I ran across an article on just that subject of my title in the past few days, probably on NRO. Its thesis as I recall, was that the fall of the Soviet Union was a detriment to countering the domestic communists-by-other-names. It was relatively easy to ridicule their defense of communism as a utopian form of government, when the Soviet daily failures were there for all to see. Once the CCCP was gone, we lost our primary negative example.

Dagnabbit, you baited me with this diary, you scoudrel. I should be in bed by now; instead you have sucked me back into the mix. Good job, though.

And then you will see where Obama & Pelosi get there talking points:

Program of the Communist Party: http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/758

Communists support a health care system that is comprehensive and free with guaranteed access to quality care whenever needed. But a health care system is more than just medical care.

Health care also means prevention of occupational and community environmental hazards and infectious conditions that threaten people’s health. In addition, the lack of affordable housing has become a major public health problem.

A comprehensive health care system means that all health workers in hospitals and community clinics must reflect the populations they are serving—we support the aggressive application of affirmative action programs for equal access to medical, nursing, and other professional training and education programs.

Organized labor, while protecting its own hard-won benefits, is beginning to see the need and necessity to unite with other national and community-based organizations in the fight for a national health system that provides quality, guaranteed health benefits for everyone.

SOUNDS A LIKE LIKE HR 3200??? Heh…..

Your mention of Gramsci, I believe, is an extrememly important part of the USCom working plan who gets very little of the credit for where we are. Gramsci’s (a Leninist type communist) lasting contribution to marxism is on the practical side. His work was to appliy it specifically to destrcution of Western culture.

Essentailly his ideas are based on ‘cultrual momentum’ (or hegemony), in that each cultrure has certain values and structures that curb short term lurches from the norm. Western culture values are based on the principles of Christianity and free market capitalism. For Marxism to flourish amongst the middle class of the West (the most numerous beneficiaries of the culture, and most stable), those pillars on which Western society is built must be weakened and destroyed.

The relentless attack upon religion, the economic system and the ‘equality’ of all cutures (multiculti) are his legacies. Look how the Leftists have been steadfastly undermining the traditional values of America (the last bastion of Western culture). As examples of gramscian tactics, look at the reduced rate of religious adherance ( and the corruption of Scripture within the churches), the attack on Free markets (i.e. moore’s latest screed on how capitalism is evil), obama’s world apology tour and his insistence that America sucks (refusal to accept American Exceptionalism) and the beginnings of the indocrination thanks to the NEA. This has been going on for 80 years. Beck has been discussing the Progressives who use Gramscian tactics.

Marx and Hegel are the philosophers, Lenin et.al. are the soul of the movement, Alinsky is the activist/organizer, but Gramsci was the staegist who came up with the most potent idea to destroy the West.

please will you also talk about Frederich Engels, as he apparently from my understanding edited Das Kapital after Marx’s death, and did the next 2 versions. It seems to me that the Revolutionary Communist Paty in the US has looked to Engels as their hero. Here in my area, Charlottesville Virginia, home of UVA, has a website for Revolutionary Communist Party of Charlottesville-

http://www.revolutionarycommunistparty.org/

Van Jones came here to meet Tom Periello, 5th district Rep., which includes Charlottesville, to highlight a house that was “greened.” It got a new waterless hot water heater, and all the cracks were fixed in the house. I call it “Cash for Cracks.”

Lenin actually started the authoritarian violence in the USSR.

As for Obama, he strikes me more or less as a faculty lounge-type socialist, who at an earlier age probably got high and talked about how really cool a revolution would be and at a later age just hung around with folks who sung the praises of Che and frequented the same restaurants. In other words, Obama is a Van Jones Democrat.

Other than that, fine work.

Good points in your comment, as well. Schools no longer teach about communist violence because so many of those fine institutions are run by those sympathetic to that insanity. Besides, the similarities between the passivity some showed toward communism and the same shown today toward terrorists is a little unsettling in some corners.

We’ve all read gale stokes-sheman wannabe incarnate.

Obama isn’t even all this bright. He’s a wannabe Pres only.

by Paul Rahe, (it’s sitting there over on the stack on top of Hayward’s new “Age of Reagan”), excellent diary by the way.

where communists seized power were the places where Marx and Engels didn’t think it could take root.

As for me personally, while it satisfies my intellectual curiosity to know the intricate details, for practical purposes I use the Hayek method: if it is tyrannical kill it, and that includes soft tyrannies.

Good post as usual Art.