There have indeed always been socialists who have hated and utterly opposed totalitarian tyranny – the first (and last) postwar Social Democrat Prime Minister of Bavaria (who wrote the Bavarian Constitution) springs to mind.

As do anti Communist socialist intellecutals such as Sydney Hook.

However, there have always been too many “democratic” socialists like Stephen Wilkinson – who rather than hate bloodsoaked criminals like R. Castro (who has been at his brother’s side engaged in every crime, for the best part of 60 years) slobber all over them.

What would a genuine “democratic and civil liberties respecting” Guardian newspaper be like?

Well it would denounce (not once in a while – but as a general practice) G. B. Shaw, H.G. Wells and the other Fabian socialists for a start.

Partly for their utter contempt for ordinary people – for their attempt to smuggle in socialism by the back door (hardly “democratic”) with their doctrine that whilst elections might continue to exist all the parties should be controlled in such a way that elections did not really matter all that much (that is not just the policy of Harold Laski with his reactionary policies should not be allowed doctrine – it is also the principle of Nancy Pelosi, that a Republican party victory should be tolerated only if the Republican party removes all people who wish to roll-back-social-progress).

But it is a lot more than this. The Fabians – Shaw, Wells and the rest, were quite happy with the calculated murder of millions (indeed tens of millions) of human beings. They said so – in their writings (go look it up) and sometimes were even filmed saying it.

Those who support the murder of millions are people who should be opposed.

But the Guardian (most of the time) treats these monsters as wonderful, nice people who are hero figures. As does the rest of left culture (the BBC and so on).

It is not ignorance (they know what these evil people stood for) it is wickedness – they, basically, stand for the same totalitarianism.

And it is not just Britain – the Marxists, the open totalitarians, would be shunned and DENOUNCED by a genuine “democrat left”.

But look at those who have taken over the Democratic party (at least at the national level and in some States) treat open supporters of Castro, Mao and the rest.

They treat them as FRIENDS.

The eveidence is overwhelming and the associations go back decades.

A true “anti totalitarian” left would have nothing to do with Barack Obama and his comrades – in fact it would denounce them, and drive them away.

Instead (both to the British and American left) Obama and co are perfectly acceptable – indeed their only complaint is that he is not leftist enough (in his deeds if not in his beliefs).

Why is the corrupt leftist E. Holder Attorney General?

True he lets Comrades off the hook (such as the Black Panthers – no voter intimidation charges) and seeks to prosecute “reactionaries”.

But why not, say, Bill Ayers for AG?

Do not laugh.

Bill Ayers is a respected figure on the left (including the Guardian).

The Weather Underground was a Vietnam War protest movement – they did not murder people.

Of course they did murder people – and not just back then, the last “job” (that I know of) was holding up a truck in 1981 (was Barack Obama really “eight years old” in 1981?) and murdering the guard – so they could steal (sorry “redistribute” – to themselves) some money, during which the Weather Underground operatives shot dead a security guard.

But let us ignore all that.

Bill Ayers is a wonderful man – and a patriot.

After all he said “guilty as a Hell, free as a bird, you have got to love America”.

See – he said “love America” so he must be patriot.

A perfect man to write the main texts for American teacher training.

Which is exactly what he was given a job doing.

I am sure that Mr Stephen Wilkinson thinks that “Social Justice Education” is a fine work .

To be among that group, I think one also has to have a very weak grasp of history too.

Natalie:

I was reminded of Bertolt Brecht’s line about dissolving the people and electing another. I suppose it would fit since Brecht was a Marxist too.

In the old days, Marxists used to excuse the power and privileges of their elites by claiming they were a temporary, regrettable but unavoidable necessity, which would disappear when the forces of counter-revolution had been routed. Now, at least here in LatAm, they do not even bother with such pretence. The new rhetoric refers to “strong leadership” and implies that the “strong leaders” deserve all the privileges they get (apples have been scientifically proven, comrades, to be necessary to the constitution of a pig). A recent published interview with an Argentinian “leftist intellectual” I blogged about went so far as to say that the lower classes, or plebs (now referred to as “historically marginalised sectors”) need nothing more than “to be recognised, to feel that they are appreciated and loved”, and also to have “regular contact with their leaders”. It’s pretty much beyond parody (which makes blogging about this stuff quite hard work, and depressing at times).

Now I’ve found it, it is pretty revolting:

“he is putting into place a system of delegated authority that requires a different kind of followership”

“A different kind of followership” indeed! I’ve heard religious people talk about “discipleship” in a similar tone, only less oleaginous.

Yet it also quaint – one is surprised that there are still people putting out this sort of stuff. Oh well, quaint goes nicely with an hereditary succession.