Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Oh My!

Whoever said that nothing is certain except death and taxes made a glaring oversight. It’s also certain that whenever anyone proposes genuine change, they’re going to be branded communist, socialist, and/or Marxist (not to mention liberal, of course). If Karl Marx never accomplished anything else with his life, he at least bequeathed American reactionaries a handy epithet or two to hurl.

These epithets were hurled at labor organizers in the Thirties, some of whom were threatened, attacked and even killed for daring to demand better working conditions. They were hurled in the Sixties at hippies who rejected mindless materialism and peaceniks who protested the Viet Nam involvement. They were hurled in the Fifties at anyone who did anything to show that they were alive. And now, naturally, they’re being hurled at the protesters of Occupy Wall Street.

You won’t have to worry, though, about such labels being applied to the Tea Party – in fact, they’re quite often the ones doing the applying.  The Tea Party’s main objective isn’t genuine change; it’s undoing the changes wrought, or that they believe to have been wrought, by the Obama administration. Their much-ballyhooed “anger” is largely an irrational reaction to a mythical tax increase and a mythical version of a healthcare bill they haven’t read and don’t understand. (My favorite recent example of how the punditocracy brainwashes the masses is that 25% of Republicans expressed fear the 2012 election will be stolen for Obama by ACORN – which disbanded more than a year ago!)

Occupy Wall Street, however, at least has a beef rooted in reality: the old trickle-down economic model is not working, has never worked, and is not working even more now. The last quarter of 2010 was the most profitable for large businesses since the government began keeping records on them more than 60 years ago. Recession? What recession? The richest one percent of Americans have QUINTUPLED their wealth in the past few years. You really believe it’s because they’re smarter or work harder than the rest of us? Good! I have a rainbow I’ve been wanting to sell.

Yet a tenth of American workers remain unemployed and the number of people applying for food stamps sets a new record every month. Corporations are basking in cash and often paying no taxes on it, their CEOs are getting obscenely huge bonuses – and at the same time they’re making massive cuts to their workforce and outsourcing jobs to places where labor is much cheaper. Oil companies post record profits, but fuel prices are stuck at well over three bucks a gallon.  Washington, we have a problem. But meanwhile, rather than vote on a jobs bill backed by the current president, Congress votes on recognizing “In God We Trust” as the national motto. (There is a suspicion, not without cause, that all of this is part of a scheme to thwart Obama’s re-election, using American workers and consumers as political pawns.)

It’s probably clear to most people that there is no simple solution to these problems. It’s clear enough to the demonstrators, and so they aren’t proposing simple solutions.  (It is not true, however, that they’ve proposed no remedial measures at all.) This makes them all the more subject to vilification by a media elite accustomed to thinking in black and white. (For an amusing and yet nauseating tabulation of the media’s spin on OWS, including the common mantra that the participants “don’t know what they want”, see here.) There’s an interesting principle at work here, and so your Professor of Propaganda is going to give it a name.

P.O.P.’S LAW OF INVERSE BENEFIT: The greater the number of people who stand to benefit from a particular movement, the more intense the smear campaign against it will be.

The Tea Party is a movement perpetrated mostly by a relatively small number of  right-wing extremists. From the beginning the media trumpeted it as a grassroots revolution, greatly exaggerating its numbers and not only giving extensive coverage to its rallies, but advance notice of its planned events, encouraging the public to attend. The attendees said that Obama is illegitimate, that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, that he has hiked their taxes, that he wants to institute death panels and destroy the nation and outlaw fishing. And oh yeah, that global warming is a hoax. And with a perfectly straight face, the media gave them an unlimited spotlight and microphone.

Occupy Wall Street has said that greed and corruption are strangling the American dream. And after ignoring them as long as possible, the media met them with ridicule and contempt. Which included, of course, the commie/socialist/Marxist syndrome – and just to hedge bets, the contradictory label of Nazi was thrown in as well. (Meanwhile, the Tea Party crowd has complained about the media’s “double standard”. You think I’m joshing?)

Are there any communists/socialists/Marxists involved in OWS? Beyond a doubt. And I’d wager that none are the anti-American monsters the right-wingers have them pegged for. Unlike the Tea Party, Occupy Wall street has an extremely broad base of support; it would be miraculous if there weren’t any communists/socialists/Marxists involved. But to claim that they represent the heart of the movement is a meme that only Fox and its diehard fans would buy into.  If you look long and hard at a Tea Party rally, you’ll spot an occasional dark face in the crowd; but would anyone alive characterize the Tea Party as an African-American activist group?

Because of its broad appeal, Occupy Wall Street attracts all kinds of people-except, apparently, right-wing extremists, who seem pretty unified in demonizing it. The ones who attend the demonstrations seem to do so incognito, with the intent of inciting violence, provoking arrests and in general trying to bring down the PR quotient of the actual movement. Even James O’Keefe, the notorious creator of deceptively doctored videos, was spotted at a rally. So his next little masterpiece should be premiering any day now.

Such a diverse group as the Occupy movement, alas, is inevitably going to have its share of unsavory characters along for the ride. When a protester in New York was sexually assaulted (bear in mind that these people are camping out in public parks), OWS organizers responded swiftly, putting in place measures to prevent such attacks in the future. The punditocracy also responded swiftly, seemingly touting the incident as proof that OWS is just one big rape camp. Meanwhile, a handful of Jew-bashers in the crowd prompted a major media narrative that OWS is anti-Semitic. The hilarious thing is that many who make such a claim also vehemently protest the (also unfair, perhaps) characterization of the Tea Party as racist, even though the instances of Tea Party racism are FAR more extensive, and apparently the sentiment even extends to its leadership.

Whether or not you ultimately decide to support Occupy Wall Street (or the Tea Party), I’d like to humbly suggest that perhaps ANY movement deserves more careful consideration than Commie Tourette’s. It betrays the sorry lack of imagination that is such a major plague in the public forum. No, I take that back. It isn’t that imagination is utterly lacking. Take a look at some of the justifications people cite for using these labels and you’ll see that imagination is running amok. (Hey, if Michael Moore promotes it, it’s gotta be bright red, right? And by the way, since he makes a lot of money, that means he’s a hypocrite, because we all know that the message of OWS is that the rich are all evil bastards, right?) The problem is that it’s being used to attack rather than offer constructive input.

So if you are among those who habitually respond with the communist/socialist/Marxist chant, I’d like to issue a challenge. Try to be more creative in your insults. The old ones are causing people’s eyes to glaze over. In concocting more original epithets, you might inspire more people to pay attention to your message, if any, and that might spark a productive dialogue, which might lead to some creative solutions to the problems we all face regardless of ideological differences. Or if nothing else, you might become really skilled at venomous insults and launch a career like Rush Limbaugh’s, trashing “lubberals” and military veterans for a hefty paycheck that will land you in the top one percent.

So please, get imaginative with those smears. You just might start a revolution.


  1. Not up to your usual standards here, Professor. You’re smearing all TP members while you say that smearing all OWS members is wrong.

    “The Tea Party movement spontaneously formed in 2009 from the reaction of the American people to fiscally irresponsible actions of the federal government, misguided “stimulus” spending, bailouts and takeovers of private industry.”

    OWS formed in response to a call for action by a Canadian group. From Day One, they have engaged in blocking the lawful use of public areas.

    Yes, some people affiliated with TP have said the things you mention.

    Most people affiliated with OWS have participated in illegal actions, including ongoing trespass and violent protests.

    If your point is that we need to be fair when talking about an organization, then be fair when talking about an organization.

    • Wrong twice. “Most” OWS protesters have not been guilty of violence, by a long shot. Breaking the law – well yeah, that’s a given, considering what occupying entails. And I am not “smearing” ALL Tea folks. In fact, I’m not smearing any of them – just reporting their own utterances and actions – by LEADERS and KEY SPEAKERS of the movement, not just fringe elements. The thing you’re neglecting to consider is that there is a huge gulf between what the Tea Party claims to stand for (things that a good many of us could actually support) and what it actually focuses on: namely, a delusional hatred of President Obama. More to follow on this topic shortly. Stay tuned.

    • “The Tea Party movement spontaneously formed in 2009 from the reaction of the American people to fiscally irresponsible actions of the federal government…”

      I know you’ve probably heard this comeback a million time and are convinced that it isn’t true, but how was the government (led by Obama) “irresponsibly” spending our money after the economic collapse of 2008?

      The saga started when GW refused to tax those who could have footed much more of the bill to pay for two (approximately) trillion dollar quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, whether one believes that both of those wars were necessary or not, The fact is, that the money to pay for them had to come from somewhere. And after the crash of 2008 the only organized entity capable of loaning hundreds of billions to TBTF institutions was the federal government—due to its unique ability to access humongous sums of money via taxes.

      Do you really think that, any of our large companies which were still reeling from the economic blows that they suffered, would have been willing to risk hundreds of Billions of their own money to prop up the rest of the economy? Apparently GW thought government action was alright after trying to help Enron stay afloat with government aid (including billions of dollars)—a direct effort by the US government to keep it from collapsing. Do you really think any President could have prevented such a collapse without doing exactly the same, or very much the same, kind of thing?— if not, with the help of who and with what?

      The reality is that the Tea party was formed to establish extreme right wing policies, by spreading the myth that Obama cared nothing about excess spending. But as I write this today (in Feb. of 2018) the real truth has become evident–the same far right caucus that squeezed the balls of congress during Obama’s Administration still squeezes its balls today? By passing Trump’s budget Republicans have shown that they care not a whit about attempting to curb spending—especially if that attitude will help keep them in the game while Trump spend Trillions more by 2025 and beyond—then what?

      Obviously, Tea Parties myths were deliberately concocted to scare an already financially spooked public into voting for conservative Republicans. But again, the same supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans today, now show us that they really care nothing at all about reducing the deficit in any significant way–just ask the CBO and/or many other independent fiscal analysts.

      The Tea party is a deliberate attempt at uneeded political invention that thrives on discrediting Democrats no matter what they do. Even though the TP itself includes many ordinary people who say, “Keep your government hands off my Social Security!–the same people are apparently not aware that Social Security is only possible because it is a government program. And, the many who were angry and afraid about Obamacare, didn’t truly dislike the bill of their own free will, they started disliking it only after being told one lie after another, until they were ultimately convinced that the ACA is a bad fit for the middle class? i.e. they disliked it because the were TOLD they disliked it after absorbing one negative propagandistic cowpie in the face, after another, until they began to actually think that “the tea party must be right?

  2. The way I have seen it conservatives are not so worried about healthcare per say after all it fits in rather well with the constitution, life liberty () and justice for all (just plug in free health in the middle) they also don’t much care for seeing people dumped outside free hospitals because they haven’t got insurance
    It’s that they have seen Britain and Europe and believe it will create a dependency culture and lead even further to full state benefits.
    For instance in Britain if you are a teenage working class girl and fall pregnant, the state gives you child benefit for every child you have, if you have three you get a house rented for you by the government with three bedrooms, your local tax is paid and in addition you get child Tax credits plus free Nappies (diapers) and the whole house furnished.
    All this in cash alone amount to around £350 ($564.00) per week just the spending money, this has created an underclass of people ,uneducated teenagers whose only ambition when they leave school is to have as many children as possible, some of these people have not worked for most of their lives!
    In Britain the Uber Rich and the middle classes go private anyway, they don’t like waiting or being sick with the great unwashed, but they could if they weren’t fussy
    No, Rather they are concerned that dependency on the state will lead to ever increasing laziness , the destruction of the work ethic and the absence of the fear that is essential to get people off the backsides and earn a decent living.

    • This is the kind of excuse that American “conservatives” generally give for opposing something that might benefit the public. But surely it’s possible to intervene to prevent people from dying in the streets without turning into a “welfare state”.

      • You misunderstand me I am not defending their position even although I am a tory. I am just pointing out what happened in England after the NHS was introduce by Bevin in 1945
        In Britain the National Health Service was created for just the noble reasons of which you speak , unfortunately it was found to be a little difficult to separate the gratuitous and deliberate acts of procreation from medical health in general i.e. : Having babies is a health issue so as a health issue in a country with a free health service having them and caring for them becomes free by definition, then of course everything to do with their care becomes a health issue too , hence a free cot, then free Diapers , then a free house
        Then a welfare State

        By this means Britain discovered that a system devised for nothing more than the noble act of preventing people dying in the street as you put it ,turned over time into a benefits nightmare from which we have yet to discover a way out.
        You must admit they have a point, you can’t exactly say that we are introducing free healthcare for all, but not for babies or their carers (mothers) or people who have babies just to work the system and so on and so forth it would be unenforceable and be a law against babies which would be absurd
        No! Then is the answer to your question, no it isn’t, !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s