In response to an earlier comments, Orwell's experiences with the International Brigade in Catalonia -- and his book about his time with the POUM and the anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish Civil War is written from a left wing perspective.

From Chapter 8 onwards he describes the systematic 'coup' of the Marxist-Leninists sponsored by Stalin through the Comintern (who subsequently had almost all of the agents who did his direty work bumped off) and the paranoia and slaughter that they visited on their own side. Some in the European left called it the "Tragedy of Catalonia," but more fundamentally it was the point at which the European left began to realise that they were not only in a fight to the death against facism, but also against Soviet style Communism (the Molotove Ribbentrop pact was pretty helpful in this regard too.)

It is something that many in the US simply don't know, the depth of the loathing that Socialists and Social Democrats across Europe had for the Soviet aligned communist parties (there were also Euro-Communists who had little time for the Soviet liners (Georges Marchais and the French PCF were unreconstructed sovier line communists and were crippled as a result.))

The moderate European left was also, to a degree, sponsored by the US and NATO. Few in the United States realise how pad the position of workers was in the interwar period, the depth of poverty in much of Western Europe. However, starting with Eisenhower there was a broad recognition in many aspects of European foreign policy that the moderate lefts antipathy to the Soviets was strong, while their ideas for a Social democracy helps Europe resist the pressure from the East, not weaken it. Remember, in the darkest parts of the Cold War many of the US' strongest European allies had Social-Democrats in power.

The Iraq issue has not been able to get a lead banner at Salon.com for quite some time, and I don't think Glenn has ever gotten a lead banner that I can remember. At good old salon.com feminism is still the lead issue of the day.

mr_confused:

Also, the Democratic party is owned by the same people that own the Republican party. They get swapped back and forth to simulate change so as to keep the masses from growing agitated.

Actually, two things are true: (1) Althought the primary financial interests that support the two parties have significant overlap, their core corporate support comes from different sectors, and this has been true pretty much as far back as you want to go.

(2) Although corporations have far too much say in the Democratic Party, there is still a very significant difference between the two parties, which can be seen quite clearly in the voting records in Congress. In fact, polarization between the parties has risen sharply since the 1970s. The VoteView website (voteview.com) has the background data and the analysis behind this, which is foregrounded in their book Polarized America (polarizedamerica.com).

The problem of corporate influence is indeed one of the biggest ones we face. But that's all the more reason to understand it more clearly, and in detail. For example, the TelCo's are using the TelCo union, Communications Workers of America (CWA) as their stalking horse inside the Democratic Party to fend off efforts to establish net neutrality in law. Just yesterday, MyDD was reporting that CWA managed to kill a resolution favoring net neutrality at the California Democratic Party Convention. They did this by getting it assigned to the Labor Committee, rather than going directly from the Resolutions Committee to the floor. Now, however, it's not clear if this was actually the case:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/28/22737/4360

The point is, if everyone who recognized the long odds we're fighting against got angry and dedicated to fighting back, and fighting back smart, rather than just throwing up their hands and saying, "They're both the same," we would have a heckuva lot better chance of turning things around.

One of them, anyone. MacK makes a lot of good ones in "Homage to Catalonia" (hmmm...catchy title!) But the one I'm referring to is this:

starting with Eisenhower there was a broad recognition in many aspects of European foreign policy that the moderate lefts antipathy to the Soviets was strong, while their ideas for a Social democracy helps Europe resist the pressure from the East, not weaken it. Remember, in the darkest parts of the Cold War many of the US' strongest European allies had Social-Democrats in power.

(Actually, it started before Eisenhower. But Eisenhower cemented it as a bipartisan recognition.) The isolationationist Old Right was bitterly opposed to this. They could hardly give a fig about Europe. They were all obsessed with fighting the Commies, all right--the Commies in the US State Dept (meaning Democrats), or in China, which also, via the "Who Lost China?" debate also mean State Department Dems. (Or GOP internationalists, who were even worse, mucking up the partisan demonization machine.)

And yet, this was the key to winning the Cold War. Well, the first key, anyway. There was also jazz, followed by rock'n'roll. But none of that would have mattered if people hadn't been able to eat first. One of the biggest lies of our times is that "Reagan won the Cold War." This is so ludicrous, one hardly knows where to begin. But all one really needs to do is look at the combined productive capacities of the US and it's Western European allies vs. the Soviets and its allies back in the 1950s, and it was already obvious which side would prevail, barring absolutely catastrophic stupidity. Well, believe me, we tried. Vietnam was catastrophic stupidity, but not absolutely catastrophic stupidity. So we won the Cold War anyway. And what cemented Western Europe was the recognition that MacK points to, and actions based upon it. Top of the list: The Marshall Plan (developed by the Commie-ridden State Dept). And Marshall, of course, was redbaited for his troubles as perhaps the #1 man who "lost China." (This is why I say above that it started pre-Eisenhower.)

Ironically, Eisenhower, who appreciated the logic--as MacK points out--and who served under Marshall in WWII, campaigned alongside Joe McCarthy while McCarthy was attacking Marshall. Much like Arlen Specter today, he tolerated vicious partisanship to rally the GOP base, at the same time he invokved bipartisan principles. Of course, there was an enormous difference between the two men. Eisenhower actually believed in the bipartisan principles, and acted on them. But he was still a man divided.