM

C Smith| 11.29.11 @ 1:22PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 2:02PM

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 12:59PM

Anthony| 11.29.11 @ 2:33PM

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 6:54PM

chuck| 11.29.11 @ 9:29AM

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:13PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:48PM

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:05PM

Moe Blotz| 11.29.11 @ 6:50AM

Joe March| 11.29.11 @ 7:07AM

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:15PM

Deborah D | 11.29.11 @ 7:19AM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 2:04PM

Butch| 11.29.11 @ 4:22PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 5:53PM

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:17PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:49PM

idalily| 11.29.11 @ 8:34PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:16PM

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:28AM

Chic Xulub| 11.29.11 @ 6:14PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:50PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:52PM

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:38AM

Fredrick Ward| 11.30.11 @ 1:04PM

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:08PM

DRed| 11.30.11 @ 1:34PM

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:44PM

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 6:56PM

Pecos Pete| 11.29.11 @ 7:20AM

Doctor_X| 11.29.11 @ 7:27AM

Vern Crisler| 11.29.11 @ 9:31AM

Will| 11.29.11 @ 10:11AM

TrueBlue| 11.29.11 @ 4:05PM

Riff Raff| 11.29.11 @ 10:53AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 11.29.11 @ 7:27AM

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:11PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 2:06PM

Riff Raff| 11.29.11 @ 3:31PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 5:56PM

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:26PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 7:02PM

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.29.11 @ 7:17PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:27PM

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:33PM

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 6:58PM

Occam's Tool| 12.1.11 @ 7:02PM

Riff Raff| 11.29.11 @ 7:57PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:28PM

Riff Raff| 11.30.11 @ 1:17AM

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:43AM

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:36PM

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:38PM

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:14PM

Jim| 11.29.11 @ 1:16PM

Melvin| 11.29.11 @ 8:45AM

Bill| 11.29.11 @ 9:32AM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 1:45PM

Stan Redmond| 11.29.11 @ 2:27PM

Quartermaster| 11.29.11 @ 6:27PM

idalily| 11.29.11 @ 8:36PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:28PM

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:30AM

Fredrick Ward| 11.30.11 @ 1:25PM

martin j smith| 11.29.11 @ 7:52AM

CrackerHound| 11.29.11 @ 10:03AM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 6:16PM

idalily| 11.29.11 @ 8:41PM

Purpleguy| 11.29.11 @ 9:32PM

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 11:31AM

Thomas Paine| 11.30.11 @ 1:41PM