NEO-COMMUNISM: Naming the Enemy

by Richard Poe
Thursday, October 20, 2005

5:27 pm Eastern Time

We conservatives need to rethink our tactics. Now that Republican Congressman and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been arrested at the order of a leftist judge, even the most complacent cigar-and-brandy-snifter Republican must be wondering whether the time has come to take off the gloves. Stop wondering. The time has come. Our leftist adversaries make no pretense of following Marquis of Queensberry Rules, nor should we.

The first step in our counteroffensive must be to retake the English language. No longer should we flatter our Bolshevist foes with such dainty labels as “liberal” or “progressive.” Let us call them by their true name: communists.

Then again, we could call them “neo-communists.” David Horowitz coined this term in a series of FrontPage articles in 2003. (1) He later refined the concept in his book Unholy Alliance. (2) The word has much to commend it.

“How to identify the political left?” asks Horowitz. “Current usage refers to everyone left of center as `liberal.’ … Yet… when terror-hugging radicals like Ramsey Clark and Communist hacks like Angela Davis are referred to as `liberals’ — as they routinely are — the obfuscation works to their advantage… The term `liberal’ should be reserved for those who occupy the center of the political spectrum; those to the left should be referred to as leftists, which is what they are.”

Next we must distinguish between the soft left and the “hard” left, writes Horowitz – between those who merely affect leftist sentiments and “those who are dedicated enemies of America and its purposes”. Calling the latter Communists (with a capital “C”) would imply that they are members of the Communist Party USA, which most are not. Still, their critique of America borrows much from the yellowed archives of Soviet-era Pravda.

Horowitz writes:”The purpose of the term `neo-communist’ is to identify a segment of the left that regards the United States as the root cause of international evil… ”

The hard left believes that America prospers only by impoverishing others. In their view, we Americans can redeem ourselves only through self-annihilation, by laying down our arms, dismantling our industries, giving up our wealth and opening our borders to the world’s hungry masses. To put it another way, the only good America is a dead America.

That being the case, any pirates, brigands, cutthroats or other species of ruffians who oppose America must be welcomed as natural allies of the left, be they Islamofascist mullahs, Kyrghyzian narco-terrorists, deranged neo-luddite letter-bombers or power-mad Wall Street hedge fund managers with Hungarian accents.

“This is the neo-communist creed,” concludes Horowitz. “Therefore, let us call such radicals neo-communists, or neo-coms (or small `c’ communists) for short.”

Sounds like a plan to me.

by Richard Poe
October 20, 2005 05:27 PM ET

Cross-posted from 10.20.05


1. David Horowitz, “Neo-Communism“,, April 22, 2003; “Taking On The Neo-Coms, Part I“, May 01, 2003; “Taking on the Neo-Coms, Part II“, May 02, 2003

2. David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2004), 55-69, 71-77, 79-87, 89-99, 101-19


66 Responses to “NEO-COMMUNISM: Naming the Enemy”


Check out what others are saying about this post...
  1. pabbott03301 says:

    I prefer the term Neo-Stalinists or Ultra-Stalinists.

  2. Andrew Walden says:

    After the fall of Vietnam, a couple of million hardened domestic anti-Americans asked themselves: “what will I do now?”

    They chose not to join the hard left, abandoning the old-fashioned communist strategy of pretending to foment insurrection amongst the working class. Instead they discovered Antonio Gramsci and adopted his very cynical strategy based on attaining prominent cultural positions and using those to spread torrents of propaganda.

    For them personally it was in line with the advanced degrees they obtained from years of dodging the draft in universities. It was also more lucrative then becoming a “worker-bolshevik”.

    They are nearing the peak of their careers now. Without any need for a politburo to instruct them they unleash whatever seems appropriate from their standpoint. It doesn’t need to be coordinated because they are working AGAINST America as opposed to working FOR anything. The common enemy saerves as a point of reference.

    Almost all of the network news, all of eco-nut activity and anti-war activity, any risk-adverse viewpoint, multi-culturalism and political correctness and corporate “social responsibility” is pure Gramscian strategy.

    In essence, Gramscian strategy is the strategy of a communist who no longer pretends to represent the working class but is instead conscious of his role as a bureaucratic ruler.

    They don’t care if they rule a hog-tied capitalist economy, they just need to rule. Instead of using the old-style police state, they use their torrents of propaganda and the levers of power of a democracy to serve their ends.

    The Chinese Communist Party can be said to be employing Gramscian tactics in reverse–keeping power while dismantling the communist economy.

    Gramsci was an Italian communist in the 1920s who went to the “workers paradise” USSR but soon ended up on the wrong side of a faction fight with Joe Stalin. He elected to return to Mussolini’s fascist Italy where he was imprisoned until he croaked in the 1930s. Unfortunately the fascists let him have pen and paper which he used to write his “Prison Notebooks” which outline the strategy.

    In his life he was a communist who chose a life in fascist Italy over life in the communist paradise. Yet he remained a communist. This could seem as a contradiction, but his Prison Notebooks outline a strategy for communists (or anybody else) to use as a means to attain and use bureaucratic / cultural power in a democracy.

    It is about destroying the existing order from within, using its weaknesses against itself and abusing the presumption of good will which we afford others.

    I believe one of the keys to defeating them is to abandon the presumption of good will and in its place adopt a presumption of anti-Americanism, then look to see how they are acheiving this end.

  3. Sharikov says:

    Mr. Poe – how did you do that – was it planned in advance?
    As soon as you describe the neo-com – poof – one appears to illustrate your description.
    Nice work.

  4. Richard Poe says:

    Sharikov writes: “As soon as you describe the neo-com – poof – one appears to illustrate your description.”

    And poof! He disappears just as quickly.

    It might have been amusing to keep OlinHype around for awhile just to interrogate him, but he quickly became a nuisance, posting identical messages on every thread. I was afraid if I didn’t stop him, he would soon bore all our readers to death.

  5. pabbott03301 says:

    Who was that guy? He got deleted so fast I barely had time to read his post. I felt so naked: revealed at last as the tool of plutocratic power that I am. Now I’m going to have to cut my ties to the Illuminati and the Trilateral commission. And I’ll never be invited to Bohemian Grove again.

  6. Sharikov says:

    …no reference to 1 and 2 above… offending moonbat neo-com posting has thankfully been removed (again – nice work Mr. Poe).

  7. Mr. Beamish says:

    Take the gloves off?

    What gloves?

    There has never, ever been, at any point in recorded history, a reason to not challenge and fight leftist ideologies to the death.

  8. Publius says:

    I’ve had the “gloves” off for a long time. They started calling themselves the “New Left” in the 60’s, obfuscation, they are Communists. I called them marxists for years, but more recently communists, but both are accurate so either works for me. We just gotta keep kicking the sh-t out of ’em.

  9. drmiltown says:

    “Neo-communists” is not sufficiently derogatory, and it is too close to “neo-con”. I like “Marxists”, or “Stalinists”. “Wretched Bastards” is what I use in polite company of like mind, but it is not sufficiently descriptive for general use.

    I have been calling moonbats Marxists for years, but THEY DON’T GET IT. They have been brain-washed for so long that the terms have eluded them in the delusional marijuana nightmare they call reality. They have no memory of the history they may have learned, no understanding of political theory, and no concept of where their beliefs will lead. They really believe that they are the “nice people” and the conservatives are evil people who want to steal money, control womens bodies, and punish homsexuals. It goes no further than that in the minds of the vast majority of moonbats…99% or so! They are truly useful idiots. They are the unthinking masses. They are driven by undiferrentiated emotion. They are dangerous to the extreme. They are the lemmings. Because stupidity is so easy to find and martial, they will win.

    Doc is morose again. Can somebody find a hopeful scenario to cheer me up? Is there one?


  10. ForNow_ says:

    Neocommies. Neoreds.

  11. Yaakov says:

    I think you need the 2 “m” comm, as in neo-comm. Less chance of seeing “neo-con” by mistake.

  12. Mr. Beamish says:

    Call them idiots.

  13. Cato_Maior says:

    As someone who actually studied with postmodernists in college, I must say how welcome this thread is. Now generalizing about groups has its limits, but in my experience it has been astonishing to note how much academic lefties do consider themselves “the good guys” who fight “the good fight”. It’s also astonishing how little they know about the rest of the poltical spectrum. Or the intellectual spectrum. “Neo-com” is a provocation, but, yes, it’s also just calling something for what it is.

  14. hammersmith says:

    I agree with “Stalinist”. These people have no particular ideology. They have paranoia and hate.

    At least communists had a plan.

    Stalin was a delusional maniac obsessed with power and asserting his will on others. A Democrat.

    I say drop the “neo”. It’s a liberal gimmick.

    Call them what they are. Traitors. Collaborators. Enemies. And deal with them appropriately.

  15. Marimba Man says:

    I asked Horowitz in a 1989 speech: “Are Liberals Communists? Are Communists Liberals?” No response. My point is what is being brought up today. STOP CALLING COMMUNISTS LIBERALS OR LEFTISTS! Two weeks ago, there was a letter from David to stop calling them liberals but to call them Leftists.

    I have been at war with the COMMUNIST PARTY USA since 1986 when George Meyers, Chairman of the Labor Department of CPUSA, advocated at a New Mexico Marxist Educators for Socialist Action meeting, the “OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH FORCE IF NECESSARY!”

    THE WAR BEGAN FOR ME AGAINST THESE PEOPLE! The leader of the Marxist Educators denied he was a Marxist at a N.M. Peace Council meeting just two weeks earlier. Then, at another meeting a week after the Marxist meeting by the N.M. Peace Council, I asked him if he was a Marxist and he screamed, “where did you get that bull-s-h-i-t information?” The crowd was shouting at me too.


    I also called the Larry King Talk Show and as soon as I said “Communist” he shut me off. Since he had a six second delay, no one even knew what I said, but I heard his reply which was, “Another kook.” I was made out to be the crazy one.


    Just look at John Kerry. Aided Communists in Vietnam and Central America so the CPUSA supported him. “I’m an Internationalist.” That is International Communism!

    The only way to defeat the COMMUNISTS IS TO EXPOSE THEM. HOW TO EXPOSE THEM? ASK THESE QUESTIONS: What is the role of the Communist Party USA? Why are they left out of public discussion and analysis?

    Communists are proud to be Communists SO MAKE THEM PROUD BY EXPOSING THEM TO THE WORLD.

    Also, Louis Godena has been replying to some of our letters and yesterday he said he was on the board of the World Peace Council. That, comrades, is a KGB FRONT! AGAIN KGB! KGB! I searched his name with World Peace Council and it was very interesting. I couldn’t stop researching so NOW I AM “EXPOSING” HIM.

    DO YOU HAVE A COMMUNIST PARTY IN YOUR STATE? Who is the leader and what is their goal? Are their members the leaders of any “peace or anti-war” groups? GO TO THEIR MEETINGS AND LEARN AND EXPOSE THEM. They recruit students everyday using the word “peace” but if you EXPOSE them you will see how “peace-ful” they really are and the students will be saved.

    Now, I go alittle further and call the Communist Party USA a CULT! They brainwash like a CULT. You cannot reason with a brainwashed person.


  16. neoconGrunt says:

    Neoconservatives: Neoconservatives constitute an intellectual current that emerged from the cold war liberalism of the Democratic Party. Unlike other elements of the conservative mainstream, neoconservatives generally share historical and social roots in liberal and leftist politics. Disillusioned first with socialism and communism and later with new Democrats (like George McGovern) who came to dominate the Democratic Party in the 1970s, neoconservatives played a key role in boosting the New Right into political dominance in the 1980s.

    For the most part, neoconservatives–who are disproportionately Jewish (although a number of influential Catholic theologians and political activists have also long been associated with the movement)–are not politicians but rather political analysts, activist ideologues, and scholars who have played a central role in forging the agendas of numerous right-wing think tanks, front groups, and foundations.

    Neoconservatives profoundly believe both in America’s moral superiority and in the necessity of a strategic alliance with Israel–convictions that facilitate coalitions with the Christian Right. Unlike either core traditionalists of American conservatism or those with isolationist tendencies, neoconservatives are committed internationalists who believe that the United States has both a moral obligation and national security interests in using military supremacy to maintain a Pax Americana free of totalitarian and rogue regimes. Reminiscent of their role in the 1970s, the neoconservatives were instrumental in the late 1990s in helping to fuse diverse elements of the right into a unified force based on a new agenda of U.S. supremacy.


  17. Sharikov says:

    Marimba Man – good story.


    I like to use their hero’s (spawn of the devil – Lenin) epithet that he used to describe most of them -his own followers i.e. useful idiots.

    And if their hero was still around – his KGB (it’s now the FSB) would eliminate any and all traces of utopian dreaming by rounding them up and hauling them to the State Work Camps (gulag)-just as Stalin did – once the useful idiot class accomplished the initial purges -he then proceeded to purge same useful idiots.

    Biggest problem is the “new left” or as Ronald Radosh calls them “leftover left” of the USA – are stuck in the 1960’s …even the real -old line non-US communists – moved past that era, more or less went away or morphed into other forms (e.g. organized criminals interested in true capitalist exploitation (and very very good at it too)). The “leftovers” -particularly -are still dreaming of the utopia-promised them in the mid 19th century (by another of their favorites – Marx) – that will never be.
    One of their biggest obstacles -to repeating what all other heros of the left did and still do (just not on as large scale as before because it can’t be hidden as in the past) – round up all “counter-revolutionaries” and despose of them a la Pol Pot, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, hitler, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Ceaucescu, soviet trained Arafat, Soviet influenced Saddam, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, “Palestine”, Iranian “Revolutionary Guards”, international jihadofacist movement inside Chechnia, and on and on) – is the Second Amendment and an armed civilized nation that will defend itself if/when necessary (can anyone name one of aforementioned nations that allowed its citizens the right to keep and bear arms).

    What I wonder about is when will the current forms of Hollywood, the MsM, academia and all other neo-coms start admitting (most important to themselves) that their political legacy is responsible for imprisonment, persecution, slave labor, murder, and true oppression -all in the name of “progressive revolution”- on a scale larger than any other in all of human history…?

    Morose drmiltown try this: always stand back a moment and laugh at the neo-coms and the left (neo-coms who don’t yet know they are neo-coms) start here

  18. Madzionist says:

    I would put the paleocons in the neo-communist category. The one time powerhouse in the republican party’s America First heyday, today we see the paleos side-by-side with hard-leftists like Cindy Sheehan and Denise Raimondo.

    The “old left” isolationist/protectionists are not the capital C communists of Sheehan and Code Pink, but they are a big anti-war, anti-free trade, anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant.

    They are actually closer to being National Socialists than Communists, but the dramatic shift of the Buchananites from keynote speaking at the Republican convention to being the darlings of air-America and Camp Cindy make the term neo-commie a perfect fit for this repugnant rabble.


  19. neoconGrunt says:

    How does this sound MZ?

    Paleoconservatives: In opposition to neoconservative internationalism, paleoconservatives reject foreign intervention not directly related to protecting U.S. national interests. In contrast to both neoconservatives and liberal inernationalists, paleconservatives follow the right-wing tradition of defining the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific as the U.S. domain and regard with suspicion entanglements in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

    Their roots can be traced back to the America First Committee, which opposed U.S. involvement in World War II. After the end of the cold war, the paleoconservatives were one of the few political sectors that criticized the new military interventionism, including both the Gulf War and the humanitarian interventions of the 1990s.

    On economic issues such as free trade, the paleocons are nationalists and protectionists, while on most domestic issues their posture is one of reactionary populism infused with elements of racism and nativism. Paleoconservatives accuse neoconservatives of usurping and distorting conservatism in America.

    In plain English, stone-age dinosaurs.

  20. drmiltown says:

    My own thread (#9)led me to ask the question: “What do the other 1% have to gain from leading the 99% into socialism?” The answer is graft. Graft is the only product that socialism produces in abundance. The sheep produce according to their ability while the commisars graft. It is what killed the Soviet. An old saying in Europe is: “Communism is the only thing that could make a Russian hungry or a German lazy.” The inescapeable truth of socialism is that it simply doesn’t fit.

    Nitey nite;

    But again I am wrong. Communism has another abundant product: Prostitiution. The world is flooded with young Eastern European woman escaping the impoverishment of the Former Soviet Union.

  21. drmiltown says:

    Andrew Walden, I like your thread #2. I just re-read it. You are a student of history. That makes you a keeper of the only wisdom that we have; our mistakes.


  22. Madzionist says:

    NeoGrunt, the paleo is much closer to the Left than true conservativism. They actually came to being after WWI as an isolationist movement opposed to joining the League of Nations and stopping the wave of immigration. They achieved prominance before the second world war in the 1920’s. They were then, as they are now, vehemently opposed to immigration, free trade and foreign interventionism.

    They also have always hated Jews. This was best represented in the old times by Nazi lover Charles Lindbergh, radio bigot Father Coughlin, and today by rabid Israel hater, Patrick Buchanan.

    America First was doomed politically by the outbreak of WWII and has never recovered from that collapse.

    They are essentially irrelevent today, but still are a problem because the bogusly call themselves conservative.

  23. J. Bargholz says:

    Mr. Poe,

    Thank you for bringing up this travesty of the English language. I’m sick and tired of hearing left-wing Stalinists described as “liberal/progressives.” They are, in both word and deed, fascist/regressives. “Commie” is too good a name for them.

    I suggest a little social experiment. Ask any leftie if he would impose socialism on the unwilling masses if he were able. The only honest answer is “yes,”
    with varying degrees of severity.

    Stalinists, all.

  24. Rightminded says:

    The American Grand Jury neo-com indictment of Tom DeLay, although bad, pales in comparison to the Euro-neo-com international “arrest anyone, anywhere, anytime, for anything because I say�? warrant!

  25. Richard Poe says:

    Marimba Man writes: “A new word for leftists and liberals who are not in the Communist Party? Closet Communists.”

    Closet commies. I like it.

  26. longtall says:

    drmilktoast has it right: “`Neo-communists�? is not sufficiently derogatory, and it is too close to “neo-con�?. I have been calling moonbats Marxists for years, but THEY DON’T GET IT.’

    The object here is to find a name to label the opposition which is inflammatory and derisive but couched in serious political terms. Mr. Poe identified the inherent problem with this, namely, that the opposition will sometimes embrace the term thereby weakening it as a pejorative.

    ‘Neo’anything already smacks as a weak version of the original. ‘Neo-conseravative’ is still deogatory in liberal circles but has been embraced over time. So ‘neo’ is good, but ‘communist’ is just tired.

    Because ‘communist’ is so outdated, it is appealing as an insult only to the Hard Right. The typical person (a.k.a. the target market of this effort to brand the Left as politcally radioactive) is going to view ‘neo-communist’ as less than threatening, dispite how they may feel about communism itself, few if any people are actually going to make the desired negative connection. ‘Neo-communist’ means about as much to a fence-sitting American as ‘anarcho-syndicalism’.

    Maybe you haven’t noticed but communist figures such as Che Guevara and even (ironically) Castro are uber-hip (which I personally see as posturing, but these are the very same folks that Horowitz is targeting: the ill informed fence-sitters). It’s all about irony these days.

    So, I would recommend a name that resonates fear in the hearts of the middle of the road voter.

    * ‘Neo-liberal’ is a good one that I am suprised has not been used already considering how much ridicule the neo-cons have taken these last five years. Or maybe they haven’t noticed, as drmilk points out.

    * ‘Neo-passivist’ sounds like ultra-wuss, peacenik

    * ‘Neo-capitulators’ to bring in the ‘soft on terror’ angle

    * ‘Pelosi-crats’

    The main point here is that the Cold War is over and so is it’s lingo. If you are going to re-brand the opposition you might as well be original and hip about it.

  27. Richard Poe says:

    On another thread, longtall wrote to Steven Plaut: “What is your deal with Bolsheviks anyway? It’s little more than nostalgia at this point.”

    Now longtall writes: “Because ‘communist’ is so outdated, it is appealing as an insult only to the Hard Right.”

    Longtall, I sense a persistent theme in your posts. You don’t want people to label communists by their proper name.

    May I ask why?

    Please don’t respond by telling me it’s old-fashioned, nostalgic, un-hip, passé or anything else of that nature to call people communists. In case you haven’t noticed, cultivating hipness is not one of my priorities.

    I would much rather be accurate than hip.

  28. ForNow_ says:

    Nouveau Rouge?

  29. longtall says:

    Well, if accuracy is your goal, then ‘communist’ should be even less appealing to you. ‘Socialism’ the political theory is much closer to actual left-wing ideals than is communism (the Marxist utopian economic model) which is not even a political doctrine. Think of the difference between ‘democracy’ and ‘capitalism’. Anti-democratic (e.g. socialist) is far more insidious than anti-capitalism (e.g. communism). Socialism is also much more vague and wishy-washy than is communism which was defined during the Cold War as being strict and authoritarian.

    While I personally would not mind being called either socialist or communist (or anarcho-syndicalist for that matter) it seems to me that the typical person would reject ‘neo-communist’ as over-reaching, while ‘neo-socialist’ has a little more sting to it.

    But it’s your marketing campaign, do what you like.

  30. Madzionist says:

    Marx Light?

  31. Richard Poe says:

    longtall writes: “[I] personally would not mind being called either socialist or communist (or anarcho-syndicalist for that matter)…”

    Why wouldn’t you mind? Are you, in fact, a communist?

  32. longtall says:

    RP- This is School Ground 101, ‘sticks and stones’ and so on. Namecalling is so far removed from actual discussion that it simply does not matter.

  33. Mr. Beamish says:

    #15 Marimba Man

    The perennial CP-USA candidate for President from the end of World War 2 up until the mid 1960s is quoted as having stopped running for President because “the Democratic Party had adopted all of my political platform.”

    Richard Poe is looking in the right place for Communists.

  34. Richard Poe says:

    longtall writes: “[I] personally would not mind being called either socialist or communist (or anarcho-syndicalist for that matter)…�?

    Richard Poe responds: “Why wouldn’t you mind? Are you, in fact, a communist?”

    To which longtall replies: “RP- This is School Ground 101, ’sticks and stones’ and so on. Namecalling is so far removed from actual discussion that it simply does not matter.”

    Sorry, I’m not sure I understood your reply.

    Are you or are you not a communist?

  35. Madzionist says:

    Longtall, it took awhile for you to snap, but your confession to being a communist finally has come thanks to Richard’s timely interrogation. Now that you are out of the closet, it’s time to correct your errors in explaining socialism vs. communism.

    Socialism is a precursor, or transitional phase, for a nation to be converted in stages from one form of government to utopian communism. It is a means to an end but not an end by any means.


  36. longtall says:

    You asked me why I do not mind being called ‘socialist’, ‘communist’ or ‘anarcho-syndicalist’. The reason I do not mind being called any of those things is for the same reason I do not mind being called ‘fatty-fatty-stinky-pants’ or ‘bean-stalk’. It’s childish.

    Within this discussion of How to Label the Left, I thought it best to point out that none of these labels bother me. I thought it was relevant. Apparently not.

  37. Richard Poe says:

    longtall writes: “[I] do not mind being called ’socialist’, ‘communist’ or ‘anarcho-syndicalist’… for the same reason I do not mind being called ‘fatty-fatty-stinky-pants’ or ‘bean-stalk’. It’s childish.”

    Well, here’s the difference. I really don’t care whether or not you are a “stinky-pants” or a “bean-stalk.” However, I would like very much to know whether or not you are a communist.

    Are you?

  38. longtall says:

    No, Richard, I am not a communist.

  39. Richard Poe says:

    longtall writes: “I am not a communist.”

    How then would you describe your politics?

  40. ForNow_ says:

    Talk about “on-message.” It’s rhetoric lost in its own thespianism. All that longtall cares about is trying to convey behaviorally — and self-damningly — the impression that it’s silly or childish to ask whether a person agrees with communism, stalinism, maoism, or any of those things.

  41. longtall says:

    As I mentioned before, communism is an economic theory and not a political doctrine. Regarding my own personal economic model, I advocate a tight monetary policy and flexible fiscal policies. I think the US could stand to be more creative in terms of industrial policy (e.g. comprehensive incentives for high-tech and the sciences).

    So, Fornow, I disagree with the command and control aspects of the utopian Marxist economic model because it stifles innovation, leads to shortage and wasted rescources and almost competely guarantees an energy crisis.

    Since this blog is called ‘Moonbat Central’ and this thread is about ‘How to Label the Left with Neo-Pejorative’ I doubt very seriously that my personal politcal views are of any interest whatsoever to you, Richard, beyond providing you with talking points that will no doubt end in your labeling me with a cultural or political sterotype.

    That said, I am a loyal opponent to the Administration.

  42. Carl2 says:

    Does calling people “neo-Communists” demonstrate one’s awareness that the Cold War has been over for about 20 years?

  43. Madzionist says:

    I think I have the perfect word for a leftist not yet prepared to be called a communist: longtall.


  44. Richard Poe says:

    longtall writes: “I disagree with the command and control aspects of the utopian Marxist economic model because it stifles innovation, leads to shortage and wasted resources and almost competely guarantees an energy crisis.”

    You forgot to mention that the “command and control aspects” of communism killed over 100 million innocent civilians during the course of the 20th century.

    This oversight is characteristic of “Third Way” leftists, who criticize Soviet-style communism only for its inefficiency, not for its cruelty.

  45. longtall says:

    MZ- As I mentioned before, I am more than prepared to be called a communist, if it helps you.

  46. Madzionist says:

    Longtall, it doesn’t help me but it does disappoint me. When did you choose communism? What was it – or who was it – that made you believe that communism was the right ideology for you?

    I’m just curious.


  47. Richard Poe says:

    Poe: “[I] would like very much to know whether or not you are a communist. Are you?”

    longtall: “No, Richard, I am not a communist.”

    Poe: “How then would you describe your politics?”

    longtall: “As I mentioned before, communism is an economic theory and not a political doctrine. Regarding my own personal economic model… etc. etc. etc.”

    Dear longtall:

    I asked you to describe your politics. You responded by pointing out that economic theories should not be confused with politics, then shared with me some of your opinions on economic policy, leaving my question about your politics unanswered.

    If this is not evasion, then what is it?

    A person does not practice evasion unless he has something to hide. Let’s cut to the chase. What are you hiding? What exactly is it about your politics that you are loathe to reveal on this blog?

  48. Publius says:

    Communism is Lenin’s application of Marxism plain and simple. To call the Left just socialists doesn’t take into account their dark side which resembles, hell is, Communism. Their use of the word “progressive” for example, which Communists have called themselves from the get-go. Their use of obfuscation, and euphemism, and false accusation, and front organizations. These are the marks of Communism and the mark of the American Left. So, yes they are indeed socialists, but they are far more nefarious than that. They also display other traits of Communism, such as redistribution of wealth and class warfare. So Marxist or Communist works for me, but never just simply Socialists.

  49. Richard Poe says:

    Fellow Moonbatters:

    It appears that our discourse with longtall has ended, due to circumstances beyond my control.

    The last comment he submitted failed to appear in the moderation queue, though I did receive a copy of it via e-mail. I asked longtall by e-mail to re-submit his message, but now, over an hour later, no new message has appeared from him, so I must assume that a glitch of some sort is blocking him.

    I’ve heard it said that there are no accidents. Everything happens for a reason.

    No doubt, longtall’s sudden withdrawal from our blog is for the best. It seems he had already been banned from MBC anyway, by deputy managing editor Jacob Laksin. That’s why his messages were going to the moderation queue instead of straight to the comment thread.

    Below is his final message to MBC, posted word-for-word as I received it via e-mail, spelling and grammatical errors included.

    Farewell, longtall. I can’t say we’ll miss you. But we may think of you from time to time. More likely not. 😀

    – Richard Poe

    The Last Post of Comrade Longtall

    longtall says:
    October 21st, 2005 at 4:32 pm

    I am a loyal opponent of the Administration. In general terms, I am pragmatist, fiscal moderate with liberal social values. I take certain positions on issues but these tend to be rather arcane and not at all contraversial and will bore you.

    As for the exciting stuff:

    * I think that having Saddam Hussein removed from power is a good thing although I think the US made a series of serious policy blunders along the way.

    * I am a pragmatist that thinks that since we are already in Iraq we have to live with our mistakes and work to correct them, no matter how long it takes.

    * I support a permanent (that’s right, permanent) presence in Iraq to insure regional security, to act as a deterant to Iran and to help insure access to cheap oil for the long term.

    * Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. As a New Yorker who counts friends among the dead I am personally offended each time I hear Cheney or others try to finesse the link.

    * I support civil unions, marriage or whatever it takes to allow gay couples to make medical decisions for one another, be beneficiary, tkae out insurance policies, qualify for home loans or any of the other things afforded to straight couples. The only thing a married gay couple is going to do to society it to raise the property values of the neighborhoods to which they move. Best. Neighbors. Ever.

    * As for party affliation, while I tend to be center-left, I consider the two major parties to about as different from one another as two regional offices of the same accounting firm.

    * I think politics (but not policy) has gotten polarized, in no small measure from the efforts of MoonBat Central and other sites like it, that revel in hatred and accrimony. I got tired of the liberal blogs that talked only about ‘W’ being a facsist or about how big his ears are, so I decided to come see how the other side lives. You guys are exactly as boring and predictable as the liberals. Perhaps a little more excitable, but in no way more or less cavilier with the articles you use as ‘supporting evidence’ of a preconcived notion.

    * This site is a pep rally, not a forum. My interest here is mainly to see what holds the interest of the Hard Right, to jump in to make points about accuracy, and occasionally to make fun of Bargholz.

    If you have any particular policy questions for me, I am happy to answer them. I doubt I will get more than ridicule and labels, but here is your rare chance to find out how a non-barking liberal thinks, without all of the bs.

    Posted by longtall, October 21st, 2005 at 4:32 pm

  50. Publius says:

    A moment of silence for longstall.


    “* I think politics (but not policy) has gotten polarized, in no small measure from the efforts of MoonBat Central and other sites like it”

    This is not only telling, but sooooooo on the mark…translation: Before Conservatives started fighting back everything was soooooo serene.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!