<i>10 pages is enough to link the guy to socialism? really?</i><p>Maybe not to start a conversation. But when chiming in to support someone else's claim, and with the clear caveat, then yes, I think it's perfectly OK.<p><i>Monsters use any rhetoric they think will fit at their historic moment.</i><p>Show me a monster since the advent of socialism that did not use it as its justification. The only one I can think of is Pinochet in Chile (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973#Casualties" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973#Casualties</a> ), and even that needs a very loose definition of monster. Certainly the chart-toppers like Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Kim, Pol Pot, Hitler preached socialism. (I'll grant that they generally didn't understand the concept very well, but the point is that it's what they advocated to their partisans and people as the ultimate solution)