Communist Party of the USA endorses Obama in 2012

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

http://politicons.net/congrats-communist-party-usa-endorses-barack-obama-and-democrats-for-2012-election/

[Rothbardian Girl]

LOL. Proves how far gone the Communist Party in the US is.

[HOLLYWOOD]

10 Planks Comrade Obama!

http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

[Danke]

http://republicmainstreet.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/socialism-norman-thomas-democrats.jpg

[AlexAmore]

I just sent this to the Massachusetts Communist Party USA email.

"Hello! How are you?

I was checking you guy outs and was interested in more learning more info about your party. If I wanted to move away from the US
where might I go for a good, safe, thriving Communist country? To study Communism better can you show me a nation today or in
history that was successful? Of course if it's still not around then it probably won't do me much good. See I'm trying to find a good
argument for Communism. Thanks!"

[KCIndy]

I just sent this to the Massachusetts Communist Party USA email.

"Hello! How are you?

I was checking you guy outs and was interested in more learning more info about your party. If I wanted to move away from the US
where might I go for a good, safe, thriving Communist country? To study Communism better can you show me a nation today or in
history that was successful? Of course if it's still not around then it probably won't do me much good. See I'm trying to find a good
argument for Communism. Thanks!"


LOL! Classic...

Let us know if you get a response!

[ValidusCustodiae]

You guy outs... hilarious...

[AlexAmore]

You guy outs... hilarious...

It's 2:30AM where I am. That's my excuse. =P

[Teaser Rate]

I'm sure the support of their 2,500 members will be crucial to Obama's re-election campaign.

[123tim]

I just sent this to the Massachusetts Communist Party USA email.

"Hello! How are you?

I was checking you guy outs and was interested in more learning more info about your party. If I wanted to move away from the US
where might I go for a good, safe, thriving Communist country? To study Communism better can you show me a nation today or in
history that was successful? Of course if it's still not around then it probably won't do me much good. See I'm trying to find a good
argument for Communism. Thanks!"

I think that everyone is forgetting that China is "communist" country.
When they absorb us, we will be too.

I think that you threw them a bone with that email.

[Velho]

I think that everyone is forgetting that China is a communist country.
When they absorb us, we will be too.

China is communist in name only.

[Sola_Fide]

I think that everyone is forgetting that China is a communist country.
When they absorb us, we will be too.


Isn't the goal of communism to achieve eventual anarchism?

I wonder what the hardcore anarchists on the board think of this?

[Teaser Rate]

Isn't the goal of communism to achieve eventual anarchism?

I wonder what the hardcore anarchists on the board think of this?

Traditional (left-wing) anarchism's primarily goal is to abolish all capitalism. Market anarchism's primarily goal is create a world with unlimited capitalism.

Their goals are fundamentally opposed and the two groups will probably never work together towards anything. As far as anarcho-capitalists are concerned, anarchists are just another bunch of crazy leftists.

[Sola_Fide]

Traditional (left-wing) anarchism's primarily goal is to abolish all capitalism. Market anarchism's primarily goal is create a world with unlimited capitalism.

Their goals are fundamentally opposed and the two groups will probably never work together towards anything. As far as anarcho-capitalists are concerned, anarchists are just another bunch of crazy leftists.

Definitely. I'm well aware of the nuances. I just find it interesting that there is such a strong philosophical connection between anarchism and communism.

[Superfly]

I'm not so sure about that. Communism IS redistribution. Redistribution WOULD require force. Government IS force. I see no other way off achieving any communist ends without the means of government. I suppose if you could suppress man's predisposition to make choices and pursue their own self interest then an anarchic-communist system could exist, but then again that's part of what makes us human.

[YumYum]

Traditional (left-wing) anarchism's primarily goal is to abolish all capitalism. Market anarchism's primarily goal is create a world with unlimited capitalism.

Their goals are fundamentally opposed and the two groups will probably never work together towards anything. As far as anarcho-capitalists are concerned, anarchists are just another bunch of crazy leftists.

It depends what kind of Communism you are talking about. If it is forced Communism, then it is nothing like anarchist capitalism. If its like Christian Communism, which was voluntary, then it is very much like anarchist capitalism. The only difference is that with Christian Communism, once you make a contract, you can't bow out. (Ananias and his wife found that out the hard way)

[awake]

In Canada our socialist comrades in the NDP think very highly of the Obama. So much so they debated whether to remove the goal and language of socialism from their constitution and reword it to something more palatable - to describe themselves something closer to the American Democrat party. They could not bear to do it - socialism is too dear a term and goal.

[McBell]

"Hello! How are you?

I was checking you guy outs and was interested in more learning more info about your party. If I wanted to move away from the US
where might I go for a good, safe, thriving libertarian country? To study libertarianism better can you show me a nation today or in
history that was successful? Of course if it's still not around then it probably won't do me much good. See I'm trying to find a good
argument for libertarianism. Thanks!"
Don't be condescending.

[Velho]

You guys do realize that socialism does not equal communism, right? There are many forms of socialism, for example communism that is on the far left and social democracy that is close to the center.

[Deborah K]

How can communism and anarchy be connected in any way? Communism stems from the collectivist philosophy. Anarchy, in the forms described in RPFs, seems to value the individualist philosophy.

[Deborah K]

You guys do realize that socialism does not equal communism, right? There are many forms of socialism, for example communism that is on the far left and social democracy that is close to the center.

Socialism is basically communism but with less violence to sustain it. While some private property ownership is allowed, the concept is basically the same.

[Velho]

Socialism is basically communism but with less violence to sustain it. While some private property ownership is allowed, the concept is basically the same.

Most socialist countries have a mixed market economy, which can basically be summarized as welfare state capitalism. Communism on the other hand is a different story, it aims to completely abolish ownership of private property and wage labour. This is unthinkable for example in a social democratic society, which values democracy and low barriers to free trade but on the other hand provides social security nets for those that fail in their aspirations.

[erowe1]

That seems odd. They should at least see who the Republican nominee is before they assume Obama's more to their liking.

[pcosmar]

Good for them. They need to get more vocal about it.

Quite a few Republicans could use their support as well. (McCain comes to mind)

[Deborah K]

Most socialist countries have a mixed market economy, which can basically be summarized as welfare state capitalism. Communism on the other hand is a different story, it aims to completely abolish ownership of private property and wage labour. This is unthinkable for example in a social democratic society, which values democracy and low barriers to free trade but on the other hand provides social security nets for those that fail in their aspirations.

Would you agree that both derive from a collectivist ideology?

[Velho]

Would you agree that both derive from a collectivist ideology?

Of course, but this can be said of almost any ideology or form of society. It does not mean communism equals social democracy, because the economic models are very different, the idea of government is very different, and the idea of ownership is very different.

[Deborah K]

Of course, but this can be said of almost any ideology or form of society. It does not mean communism equals social democracy, because the economic models are very different, the idea of government is very different, and the idea of ownership is very different.

Agreed, as I mentioned before, one form of this ideology is more violent than the other. But both rely on individual sacrifice for the greater good.

[awake]

You guys do realize that socialism does not equal communism, right? There are many forms of socialism, for example communism that is on the far left and social democracy that is close to the center.

Yes, in the same degree that a few cancer cells do not make a tumor... We are only talking degrees, not the apple and oranges comparison as the defenders of socialism use most frequently. The old defense that communism is bad and that socialism is good is the near universal argument to explain away the atrocities, and who and what was responsible for them. Socialism, in any amount, is a stepping stone downward to the extinction called Communism; the universal slavery; the return to the beast world.

Socialism is a scale of degrees , you can have a little or a lot - name these states of decay as you wish. It always represents the loss of liberty guaranteed in the institution of private property and the natural right to it.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

PROTIP: The U.S.S.R did not collapse because of communism.

[Velho]

Yes, in the same degree that a few cancer cells do not make a tumor... We are only talking degrees, not the apple and oranges comparison as the defenders of socialism use most frequently. The old defense that communism is bad and that socialism is good is the near universal argument to explain away the atrocities and who and what was responsible for them - socialism in any amount is a stepping stone downward to the extinction called communism.

Socialism is a scale of degrees , you can have a little or a lot - name these states of decay as you wish.

Please explain the mechanism that leads all socialist systems to communism.

[pcosmar]

Please explain the mechanism that leads all socialistic systems to communism.

Fabian socialism has exactly the same goals as Marxism. The only difference is the means of achieving it. Fabians reject violent revolution in favor of slow infiltration and gradual changes. ( incremental)

There is NO end game difference.

[awake]

One crises leads to an intervention by the ignorant who have guns, which does not solve the initial crises and creates 4 more. The intervention cycle starts all over: now there are 5 crisis which spawn multiples more through ignorant interventions. Slowly over time you live in crises after crisis requiring more centralization and control, more interventions...etc. then the phrase "too big to fail" comes as a guiding principle... Example: Greece. Greece should default, like any other ponzi scheme, but they keep shoveling other peoples retirements over to the black hole (interventions). Who will pay these lenders for their foolishness when it is time for their crisis?

Look at the state of the economic situation we are in currently in; it a series of crises resulting from previous interventions, and will be followed by a series of interventions that eventually make full government control seem advantageous to get some form of stability and shelter from the storm. Business men have been historically prone to calling for greater 'state protections', but like the old saying goes, "when you trade your liberty for security..."

There are semi-socialist nations that seem to break this theory, but we are entering a stage of crisis that will tempt even them to make further steps to socialize more fully. A sustained world inflation is already having great effects on the "middle of the road' folks.

[Velho]

Fabian socialism has exactly the same goals as Marxism. The only difference is the means of achieving it. Fabians reject violent revolution in favor of slow infiltration and gradual changes. ( incremental)

There is NO end game difference.

So there you have one branch of socialism, which doesn't seem to be very influential I might add, at least when it comes to displacing the free market aspect. What does this have to do with the mechanism behind all models leading to communism? You still seem to be unable to comprehend that the term "socialism" includes a diverse political spectrum.

[Echoes]

Every nation in the world is socialist, it's just a matter of degree. We in America dont own property, the Govt does, we just pay (forced) rent.

[Velho]

One crises leads to an intervention by the ignorant who have guns, which does not solve the initial crises and creates 4 more. The intervention cycle starts all over, and the the original crisis spawn multiples more. Slowly over time you live in crises after crisis requiring more centralization and control, more interventions...etc. then the term Too Big to Fail comes as a guiding principle...

Look at the state of the economic situation we are in currently in; it a series of crises resulting from previous interventions, and will be followed by a series of interventions that eventually make full government control seem advantageous to get some form of stability and shelter from the storm. Business men have been historically prone to calling for greater 'state protections', but like the old saying goes, "when you trade your liberty for security..."

There are semi-socialist nations that seem to break this theory, but we are entering a stage of crisis that will tempt even them to make further steps to socialize more fully. A sustained world inflation is already having great effects on the "middle of the road' folks.

Eh, that was extremely vague and didn't explain much at all. In a democracy you have the ability to vote, and if the people vote "socialists" into power then they will more likely than not go forward with those plans, crisis or not. If however the power of money has overcome the rule of law and democracy, then you must seriously start thinking about revolution, because living in a kleptocracy means it doesn't matter who you vote for, you are living in a totalitarian system only faithful to money.

[awake]

Socialists don't come wearing shirts that say so, the voter usually sees a well groomed candidate with talking points that are worded to make it all sound Homey. Obamacare.

Let me give you a clear example: The Great Depression was caused by repeated central banking interventions. These series of interventions and crises spawned the New Deal, which was a huge leap toward socialism. If one looks at theses events correctly you can see what a severe economic crisis will potentially launch in to - we still live with the worst of the old New Deal, what would a 'New New Deal' do to what remains of the mixed economy.

Most people use their democratic vote to vote themselves the property of others with out the guilt of having to do the dirty work themselves. The politicians role is to appease and absolve this behavior in exchange for these 'votes'. He seeks to cement his ability to do the same thing on a much grander scale and bring home the "pork".

[Velho]

Let me give you a clear example: The depression caused by central banking interventions spawned the new deal which was a huge leap toward socialism. If one looks at thses events correctly you can see what a severe economic crisies will potentially lead to.

Most people use their democratic vote to vote themselves the property of others with out guilt of having to do the dirty work themselves.

That still does not tell me how it's all gonna end up in communism, since you can't draw straight lines like that in complex social and economic issues :D

Can you tell me which deal that was so I can read what it's all about.

In the end, as Ron Paul has talked about, it's about what people think the role of government should be. If the majority of the population wants to move toward a more social democratic system then there's no stopping them. Blah somehow this got into a socialism-in-America kind of discussion while I began talking about socialism as a whole. :D

[Deborah K]

Please explain the mechanism that leads all socialist systems to communism.

The mechanism is the collectivist ideology. Even in a Republic like ours, you can see how collectivism can permeate it and gradually change it. If you haven't seen this series of clips on individualism vs. collectivism, please watch? Clip two speaks directly to what I propose.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSHg3JV_V8



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n4E2tAQBVE



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5L3aJMlPA



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YxvySQqkk



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0

[pcosmar]

So there you have one branch of socialism, which doesn't seem to be very influential I might add, at least when it comes to displacing the free market aspect. What does this have to do with the mechanism behind all models leading to communism? You still seem to be unable to comprehend that the term "socialism" includes a diverse political spectrum.

Not very influential?
The friggin' President is a Fabian Socalist. Tony Blair is a Fabian. The socialist Coup of 1913 was heavily influenced by Fabians.
The CFR was created by Fabian socialists.

How do you figure that they have little influence.

[Velho]

Not very influential?
The friggin' President is a Fabian Socalist. Tony Blair is a Fabian. The socialist Coup of 1913 was heavily influenced by Fabians.
The CFR was created by Fabian socialists.

How do you figure that they have little influence.

Please read the rest of the sentence.

[Velho]

The mechanism is the collectivist ideology. Even in a Republic like ours, you can see how collectivism can permeate it and gradually change it. If you haven't seen this series of clips on individualism vs. collectivism, please watch? Clip two speaks directly to what I propose.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSHg3JV_V8



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n4E2tAQBVE



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5L3aJMlPA



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YxvySQqkk



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0

Thanks, I will watch these once I have the time.

[Deborah K]

Please do, they're only about 5-8 minutes each. Watch number 2 first? And squeeze the rest in when you can. It will give you a good idea of how most of the established forum members think about the topic of communism, socialism, etc. Most know who Ed Griffin is, and believe in the individualist philosophy.

Thanks, and welcome to the forums, btw.

[AlexAmore]

I think that everyone is forgetting that China is "communist" country.
When they absorb us, we will be too.

I think that you threw them a bone with that email.

I'm not so sure. China is not a utopia by anybody's definition. Communist party of USA is allegedly for the little man. China is not for the little man, they excessively execute for non violent crimes. They have censorship, they have repression. No trials for many...

They just don't realize in the long run power corrupts.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm not so sure. China is not a utopia by anybody's definition. Communist party of USA is allegedly for the little man. China is not for the little man, they excessively execute for non violent crimes. They have censorship, they have repression. No trials for many...

They just don't realize in the long run power corrupts.
Utopia can only be achieved when ~30% of people's production isn't put to military. It doesn't help anyone's health or well being.

[pcosmar]

Please read the rest of the sentence.

I read the whole sentence. And the other sentences.
I reject socialism in entirety. Yet it is a reality and has infected most of the world and the US.
I oppose it.

[teacherone]

I'm not so sure. China is not a utopia by anybody's definition. Communist party of USA is allegedly for the little man. China is not for the little man, they excessively execute for non violent crimes. They have censorship, they have repression. No trials for many...

They just don't realize in the long run power corrupts.

collectivism always ends in the gulags.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Republicans need to capitalize on this endorsement more than they did last time. Put in TV ads and show them how far left Obama is.

[Velho]

Please do, they're only about 5-8 minutes each. Watch number 2 first? And squeeze the rest in when you can. It will give you a good idea of how most of the established forum members think about the topic of communism, socialism, etc. Most know who Ed Griffin is, and believe in the individualist philosophy.

Thanks, and welcome to the forums, btw.

Ok, I watched the second part. I pretty much agree with everything that it says, and it mostly applies to modern social democracy. Social democracy is in simple terms collectivism for the benefit of the individual. In such societies there is a general consensus that the whole has to protect the individual. The main difference (most likely, by what the last seconds of the video said) comes from the fact, that in a social democracy the population grants the government the right to enact laws that basically force the majority (in taxes) to subsidize the minorities. And here the differing opinions about the role of government and the definition of freedom and responsibility of the individual towards the minorities comes to play. And just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I'm not saying that America should adopt ANY form of socialism, it is not my place to dictate that. I am simply trying to explain how the different systems work.

[awake]

That still does not tell me how it's all gonna end up in communism, since you can't draw straight lines like that in complex social and economic issues :D

Can you tell me which deal that was so I can read what it's all about.

In the end, as Ron Paul has talked about, it's about what people think the role of government should be. If the majority of the population wants to move toward a more social democratic system then there's no stopping them. Blah somehow this got into a socialism-in-America kind of discussion while I began talking about socialism as a whole. :D

Ron Paul is correct; it is what people think the proper role of government is. The fact of the matter is that something like Obamacare passed in spite of near overwhelming opposition - tell me where the people were on that one? It still stands in force just like the Patriot Act. Even after the ballots flushed the old for the new. We are proceeding in incremental steps...Crises precedes the legislation, with constant conditioning and endless sophism to help make the next timid steps. Democracy is not a safe guard, it is the means to achieve further socialization through progressive installment plans.

We will never see communism in the Marxist sense in the world we live in. The bloody attempts in the 20th century to achieve it ground society like hamburger - even the psychopaths could see that it was not going to work - they ran out of bullets. National socialism and Stalin's "communism" were not the true end, they simply were "transitional stages". Both plans (really one in the same) only achieved a high degree of socialism.

Everyone makes the mistake by assuming the idea of communism failed, it only failed in these particular attempts. The ideas are still very much alive and well and in wait for the proper atmosphere from which to grow again. And it won't be wearing the old garb and slogans - that is for sure.

In about 350 years of gulags and mass murder we would get to communism - Marx himself described it that way. Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. Regardless of the terminology, the program would require that all non believers be liquidated and those not marked as trash would have to be trained to act against their own nature - the "new socialist man".

[ChaosControl]

So the communist party is corporatist too?
Wow. So where would the anti-corporatist left go? Green party?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

While not a communist myself, I do see the benefits in utilizing a new brand of American communism.
First, let's review the timeline giving rise to communism:

1) George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 - 1831): In order to be free, the people need to own property.
2) Karl Heinrich Marx (from 1818 to 1883): a social and political scientist who defined how society works not in unison, but as a result of conflict. "Capitalism" is a relationship between the owning "bourgeoisie," the wealthy middle and upper classes, and the proletariat, the workers. People would gain the necessary property to be free when tensions ultimately led to the old social structure being destroyed and replaced by a new system of socialism. This socialism would evolve over time into a stateless and classless system called pure communism.
3) Uncle Emanuel Watkins (from 1958 to present): Watkian communism has won many posititive +refs in the political forum rating system as it believes that socialism should only be utilized and applied to the banking industry. As the conservative endeavor of banking and the liberl endeavor of the social communist system are extremes at each far end of the political spectrum, combining the two should result in the destruction of the other for the benefit of mankind. As banking has had to be bailed out numerous times by the American people, so, the industry should now be declared as part of the United States government and regulated as such. While the endeavor of banking should exist to serve the people, the money paid to each communist employee working in the industry should be fair and equal.
An example of fair and equal pay:
Yearly pay of Bank CEO: $25,000 (no benefits).
Yearly pay of middle manager: $24,500 (no benefits).
Yearly pay of Janitor: $24,000 (no benefits).