Replies

There have always been rich liberals/leftists. Some sectors of the Right have long promoted (and still do) the idea that Communism is itself a plot of the super rich to consolidate and control all productive property. This is especially evident in such works as W. Cleon Skousen's The Naked Capitalist and Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy I have a copy of both books, and both insist that the entire political Left is nothing but a front for the super rich and their property consolidation scheme.

For that matter, you still have people out there who go on and on about "international bankers" and "the money power." Such rhetoric is traditionally classified as "right wing" because it is anti-Semitic, but if this isn't anti-capitalism, then what is?

Shoot, FR is full of people who think the Left is run by the "private bankers" who "own" the Federal Reserve.

As for why there is no Huey P. Long, that is simple. The rural/populist/Southern socialism of poor whites has always been regarded as "reactionary" rather than "revolutionary." The Left is even more antagonistic to rogue socialists who aren't part of the "family" (like Long, Bryan, Tilghman, Watson, and Father Coughlin) then they are "the rich." Which of course reinforces the notion that the Left is a carefully controlled front and that "real socialism" is the furthest thing from its mind. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact of history that the socialism of poor whites has often been anti-Semitic and bigoted. I wish this were just the invention of leftist historians, but unfortunately it is not. Long wasn't as bad as most white Southern politicians of the day but he was still (as they say) "a man of his time."

Come to think of it, Huey is a hero of Pat Buchanan. Maybe Pat is an advocate of "real socialism?"

The article overlooks a salient fact: the collapse of the Soviet Union. The death of Communism as a viable expression of the totalitarian impulse left only fascism. The “Communists” in China are now fascists — they allow vast accumulations of private wealth, provided the wealthy are politically compliant with the state — and a semblance of a free market — again provided aspects can be made unfree when it serves the interest of the state. The same applies to the Democrats here in the U.S. who have always suffered from the totalitarian impulse: they are now fascists, rather than socialists (whatever it is they call themselves — it seems listening to deBlasio in NYC that they newest word they want to corrupt as “populist”).

Yes, they have, but one important fact has escaped notice: higher income tax rates will not touch the bulk of the fortunes of today’s plutocrats, for the simple reason that the great bulk of the accumulated wealth of Gates, Buffett, Silicon Valley and Wall Street consists of appreciated asset values—not ordinary income.

Exactly. Higher income taxes harm the upper middle class far more than they harm the plutocrats, most of whose wealth comes from capital gains and assets rather than paychecks.

Similarly, excessive environmental and OSHA regulation harms small businesses far more than they hurt major corporations. The latter can afford to pay the overhead, while the time and financial/legal costs involved will break the back of a typical small business. So large corporations often favor these types of regulations which give them a still greater competitive edge over their smaller competitors. A good example of this is how some companies will actually profit from the "Cap and Trade" scheme.