In the Dittohead tradition, an other "Limbistic phrase&

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Amazing how "what I want," is morphed into "what the public wants".
(Nixon was elected president?! How could this happen? I don't know a single person that voted for him!) Aprox 50% of the votes were cast for Bush, yet the election was "stolen," because the I don't know anybody that voted for him.

I used to listen to Rush, and scream at the radio, He WAS, the man I loved to hate.Like Howard Stern, I wanted to hear what he would say next. (to refute it)Rush almost singlehandely revived AM radio.

Supply and demand. Clear channel one (the syndicated radio network that markets O'Riely, Rush, Hannity) doesn't CARE about ideoligy, it cares about RATINGS! You pull in in audience, they put you on the better stations.

This is the hardest part for the left to grasp, with there inherant anti capitalist mindset.
To get an audience, you must first be entertaining.
FIRST! Got that? Talking down to an audience causes channel changing.
Most "intelectuals" are pompass, and full of themselves, and think you are stupid, foolish, evil, or, (BEST CASE) merely ignorant.(if you don't agree with them)

As to "intelectuals" being right wing, the definition of "intelectual", like what "liberal" WAS, has changed. "Intelectual", is now synonimous with "educated liberal." (as opposed to being merely liberal, if you don't have a degree)

Liberal intelectual is redundant, in POPULAR USEAGE.
To be an "intelectual," you are one of the elite. Elites, don't MASS market well. Too small of an audience. The elite, by definition, are a small select group.

Amazing how simple market dynamics are a conspiricy.(to keep "liberal Ideas off the radio)

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

And Hammel, don't confuse dissaproval with condesention. I have met many teachers, and priests that make no bones about the way they feel about your actions, without coming off as "superior".
Being stupid and being bad are two different things. In the typical no should be judged leftist mindset, telling someone they shouldn't have sex outside of marraige is the same as the same as hating based on racism.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Does the term "Evil genius" ring a bell?
Evil, ethical position.---Can be,or not be smart.
Stupid, having little or poor thinking skills.--Can be good or evil.

Hannibal Lechtor. Genius? Yes. Evil? YES!

Darkstar. Evil? NO! Stupic? YES!

When Sen Hannity, Bill O'Riely, or Larry Elder say you are a bad man, they don't mean you SAT scores. They mean your charcter, not your intellect.

[theski]

The problem I have with Hamels train of thought is that IMO The left feels that is their job to tell us (The great unwashed barbarians) that they are right and the 20 million that listen to Rush and Sean are wrong... and even though no will listen to a leftist talk show They are right..

[Pablo Sanchez]

The problem I have with Hamels train of thought is that IMO The left feels that is their job to tell us (The great unwashed barbarians) that they are right and the 20 million that listen to Rush and Sean are wrong... and even though no will listen to a leftist talk show They are right..

People don't listen to Rush for the facts (the man is notoriously dishonest and often just stupid). Objectivity is like pulling punches. If you don't care about informing people, you have the opportunity to appear decisive on the issues. It doesn't matter if Fox News is a government mouthpiece; what matters is that they look as if they are right.

[Joe]

Elitest, elitest, elitest. If you want to hear radio personalities and the like talking down to people, tune in to any rightwing radio station. The holier-than-thou and racist Bill Cunningham, the smug Sean Hannity, "wetbacks" Bill O' Reilly, shock-jock libertarian Howard Stern. All either "elitest" or assholes that get a rise out of being, well, assholes!

Smug to self-important liberals, sure. Smug to normal Americans, hell no. If you listen to any conservative radio programs you'll find that the personalities are quite good at connecting with people; one thing right-wing talk show hosts do excellently these days is populism.

So, to prove that liberals aren't being blackballed from radio, you bring up Chomsky's successful books? Huh?

Nope, to prove that corporations aren't out to get leftist viewpoints, not when they can make money with them.

Capitalists are the only ones that should be making money now? You learn something new everyday.

People who disapprove of the profit motive (and I certainly don't mean all leftists, since many of them do not) like Chomsky have no right to reap the benefits of it without being bloody hypocrites.

They're also interested in hiring stooges that spread propaganda that suits their interests. Limbaugh isn't a self-made man, he was propped up by millions of dollars and advertising from ABC and other corporate entities.

Because Limbaugh makes ABC a lot of money. If, say Al Franken could make a lot of money for ABC he would get a talk show, too.

Furthermore, by employing the 'it's in demand' excuse, you throw away any bullshit claims of a liberal media. Similar crap is happening to the TV networks, too.

Fallacy of composition. Right-wing populists are in demand in talk radio - one part of the media, not the whole damn thing. It's obvious that leftist viewpoints are in demand elsewhere in the media, primarily in print and on the major networks (The West Wing, anyone?).

[Hamel]

Smug to self-important liberals, sure.

Smug to anyone with half a brain. They are using the exact same tactics you are accusing the liberals of and much worse.

Smug to normal Americans, hell no. If you listen to any conservative radio programs you'll find that the personalities are quite good at connecting with people; one thing right-wing talk show hosts do excellently these days is populism.

Connecting with people? I assume you really meant DISconnecting with people, which is the tactic these people apply when confronted with a liberal caller, or someone that offers something they strongly disagree with.

Nope, to prove that corporations aren't out to get leftist viewpoints, not when they can make money with them.

The book industry is a bit free'r than the radio industy, yes.

People who disapprove of the profit motive (and I certainly don't mean all leftists, since many of them do not) like Chomsky have no right to reap the benefits of it without being bloody hypocrites.

The difference between Chomsky and crony-capitlists is quite large. Chomsky has certain issues with profit at all costs. Chomsky isn't killing, harming, ripping off, or ruining someone's life while making monstrous profits. It happens all too often with mega corporations.

Because Limbaugh makes ABC a lot of money. If, say Al Franken could make a lot of money for ABC he would get a talk show, too.

Rush wouldn't be in a position to make anyone money without ABC propping him up in the first place with those millions in cash and advertisements.

Fallacy of composition.

It's your opinion that no justification was provided for the inference.

Right-wing populists are in demand in talk radio - one part of the media, not the whole damn thing.

With the likes of CNN saying out loud that it should "cater" to rightwing viewers (haw haw haw, as if they didn't put the spotlight on Clinton's dick enough). The trend (which has been going on since the Reagan years) is continuing to the conservative end on all fronts.

It's obvious that leftist viewpoints are in demand elsewhere in the media, primarily in print and on the major networks (The West Wing, anyone?).

South Park, anyone?

[NapoleonGH]

At least we liberals are smug and arrogant towards the lower half of the population intellectually. You conservatives have to appeal to the lower half and insult the upper half.

It is as if being an intellectual, ie someone who actually engages their brain once in a while and thinks for themselves, is considered a bad things among you people. How the hell can you expect me not to be condescending to people who actually discredit and mistrust people who are capable and do think. I have never seen an intellectual liberal have a single problem talking in a respectful and honest way with an intellectual conservative, but how can you blame people for being condescending and superior to those who are anti-intellectual, anti-thought, anti-logic.

[Joe]

At least we liberals are smug and arrogant towards the lower half of the population intellectually. You conservatives have to appeal to the lower half and insult the upper half.

That would be a no. The upper half tend to be higher income earners, and higher income earners tend to support Republicans for obvious reasons.

The difference between Chomsky and crony-capitlists is quite large. Chomsky has certain issues with profit at all costs. Chomsky isn't killing, harming, ripping off, or ruining someone's life while making monstrous profits. It happens all too often with mega corporations.

Chomsky is an anarcho-communist, if I'm not mistaken. AnComs reject the profit motive utterly.

With the likes of CNN saying out loud that it should "cater" to rightwing viewers (haw haw haw, as if they didn't put the spotlight on Clinton's dick enough). The trend (which has been going on since the Reagan years) is continuing to the conservative end on all fronts.

Yes, the cable networks, CNN included, tend to be more conservative. The major networks, which have a much larger viewing base, do not.

[Hamel]

Chomsky is an anarcho-communist, if I'm not mistaken. AnComs reject the profit motive utterly.

If he truly is one, then my bad.

[Vympel]

I'm pretty sure Chomsky is an anarchist-only, I don't think he's big on the communist thing. Maybe. I've got no idea actually. Never mind.

[Johonebesus]

The problem is that the majority of the American people are mentally lazy and low minded and, as Napoleon pointed out, have nothing but contempt for academic pursuits. People like Rush because he entertains. People like O'Reilly because he is just an "ordinary Joe" who is always looking for the villain and loves to attack "elitists". Liberals tend to prefer talking about issues, often without making sharp black/white distinctions. This requires more thought than most people are willing to invest. When liberals do go after "villains," it is usually on behalf of minorities, making the majority of Americans feel like the villains. Rush's big success was due in part to a backlash of white Americans against what they felt was a constant attack by minorities. O'Reilly appeals to people because he seems to represent common sense middle America, where they don't care if a gay couple sleeps together, as long as it never sees the light of day. So there is a much better market for conservatives. People don't want to listen to boring old liberals going on and on about useless details and silly theory and minority causes. ABC didn't have to prop up Rush; they just went with the money maker.

[theski]

NapoleonGh wrote:

At least we liberals are smug and arrogant towards the lower half of the population intellectually. You conservatives have to appeal to the lower half and insult the upper half.

It is as if being an intellectual, ie someone who actually engages their brain once in a while and thinks for themselves, is considered a bad things among you people. How the hell can you expect me not to be condescending to people who actually discredit and mistrust people who are capable and do think. I have never seen an intellectual liberal have a single problem talking in a respectful and honest way with an intellectual conservative, but how can you blame people for being condescending and superior to those who are anti-intellectual, anti-thought, anti-logic.
_________________

Hence why "liberal" is a label no one wants SEE ABOVE... condescending A-hole

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The reason the majority of Americans are "antiintelectual", is that "intelectuals," are anti American. That and college campuses are the only place on earth that still takes communism/Marxism seriously.

With such a blatant arogant ignorance proudly displayed at school, it is no wonder the majority of working class "mentaly lazy" (GREAT mass apeal, showing YOUR contempt for the common man, and you wonder why "liberal" and over educated, ivory tower, anti american, are lumped together?) think, in many cases, that "You have to go to school to learn such nonsence," is a common saying.

LIES the "intelectuals" believe:
Profit is evil. (there is no such thing as an HONEST profit, ALL profit is the result of expliotation, theft, or deliberate fraud.)Marxist thinking.

Women and men are the same, merely with different gonads. Obvious BULSHIT, as the profound differences 'tween the two are obvious to all but the most adept rationalizers.(PORNO! Boys and girls are WAY different, if you have ever RAISED any.Viva la Differance!)Feminazi bullshit.

America is the cause of most of the bad in the world. Anti Americanism at it's blindest. Even if it was a national policy to fuck the world over, once in a while we would screw up, and do some good by ACCIDENT!

All cultures are equaly valid, and good. (Aztecs, open up your heart and let the sun shine in!) There are some NASTY, evil, vengeful, destructive cultures out there. Ones that humanity would NOT mourn the loss of.Kingdoms, emirates, dictatorships. Like anyone needs THESE.

Minorities are inferior, due to environment, (or the hidden unspoken assumption of racism when minorities fail!) and need "help", in the form of setasides, and quotas. People make bad choices sometimes, and the lack of stable married partents is the single greatest factor in poverty, no matter WHAT the race is. The anti school, hip hop gangsta crap isn't helping any. Oh, Im sorry for that "racist, culturaly insensative remark."After all, people that aspire to sell dope, or pimp have opted for an "alternative culture." Since it is "a black thing," (Racist comment) I can't comprehend or comment.

There are more, but time is short.

[Johonebesus]

It is not contempt but disappointment I feel towards American culture. There are certainly Ivory Tower kooks who still believe in Marxism and such nonsense, however, they are at the extreme of the left in the American tradition. You have a very nice list there, so I suppose I could offer up my own. Conservatives are racists and homophobes who have no concern for the well-being of the common man. They may be terribly concerned lest he commit some personal sin like adultery, but they couldn't care less if he makes enough money to feed his family or gets injured in an unsafe factory. They care only about profit, at the expense of all else. They seek to protect the interests of the wealthy citizens and corporations, and want to destroy worker rights. They care nothing about the environment, even if millions suffer from illness due to pollution; the rich can always move to safe areas. They want to maintain the status of the upper classes and suppress the lower classes, especially those who are not white. They seek to establish an evangelical theocracy ruled by the super-rich elite. I could go on.

Of course, that is so much bull. Everything I said could be supported by some quotes by from a few far right wingers, but the majority of people who call themselves conservative would never agree to any of those statements. Likewise, though I am certainly an economic liberal and something of a political liberal, I do not believe any of the ridiculous exaggerations you spouted. I am sure you can point to examples to claim that these things are essential to a liberal view, but your caricature is as absurd as is mine.

Of course, some of your claims are the result of the simplistic mentality perpetuated by so many conservative speakers and writers. I am anti-American because I might consider the opinions and perspectives of other countries in my decisions – the "with us or against us" mindset. Because I recognize environmental and historical factors in the problems faced by the urban poor, I must be denying the role of personal responsibility – the all-or-nothing or black/white fallacy. That is the problem with American culture. Everything has to be simple, with an easy yes/no solution, preferably with a villain to despise. When people who actually think begin to discuss issues critically, the people just tune them out. They don't want to hear complex analyses. They just want to know whether to vote yae or nae and whom to blame for the problems.

How can you deny that Americans are mentally lazy? Just look at the T.V. All those "reality" shows and insipid comedies, and those horrible shows aired on TLC and the Discovery Channel, the crap put out by Hollywood, look all around and you see evidence of the dumbing down of American culture. People do not want to think. That is a simple fact. I do not care about appealing to the masses; I care about telling the truth, and the truth is that the masses are mentally lazy. That's why so few people vote. It is not that people are stupid. In fact, I think that a great many people are intellectually bored. I think that is one of the appeals of mysticism and pseudo-science. Our culture continuously appeals to the lowest common denominator, and that leaves a lot of people understimulated, so they seek out mental stimulation, when they aren't too exhausted from 45+ hr. work-weeks in addition to housework and family, since nowadays it is almost impossible for a one-income household to thrive in the suburban middle-class. However, because our society is anti-elitist, and education is scorned as elitist, people do not learn critical thinking, and so even when they try to exercise their minds, they fall into all sorts of absurd fallacies, from creationism to new-age paganism to paranoia over the gay agenda out to destroy the American family to the assertion that we should always trust the government and never question the administration on account of the terrorists who just suddenly became a threat on 9-11.

Of course, the last is antithetical to the classical conservatism, but that is another problem. Most conservative commentators are not really conservative as much as they are partisan Republicans (with a few exceptions). They only want to help the Republicans and hurt the Democrats, regardless of ideology. That is why the traditional conservative principles of a strong executive privilege and independence went out the window during the Clinton years, along with the traditional opposition to the independent investigator statute. They appeal to the masses, to the lowest common denominator, encouraging simplistic and antagonistic thinking. They appeal to the fears, insecurities, and prejudices of their listeners to try to engender a hatred for those nasty liberals who are out of touch with the common man and sit in their ivory towers plotting how to create a Marxist state ruled by black lesbians. That is why the "conservative" commentators are so successful. Liberals fail because they either think too much, and that is either boring or confusing to most Americans, or the appeal to the interests of minorities, which just frightens and angers the majority, or they are of the very few that preach true Marxism or Afro-centric racism or some-such.

By the way, I am hardly over-educated, with nothing more than a B.A. You do not have to be over educated to be worried about the apparent stupidity of American culture.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Good, you have been educated, not indoctrinated.You have also given a good arguement, and not resorted to name calling. I suppose you are not "driven,"with a burning need to fix the whole world.You just want to make it a better place, a little here, a little there, it adds up you know.

When I think of overeducated fools, I think of the classic line form the loser comic book store clerk in "the simpsons". After being ragged on, he states, "I don't need this crap, I"ve got a PhD in mythology." Then he says, "I shall return to the comic store, where I dispence insults, rather than receive them."

There are many (Get a JOB)worthless degrees out there, making you only qualified to teach, or work in a museum. (or look down your nose through.)MOST of the worthless degrees are the non technical ones.
I suggest you visit dennisprager.com, see "articles written by Dennis," and "my week at Stanford." Dennis writes much better, and is less confrontational than I ever could.

[KrauserKrauser]

Just wanted to add my two bits.

Rush didn't suddenly pop up with his show nationally syndicated. He got his start in local San Diego ( I think ) radio and was successful there.

That success drew interest from larger sponsors, eventually leading to the show and popularity you see nowadays. At no point is anyone forcing the people to listen, they listen on their own accord and if they can't stand it will simply turn the channel.

If the liberals can find a mouth piece that people will listen too, they might enjoy the same success. The idea that I have heard recently that worries me the most is that they want a mouth piece with the same poularity RIGHT NOW. That demands forcing people to listen to the show which simplywill not work.

[Peregrin Toker]

The problem is that the majority of the American people are mentally lazy and low minded and, as Napoleon pointed out, have nothing but contempt for academic pursuits. People like Rush because he entertains. People like O'Reilly because he is just an "ordinary Joe" who is always looking for the villain and loves to attack "elitists". Liberals tend to prefer talking about issues, often without making sharp black/white distinctions. This requires more thought than most people are willing to invest. When liberals do go after "villains," it is usually on behalf of minorities, making the majority of Americans feel like the villains. Rush's big success was due in part to a backlash of white Americans against what they felt was a constant attack by minorities. O'Reilly appeals to people because he seems to represent common sense middle America, where they don't care if a gay couple sleeps together, as long as it never sees the light of day.

I find it quite odd that the US left-wing people always end up looking like elitists, since European socialists are very good at projecting an image as "vindicators of the masses", "defenders of the common working man" and so on. Are the US socialists more Leninist than their European counterparts?

(I use the term "Leninist", since Lenin was the first politician to mix socialism with elitism. The first elitarian socialist people heard of, anyway.)

[Johonebesus]

I find it quite odd that the US left-wing people always end up looking like elitists, since European socialists are very good at projecting an image as "vindicators of the masses", "defenders of the common working man" and so on. Are the US socialists more Leninist than their European counterparts?

(I use the term "Leninist", since Lenin was the first politician to mix socialism with elitism. The first elitarian socialist people heard of, anyway.)

First of all, contrary to what some right wingers around here might tell you, there are few true socialists in the U.S. The political spectrum in America is shifted a bit to the right relative to Europe. Mainstream liberalism here is probably more centrist in Europe. Just look at the nightmare Clinton faced when he tried to suggest a national healthcare system.

Now, I don't know a great deal about European popular culture, but my impression is that the people have a fair respect for learning and education. The French, for example, take great pride in their country's artistic and literary tradition. People in Europe are conscious of class and are comfortable with it. The Northern countries have no problem with monarchs and aristocrats.

In the U.S., people do not like to talk about class. Anytime a liberal tries to talk about poverty or racism, the Republicans will accuse him of trying to engender class or race conflict. We don't like to admit that there are different classes with different interests and needs. It is not that liberals are elitists as much as the masses are anti-elitists. Anything that seems elitist is scorned, art, literature, education, academic pursuits of any kind. People here have a real contempt for any sign elitism. Millionaires are perfectly fine, so long as they make a point of acting like Ordinary Joes, at least on occasion. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised of the White House was pleased with the publicity when Shrubby choked on a pretzel while watching football. The way to be a "vindicator of the masses" in America is not to help defend the poor or working classes against the upper classes who want to use them, but to tell the working classes that there is no class conflict, the rich are not trying to exploit them, indeed if they work hard enough they might get rich, and that the elitists to fear are intellectuals and socialists who want to take away their freedoms and wealth and opportunity.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Wow. I started this thread somewhat as a joke, (the Am Nasty international limbism) and it has morphed into a much deeper discusion.

Next time I will start out serious, and wait for it to morph into a lesbian/analsex/porn topic.

[Straha]

That is why the DEMs want a Rush of their own... ain't going to happen.

Actually it did in the sixties, there's a guy, I've forgotten his name now, who used to be a hilarious liberal commentator in the sixties and seventies now he does a nice little music show on NPR. I'll get the name in a couple minutes, probably.

[jegs2]

Read some of the posts here, so figured to throw in my two-cents worth...

On Rush Limbaugh
Used to listen to Rush when I was in college several years back. Don't listen to him now and haven't for some time. To me, Rush seems far too full of himself -- a pompous man who never looses an opportunity to toot his own horn. That being said, I'm about as Conservative as the day is long. Do enjoy watching O'Reilly on Fox News, as he is just plain entertaining -- heck, my wife likes him, and she pays no attention to politics.

On Liberals -- a jegs2 View
The best way I can describe how I see Liberals is that they know what you need better than you do, but you're too stupid to see it. Someone here described them as intellectuals. One could easily substitute intellectual with arrogant snob. To be sure, not all Liberals are that way, but certainly the most vocal of them are (Hillary is a prime example). Many of their arguments center on -- depend on class warfare and pitting people against each other in order to create the necessary "victims." For example, the eeeevil rich get all the free tax breaks, while the poor get hosed. They are careful not to point out that in those cases, nearly all classes benefit to some degree. Since the poor pay no taxes to begin with, they don't technically benefit, but nor are they adversely affected. The Liberal will however point out to the poor that the rich get the tax cut, and yet the poor get no money, so how is that fair? They'll say something to the effect of, "As you can see, the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer!" Class warfare in order to create the necessary "victim." That is but one example. They also throw in the race and age cards in order to increase the "vicimization" effect...

[Peregrin Toker]

The way to be a "vindicator of the masses" in America is not to help defend the poor or working classes against the upper classes who want to use them, but to tell the working classes that there is no class conflict, the rich are not trying to exploit them, indeed if they work hard enough they might get rich, and that the elitists to fear are intellectuals and socialists who want to take away their freedoms and wealth and opportunity.

Actually, the loss of wealth is an automatic side-effect of the limitation of property rights which is central to a socialist economy. Or, as I put it: "In a capitalist economy, some are poor and others are rich. In a communist economy, everyone's poor."

[Johonebesus]

The way to be a "vindicator of the masses" in America is not to help defend the poor or working classes against the upper classes who want to use them, but to tell the working classes that there is no class conflict, the rich are not trying to exploit them, indeed if they work hard enough they might get rich, and that the elitists to fear are intellectuals and socialists who want to take away their freedoms and wealth and opportunity.

Actually, the loss of wealth is an automatic side-effect of the limitation of property rights which is central to a socialist economy. Or, as I put it: "In a capitalist economy, some are poor and others are rich. In a communist economy, everyone's poor."

True, but the limitation of property rights comes with any government. The state has the right to confiscate my property if it is necessary to build a road through my house. When they collect taxes they take away my wealth, no matter how little. Any regulation of the economy in any way limits property rights and takes away wealth, and pure capitalism naturally leads to a concentration of wealth, which limits the opportunities available to the poor.

Furthermore, as I said, there are very few true socialists in America. A liberal in the U.S. is not a real socialist, much less a communist. He will want to expand welfare and social services and work for minority "rights", but he will not seek to nationalize large sectors of the economy or tax the wealthy out of existence, despite the rantings of the Republicans. Even considering trying to limit the cost of medicine or to offer a national health insurance is radical here in the U.S. According to American conservatives, the regulation (not ownership, mind you, but regulation) of the energy and broadcast industries is socialistic. So, to answer your original question, "Aren't liberals (socialists) supposed to appeal to the masses?": A) mainstream liberals are not socialists in America, and B) "vindicators of the masses" appeal not to economic interests (real or perceived) but to religious, moral, and cultural interests, telling the masses what they want to hear and working to eradicate the notion of class.

Also, keep in mind that socialism and communism are not the same thing.

[Peregrin Toker]

True, but the limitation of property rights comes with any government. The state has the right to confiscate my property if it is necessary to build a road through my house. When they collect taxes they take away my wealth, no matter how little. Any regulation of the economy in any way limits property rights and takes away wealth, and pure capitalism naturally leads to a concentration of wealth, which limits the opportunities available to the poor.

Sure, but the additional limits upon property rights which Communism imposes are much more visible-

Furthermore, as I said, there are very few true socialists in America. A liberal in the U.S. is not a real socialist, much less a communist. He will want to expand welfare and social services and work for minority "rights", but he will not seek to nationalize large sectors of the economy or tax the wealthy out of existence, despite the rantings of the Republicans.

There's not many true communist left in Europe, either. All but the most extreme collectivists have adopted several right-wing ideas. I'm also fully aware of the fact that it's also wrong to equate "liberal" with "left-winged", since the first liberals were free-market types like John Locke and Adam Smith. (and in Europe, the word "liberal" is also identified with these guys)

) "vindicators of the masses" appeal not to economic interests (real or perceived) but to religious, moral, and cultural interests, telling the masses what they want to hear and working to eradicate the notion of class.

This reminded me of the fact that the conservative gov't currently ruling Denmark actually won many typically left-wing voters by appealing to the "little man in society."

Also, keep in mind that socialism and communism are not the same thing.

As a former socialist, I know that! Socialism is supposed to be the transition phase between a capitalist and communist society. I don't think any communist state ever went beyond this "transition phase", except for Cambodia.