Red Love


To order David Evanier’s Red Love on Kindle, click here.

David Evanier, Red Love,
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1991), 340 pp.
New edition published as an E-Book by The David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2013

There are times when if you want to know about an era, you should turn to great literature. There are many books written about the Old Left, and about the Cold War espionage case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, including one of which I am co-author. But few give readers a sense of what the era of the Rosenberg’s espionage activity and the life of their comrades in the American Communist Party were really like, as does this novel by David Evanier.

Written as an account of the effort to write a book about the Rosenbergs by a fictional author named Gerald Lerner, a stand-in for Evanier himself, we learn from the very first page that Evanier will be anything but respectful to the doomed spying couple.  Named Dolly and Solly Rubell in the book (but clearly Ethel and Julius),  Evanier gives us his perspective in the name of Lerner:

“I have f–ked the Rubells in this book. I have f–ked this gentle, peace-loving couple. And I feel very much better.”

And indeed he does, and so will the reader. For the Rubells are not the tortured innocent victims of McCarthyism so familiar to readers of the other novels about the Rosenbergs, or to those who were foolish enough to see Tony Kushner’s play Angels in America, in which the late Rosenberg prosecutor and McCarthy associate Roy Cohn is showing dancing over the characters of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in a gleeful macabre scene.

As one character puts it at the start of a chapter, “Whatever they did, they didn’t do it.” So make no mistake. The Rubells are guilty of what they were charged with; they are Soviet agents who continually rationalize their fealty to the Soviet Union of Joe Stalin with gross apologetics.  As one Party activist says in the novel,

“Move the clock back to the 1940s, when Stalin, the little father, the model for progressive humanity, the feeder of the hungry….What if he and the Rubell couple is allowed the opportunity to help Stalin achieve his goals? What could they be guilty of?”

We know that the real Rosenbergs wrote Party manufactured letters to their children from prison — widely distributed as propaganda for their cause. And so do the Rubells. As Solly writes in one letter meant to be given to his children after he is executed,

“Up to the very last minute liars have tried to convince Mommy and me that the Soviet Union is a bad place. But we know it is tops.”

If you think the real Rosenbergs would never have penned anything so stupid to their sons from the death house, think again: the real letters are much, much worse, and Evanier manages to parody their style and their mundane writing brilliantly.

Fortunately, Evanier’s writing is anything but mundane. It is, in fact, dazzling. He can take you from broad parody and satire, often hilarious—and within a few pages move to a dark and powerful chapter that gives readers the essence of what it was like to suffer in the Soviet Gulag. Readers are introduced to a fictional character named Antonio Carelli, son of an Italian immigrant to the United States, who followed his father’s path and became an organizer for the Young Communist League in Buffalo, and who left with his father for the Soviet Union when he was arrested and deported after a short prison sentence for radical activity in Youngstown, Ohio.

Arriving in their beloved Soviet Union, he and his son are arrested as dangerous foreigners and sent to the Gulag. Basing his portrayal of life there on the literature of Solzhenitsyn, Evanier lets us feel the deep despair of life in hell. Mixing truth with fantasy, Carelli is placed by Evanier in the same camp when the American dupes including Vice-President Henry A. Wallace and the Asian expert and Johns Hopkins professor, Owen Lattimore, arrive in the Kolyma region in 1944. They were actually there on a trip in which Wallace described the camp as a beautiful place inhabited by happy, prosperous prisoners. What he saw, of course, were NKVD agents acting their parts, which successfully fooled the gullible American visitors.  Watching the charade and a chorus of actual prisoners perform, one of the group — this time a fictional lawyer — says,

“So much caring! We Americans have so much to learn from them. I’m so ashamed of our superficial values, on things, on getting ahead and competing with the next guy. It makes me want to vomit all over again!”

Carelli, we learn, was eventually freed in the period of the “thaw,” and before being rearrested, manages to leave and returns to the Buffalo he was born in. There he looks up old comrades, whom he was anxious to relate his experiences and tell them about their wasted lives in the movement. Most do not want to see him and do not return his calls. Finally, he meets an old comrade named Charlie Rosenbaum, who tells him “there is no more dream, because we found out about the Soviet Union.” But in a moment, he proudly tells him how his granddaughter has found a new dream — Castro’s Cuba — where she is cutting sugar cane with the Venceremos Brigades. “Perhaps there they’ll make the dream come true,” he tells Carelli. And soon we see how the Left perpetuates itself into the true believers of the young generation, who do not even realize that they are repeating the same foolish journey of their parents and grandparents.

And so in the granddaughter, we get the hint of the birth of the New Left, drawn to Cuba as her ancestors were drawn to Stalin’s paradise. The girl, named Prim Rosenbaum, offers her poetry on how great Communist Cuba is. “We prayed in the sun in front of the healthiest cows I’d ever seen.” Would someone say anything like this? I know from my own experience how true his parody is. In my trip to  Cuba with erstwhile Castroites in 1975, one member of our group, learning that the showplace psychiatric facility regularly lobotomized their patients, exclaimed: “We have to understand the difference between Communist lobotomies and capitalist lobotomies.”

And then there is that wonderful parody of Communist left-speak.  Speaking about his wife, Solly Rubell writes that Dolly “is the most beautiful person I have ever met…She has such revolutionary anger; she never deviates from it. She referred to Eisenhower the other day as a ‘guttersnipe in striped pants.’ And ‘a privileged fascist dog.’…she talks that way to me. I have learned so much from her integrity.”

At another time, Solly Rubell says that not only has “the U.S.S.R. had improved the lot of the underdog,” it actually put an end to “most death as we know it.” Another character named Strugin — someone modeled on the CP’s late top ideologue and would-be historian, Herbert Aptheker, tells the narrator Lerner that in the Soviet Union, his thin hair would grow back “as a matter of course.” The real Herbert Aptheker, when a friend asked him to explain why anti-Semitism was so prevalent in the Soviet Union, responded: “There is no anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. It is forbidden by Stalin’s Constitution.” Evanier knows the kind of apologia for terror that the American Reds regularly engaged in; he simply takes it one notch further by making it so ridiculous, that even an honest commie would realize that his own statements are just as foolish.

The Rosenberg case itself is actually a metaphor for the entire folly of the American Communists and their fellow-traveling brethren. The Rosenbergs are simply one of their numbers who took the extra step of service to Stalin—espionage on his terror state’s behalf. All good Reds, if asked, would have done the very same. They all believed that the Soviet Union was the future of humanity, the good regime towards which all progressives had to aspire to build an adjunct here in the United States.  They all thought that what we now know was built on terror and murder, was the only truly good society in the world- anything but a hoax. If challenged about the reality which many did know about, Stalin’s defenders would simply reply that it was capitalist propaganda, and if proven to be true, they would say it was the fault of necessary steps that had to be taken to protect it against the attempts of the U.S. to overthrow socialism.

As one character puts it, “there is only one Soviet Union in the world.” And those who viewed it as paradise, had but one job: to protect it, defend it, and serve its leader –Joseph Stalin. David Greenglass, Ethel’s brother who turned state’s witness and was imprisoned for fifteen years once put it to me, “We were soldiers for Stalin.” And in war, everything is fair. The horrible U.S. capitalist system was so evil, we are told, that not only did it pollute the atmosphere, but it was “turning innocent children into Zionists.” God forbid. In Stalin’s U.S.S.R., Zionists were hunted down and condemned as “rootless cosmopolitans,” dealt with by a bullet to the back of the head, or as was the fate of the Yiddish poet murdered by Stalin in his last years, victim of a supposed car crash, but actually an NKVD murder orchestrated to look like an accident.

The other great leftist cause of the 1930s is also not forgotten by Evanier, and that of course, is the Spanish Civil War, and the myth that only the Communists in the US and world-wide fought to give the democratic regime aid when threatened by Franco and the forces of fascism, all in the name of anti-fascism. We meet a character named Sam Kuznekow, modeled on the very real late veteran of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion, Robert Gladnick, a man I had got to know at the beginning of my own re-examination of the war, and with whom I exchanged a lengthy correspondence.

We learn the harsh reality of how the inexperienced soldiers were used as shock troops for Stalin’s Comintern army, left to die on the fields of Spain with no place to hide from the onslaught of the Franco army’s fusillade. As Kuznekow says to a Russian commander who sends the men out to their certain death, “This is a slaughter that no army would permit and I don’t want any part of it.” The response from the Commissar: “Soldiers must learn how to die!” Sentenced to death for their rebellious stance, the doomed men are told: “You will all be sentenced to death. And I want you to know this is nothing personal. This will be an objective trial. In fact, I can personally assure you that the balance of your subscriptions to the Daily Worker …will be transferred to your families in the States.” Sensing the dark mood in the killing chamber, the Soviet Commissar says: “Listen, this is a revolutionary necessity.”

The real Kuznekow, Bob Gladnick, learned the bitter truth and devoted himself to letting others know the real Soviet agenda in Spain — that of turning the leftist Republic if they only could, to what would have been the first “People’s Democracy” in the world — precisely the type of regimes the Soviets created in Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. Needless to say, he and the few others like him were savagely attacked by his former comrades as traitors and informers, cast into oblivion for their decision to tell the world the harsh truth.

The cause and movement for the Rosenbergs was merely one more attempt of the comrades in the United States to use their plight to gain support for Stalin’s goals during the Cold War. And in the case of the doomed couple, they were only all too willing to go to their deaths and play the part expected of them. Unlike their counterparts in Moscow’s many purge trials, they did not have to be tortured and fed a script to read in the courtroom. They lied on Stalin’s behalf all on their own, and were even willing to make their own children orphans and themselves as martyrs.

For years, the American left glamorized and memorialized them, even as today they declare others as guilty as the Rosenbergs to be innocent and victims of American imperialism.  Knowing this all to be false, David Evanier has brilliantly satirized the world of the gullible who made up the ranks of the Communists, and the belief of all their allies who believed that no nation was more at fault for the world’s sins than their own homeland, the United States of America.

I have always argued had the real Rosenbergs not been executed, the world would not have had the chance to condemn the U.S. for execution of a mother who left their children orphans. Even J. Edgar Hoover petitioned the White House not to have her put to death. Moreover, after the Khrushchev Report in 1956 and the beginning of acknowledgement of Stalin’s crimes, as well as the attempt of Stalin to destroy the entire Soviet Jewish community in the so-called “Doctor’s Plot,” the chance would have taken place that even the Rosenbergs would have had regrets about their wasted lives, and would have confessed and made public their disillusionment.

In the novel, Evanier has Dolly Rubell say that once the Eastern European regimes abandoned socialism, “on that day the Rubells will say they’re guilty!” That day might have occurred, and a real confession by the Rosenbergs, had they remained alive, would have completely destroyed the entire edifice of the mythical world of American Communism.

So read David Evanier’s Red Love, and painlessly learn about the lives and the tragedy of those who wasted their time on this earth in life dedicated to doing their part to help one of the last Century’s most tyrannical and murderous regimes.

Ronald Radosh is an Adjunct Fellow at The Hudson Institute, a columnist for PJ Media, and co-author of The Rosenberg File.

To order David Evanier’s Red Love on Kindle, click here.

  • truebearing

    Sounds interesting. And we all know that there is little the Left hates more than being on the receiving end of deft parody.

    Wait….what is that sound? I hear the sound of an angry, charging herd…yes, it’s coming from the west…

  • Jason P

    Knowing people who went to Cuba and joined the Venceremos Brigades in the early 70s, this brought back memories of that sense of unreality that I remember when talking to true believers, who could say the most absurd rationalizations.

    You make an interesting point when you speculate about the Rosenbergs if they were still alive. Perhaps if Ethel got “life” we’d know. But their children know the truth about the USSR. Have they “got it?”

  • The March Hare

    When I was a child growing up in the 50s with staunch republican parents, my mother a news junkie and with TV putting on everything it could to fill time, I knew from an early age about the communist threat and always took an interest in related events when I could. When Solzhenitsyn’s ordeal became news I watched for the publication of his book and bought it as soon as it became available as well as the second volume. Later on, in the early 80s, a man who was a Jew that left Russia in the late 70s when the door opened for a while, was assigned to work for me and we became fast friends. I was constantly learning. Some time went by and then in the 90s I became aware of David Horowitz and his work. Then the internet opened up a giant flow if information. It is like living in a library with everything at your fingertips. Back when Sean Hannity was with Alan Combs, I was watching Sean interview Ed Asner where in questioning him Sean challenged him with, “You’re a communist, aren’t you?”. A long period of silence. The challenge repeated and more silence, one more challenge, then he responded with words about how communism was good and just never done right.
    Even with all this knowledge, I still wasn’t prepared for something that I encountered about two months ago. I was working on a large engineering project and there was a contractor who came in from California. He would often drop into the office where three of us worked to get updates on the status of things or to just chat. He was super intelligent and constantly put out stream of talk. He seemed to be one of those seemingly nice know-it-alls who thought he was great. Then one day, on his last day there as the project was being closed down, he dropped by the office where three of us worked. Somehow the subject of what was going on politically came up and I said something against the socialism going on today. I almost went into shock when he came back criticizing the “teabaggers” and complained how Stalin’s actions had jeopardized the left’s movement setting it back years. I guess that was shocking to me because it was somebody in the flesh right in front of me admitting to being a communist. I was blown away, but it moved the whole truth about all these facts from something like a distant scene in a movie to up front and personal. It was not like I didn’t know, it was just how real it hit me. I have always read the comment section on frontpagemag and other forums and one in a while participated. Now, as I read comments from left wingers, I can’t help seeing them in a different light. It is less academic and more real and frightening. Like I said above, it isn’t as if I didn’t know. It now has more impact on me than before and causes me to be more aware of how real and how close the danger is. We are running out of time, or maybe, time has already run out.

  • tagalog

    A significant of the people tried in the Moscow show trials of the Great Terror also did not have to be tortured, but instead were willing and complicit in the concoction of false charges against them. They appear to have believed that, since Communism is a historical inevitably, the falsification of charges in order to justify purging them was historically necessary, and therefore fully acceptable.
    Read (or re-read) Arthur Koestler’s Darkness At Noon.

  • ben t

    In 1949, at age 12, I fervently embraced Marxism but with eyes wide open. I had, already, read Koestler, Orwell, Philbrick, ” The God That Failed” and other criticisms of leninism. I never had any doubts about the guilt of the Rosenbergs or the essential truth of Senator McCarthy’s charges of leninist infiltration into high levels of U.S. gov’t. I was not a “red diaper” baby and had non-political parents with 5th grade educations who worked at unskilled labor jobs. I was raised in utter, utter poverty which reality I escaped by reading history. I abhorred Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao et al. and was sickened by the mass murder committed in their names and that of “Socialism”, but was entranced by Marx’s vision of “from each…to each..” and the oh-so-obvious rationale of the dialectic of historical materialism. I didn’t meet any real socialists until my freshman year in College. I was utterly shocked by their upper-middle class backgrounds and attitudes. They played at being working class proles but they hadn’t the slightest idea of what it was all about. I toiled with them and among them for more than 2 decades, all the while in my heart of hearts understanding there was no difference between “scientific socialism” and “utopian socialism”. Apparently, our current RULING CLASS has yet to learn the iron realities of of supply-demand market economy that I understood over 50 yrs ago. Or are they anticipating an opportunity to impose upon us an “Industrial Feudalism”, aka, fascist totalitarianism a la contemporary China?

    • 123z

      That’s funny, I never heard about “industrial Feudalism” before. I have, however, heard several times the Chinese economy described as capitalism in a country controlled by the Communist Party. In fact I have heard that the success of the Chinese economy is a result of their return to capitalism rather than sticking to Communist principles. I don’t think there is any question but that the Chinese economy is capitalist. Is this what you describe as “fascist totalitarianism”? That is the kind of terminology Communists use for capitalism. Are you a Communist?

      • ben t

        “Industrial Feudalism” is a concept that predates the universal use of both “fascism” and “leninism”. Marx predicted that, inevitably, socialism would grow out of advanced capitalism. Some late 19th and early 20th century Marxists speculated that it would be possible for a rigidly controlled, political state with a capitalist (more or less) economy could come to power rather than an inevitable socialism.
        Investigate Mussolini’s evolution 1908-15 from revolutionary socialism to “fascism” and his theory of wedding capitalism to an overpowering political state, thus ending “class warfare”. Modern China is merely Mussolini’s 1920’s Italy. Mao stole his “Proletarian Nations” vs “Capitalist Nations” crap right from 1910 Mussolini. I am, and have been since 1979, a laissez-faire capitalist.

        • 123z

          “Marx predicted that, inevitably, socialism would grow out of advanced capitalism” I think there is some merit to this prediction. With the growing disparity between rich and poor and the contempt openly expressed for the less fortunate, something has got to give. Hopefully it will be a gradual evolution, rather than anything more precipitous. I am not really a big fan of the “magic of the market” and I do not agree that Greed is Good.

          • m4253y

            You are a card carrying socialist wannabe fool. Your lame interpretation of capitalism as greed speaks volumes.

            Socialism’s failed attempt everywhere it was ever implemented speaks for itself. Ask anyone who was a byproduct of that failed Marxist innuendo, my parents included.

            Marx had it glaringly incorrect and backwards, Capitalism is the only solution to the failed socialist BS.

            Go to Cuba and have a look for yourself. In fact, go anywhere where this bs manifesto is applied.

            Have fun in Zuccotti Park.

          • 123z

            Tell us about socialism’s failed attempt everywhere is was ever implemented. How about Norway and all the other Scandanavian countries. If you look up the Socialist International, you will see the socialist countries listed so you can have a good look at all the failures. You should learn something about your subject before you speak or write. Ignorance is a big problem in this country.

          • solinkaa

            Scandinavian system goes back centuries, way before Marx. It was all contributing to the pot, out of which they took when in need. This only works as long as all contribute, but with the soaring levels of immigration is bound to fail. If you enjoy being told by the state which doctor to go to or which treatment you’d be entitled to, so be it. But MILLIONS of people, men, women, children and babies were murdered in Eastern Europe so that socialism could be imposed. Several decades later, those countries ran out of the toilet paper and food rationing was in place. This is the 80s of the 20th century. The same in now happening in Bolivia. Again, anyone who lives in a country of plenty, with access to a doctor of their choice, aboundance of goods and services, pontificating about the beauty of socialism is either very young or very ignorant. There was a reason people were not allowed to travel freely in socialist countries of Eastern Europe. You weren’t permitted to keep your passport at home, you waited 10 (ten) years for a telephone landline, you waited 20 (twenty) years for an government-allocated apartment (very few could afford to buy), it was common for two families to share a one bedroom place – please! People’s lives were ruined, we’re talking about entire nations being held captive. These are facts. Welfare expenditure is ruining Western Europe as we speak. Also, Finland apparently has the best schools: how many science Novel Prizes does Finland hold? Never mind, one hopes that with age and some more responsibility will come enlightenment. Ignorance is indeed a big problem in this country, especially amongst the chorus of independent minds that just keep on bleating in their useful idiocy to the cause. Look up Holodomor and weep, if you have a conscience.

          • 123z

            Have you heard that there is a difference between Marxism/Leninism and Democratic Socialism? Apparently not. You say that the Scandinavian system is distinct from the rest of Europe. HERE IS s a list of the most socialist countries in the world today:
            The Scandinavian countries don’t seem to be distinct in any way from the others, except for China which is not a European country. Actually, neither are Canada or New Zealand in Europe but they have a great deal in common with Eurpe in their values and form of government.

            Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World
            New Zealand

            There has been some discussion in educated circles that China is more Capitalist than socialist as described in this article in Bloomberg

            China and the U.S., Capitalism’s Odd Couple –

            Thus, it is China, not the Scandinavian countries, which stands distinct on this list.. This is 2013 and the world has changed. I’m glad you agree that ignorance is a huge problem in this country. I only hope you look in the mirror when you say it. You might want to make a point of studying the difference between Marxism/Leninism and Democratic Socialsm. It would improve your mind and bring you up to date on the world today.

          • 123z

            You actually said “Socialism’s failed attempt everywhere it was ever implemented speaks for itself.” Exactly right. Look at Norway and all the other Scandinavian countries to see socialism speaking for itself. To types like you any country with a national medical program is socialist.. According to this definition every single developed country except the USA is socialist. Haiti is a capitalist country and I believe it is a lot worse off than Cuba. Capitalism is not the only answer to failed socialism. There is successful socialism which provides an answer. I suggest that you study successful socialism as practiced in Norway.

            A card carrying socialist is not such a stupid jerk as you are. Hopefully he at least knows what socialism is, which is more than can be said for you.

            Do you think the Norwegians would be better off with a capitalist government? What a stupid jerk you are!

          • 123z

            ‘Socialism’s failed attempt everywhere it was ever implemented speaks for itself’

            Here are some of socialisms failed attempts speaking for themselves:


            Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World

            Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

            New Zealand

            Now tell some more about failed socialist countries. Compared to these countries, we might call the USA a failed capitalist country.

          • m4253y

            you are a fool. you know clearly what i was referring to with the use of the word socialism and china…none of those countries aside from china are socialist fool. get some rest, you have overtaxed the limited scope of your ‘gifted’ liberal intellect.

            when you have rested enough, pull your naive head out of your fat laden liberal ass and breathe some air of reality. idiot.

          • DB1954

            That’s because the movie, “Wall Street” from which you purloined that phrase, “greed is good,” came from the fevered brow of the movie director, Oliver Stone, who has wasted his life and his audiences’ time and money producing movies which reflect his sick and tortured sense of guilt for having a father who actually worked on Wall Street. Stone’s the typical proto-Marxist nitwit who doesn’t even understand the definition of greed, which is the one and only subject he ever examines in his movies. Stone thinks that greed is the simple desire for money and more money. The real definition is the desire for money and material things to the exclusion of all else, or the desire for money which exceeds any reasonable bounds and in which a person’s materialism is so excessive that he or she values nothing else in this world. What is done on Wall Street is NOT greed. It’s business. Stone can’t grasp the simplest of distinctions, so you might want to reevaluate your apparent admiration of Oliver Stone and his confused and confusing movies.

          • 123z

            I think that looking after one’s own self-interest is closely aligned to greed, if not actually the same thing. Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism believes that looking after one’s own self interest (greed) is the prime mover of capitalism which is what makes it work so well.

          • No RNC

            The actual free part of any economy operates on each person’s self interest being met as a basis for beneficial trade & specialization. Any other basis distorts & corrupts this process. Crooks, Communist & Krugman fail to recognize these basic facts.

          • 123z

            Oh my God! There is somebody here who reads the New York Times and Paul Kurgman! Obviously you are a Communist. Any economy is subject to the laws of supply and demand which are distorted by things like advertisingand govermental “free trade” laws and regulations. If we really had free trade, China would have put us out of business long ago.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Greed exists in all political systems. One only had to see “the people” riding their bicycles to work in a vicious Moscow winter, while the Party bosses rode in Zil limousines to their luxurious offices or apartments … perhaps a dacha in the countryside? … in order to understand this fact.

            Of course, the Party bosses sat in the front seat with the chauffeur to show “solidarity” with the people …

            … or wasn’t socialism done right in the global home of world socialism?

          • 123z

            Russia is no longer a Communist country so talking about the situation that used to exist there is not relevant in today’s world. Exactly what do you mean by “global socialism”? I looked up Socialist International on Google and found that it is an organization of anti-Communist social democratic parties, so it appears that it is a mistake to equate global socialism with Communism.

            The leading socialist country in today’s world is Norway. It would be a mistake to say that socialism is not done right there. I am sure there are greedy people in Norway, but it is only under capitalism where we think that everyone looking after his own self-interest is the prime driver of good in the economy.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Russia is no longer officially a communist country. However, the apparatus of communism, in the person of its socialist government (ruled by a dictator), lives on. I don’t know how old you are, but when I was young, the USSR was called the Home of World Socialism, by its fellow-travelers here in the States, and by the Russians, themselves.

            I like Norway. Unfortunately for the country, their freedoms have been stripped … as they have in all other socialist countries … by the all-powerful socialist government. Socialism leads to tyranny. It’s that way of things …

          • 123z

            I don’t think that in a Democratic Socialist country the government is tyrannical. I am old enough to remember, however, that when the Labor party was in control in England and the government owned and ran the railroads, Britain considered themselves socialist. But they never considered themselves slaves of a tyrranical government. If they were slaves of a tyrannical government, it is funny that they were able to vote out the government when they didn’t like it any more. So far as I know, all of the democratic socialist governments are parliamentary, so that it might be said that they are a lot more democratic than we are. If we had a parliamentary form of Government, Obama certainly would not be President now. You seem to have your mind fixed in the past. Things have changed a lot since then, and even then there was a marked diffference between democratic socialism (which was called Fabian socialism in those days) and Marxixm/Leninism. Haiti is a capitalist coutnry and I think there is a greater likelihood that we will become like Haiti than like the “slaves” in Norway or in Canada which is another of those tyrannical socialist countries where the population is supposedly suffering.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            “You seem to have your mind fixed in the past.”

            Those who fail to learn from the past … and all that.

            You’re quite right. If we had a parliamentary form of government, Obama would not be president, now. Who would? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Peas in a Marxist pod …

      • m4253y

        Hi 123z. Pardon me for interjecting here but you are either genuine in your commentary or you are entirely clued out as to what ben wrote, i will opt for the latter.

        Firstly, you need to learn or re-learn the definition of the words feudalism and capitalism;


        noun ˈfyü-də-ˌli-zəm

        : a social system that existed in Europe during the Middle Ages in which people worked and fought for nobles who gave them protection and the use of land in return


        noun ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-,British also kə-ˈpi-tə-

        : a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

        Now, can you highlight for me the differences in each definition?

        “I don’t think there is any question but that the Chinese economy is capitalist.”

        Are you deluded or just plain naive? What is the source for your NAIVETY? YOU ARE SADLY VERY WRONG, PERIOD!

        I would argue that the source of your misinformation is a combination of the lame stream media and the current leftist idealism that seeks to destroy the Constitution as represented by its predominant principles of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, FREEDOMS & RIGHTS FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS.


        • 123z

          No. I am not naive. I read and try to keep myself educated. Here is something from Bloomberg for your information. I am not the only person who thinks of China being capitalist: If you Google “Capitaliam in China”, you will get a lot of hits. Read some of them, and you might learn what educated people are saying and thinking.

          China and the U.S., Capitalism’s Odd Couple

          To hear some geostrategists and economists tell it, the future of the global economy is suspended between two very different models of the balance between the market and the state. Call this debate oncapitalisms the Washington Consensus versus the Beijing Consensus.

          In democracies such as the U.S., market-led capitalism
          draws its legitimacy from the belief that everyone has an equal chance of getting rich, even if outcomes turn out to be unequal. In authoritarian regimes such as China, state-led capitalism is legitimized because it is assumed to provide more equitable outcomes as well as opportunities, although the reality may be
          quite different.

          Both the U.S. and Chinese versions of capitalism have
          produced impressive results and fallen short in specific
          aspects. The U.S. brand of capitalism has generated exceptional innovation, but it accords a primacy to individual rights that has kept the country from collectively meeting longer-term needs. In contrast, China has shown a knack for forging collective solutions that have enhanced the welfare of hundreds
          of millions, but at the cost of neglecting the rights of the

          You have apparently been totally blinded by ignorant propaganda about capitalism. Believe me, capitalism is not a religion. I am a Christian and many religious people think of capitalism as being unethical. This is its great weakness.,

          Not all third world countries are communist or socialist. Some of them are capitalist The shining star of socialism is Norway. All of the Scandanavian countries are socialist and have higher standards of living than we do in the USA. Why don’t ou learn something about the world and shut up with the obscenities.

          If you want to promote capitalism, I suggest that first of all you learn something about it, besides blind knee-jerk propaganda.

  • Harry Black

    Well the Rosenbergs did spy, or at least Julius, and the CP was a rotten institution peddling a religion for the desperate and the self-righteous, but Radosh like so many other FrontPage ultra-cons throws out the baby with the bathwater. The CP enjoyed the credibility it did because it fought for a number of worthy causes, especially civil rights. Moreover, it should be admitted that the communists’ impact on American culture was huge, and not always for the bad. “This land is your land” remains popular because it reminds us of what America should be like. And if you have a long memory, when Frank Sinatra sang “The House I live in” at Reagan’s first inauguration, both he and Ronnie the union buster knew that the song dated to their youth in the 1940s when they were leftists although not communists. If you want to read a good book about the agonies of the Rosenberg case, get ahold of E.L. Doctorow’s stupendous Book of Daniel, not Evanier’s dreary exercise in snark.

    • DB1954

      God, I’m glad the Rosenbergs got justice.

      • Harry Black

        Executing people isn’t justice; it’s barbaric.

        • DB1954

          Says you.

  • Clare Spark

    Ron Radosh and Joyce Milton wrote a fine book on the Rosenbergs that started me exit from the Left. See how Radosh and his colleagues have made good use of the Soviet archives here: “Communist ideas go mainstream.” Read this along with “Connecting versus connecting the dots.”

  • jburack

    Ron Radosh,

    I did not see it in your review, but the character Carelli is in fact Thomas Sgovio, someone whose widow I had the pleasure to get to know when I used some of Sgovio’s impressive drawings of the Gulag in some work of mine.

    The entire story of Carelli is there in Sgovio’s book, Dear America, including the ludicrous visit by Henry Wallace! Sgovio is worthy of being fictionalized this way, as his story is one of amazing drama all by itself. It would make a great Hollywood flick if Hollywood were ever able to tell anything close to the truth about all this.

  • herb benty

    Obama and his “progressives” are at it again, trying to make a totalitarian paradise. How to stop them is the question, when they have made sure they control everything. Including the ballot boxes. Hillary is fluffing up her feathers, knowing a Democrat will win.

    • JamesJ

      Progressives truly believe a utopia on earth is possible and they have killed over 100 million in the 20th century trying to prove it.

      • herb benty

        Trouble is, they are very wrong. Many famous socialist/communist/marxist/facsists have seen the folly and outright evil in those systems and come over to the “bright side”. Human governments will always fail because of the ingrained SIN in people. The ” good King Wenslaus”, Huegonauts, and early America were as close as man will ever get to a peaceful, beautiful life- and they were mostly Christian. The demonic left dismisses Christianity of course….how good can their vision of Utopia be, founded on FORCE. “Progressivism” is the latest incarnation of “the lie”.

  • Ammianus

    Goodness, Radosh is capable of writing a review without vituperation or bombast.