Page 1 of 11

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:17 pm
by Phatscotty
Okay, but the Communist Manifesto really isn't a great point, but it was more of a counter to something specific said on the first page about how Progressivism has a lot in common with Communism.

We also have to include Obama's deep connections with Frank Marshall Davis, who basically filled the role as Obama's father when Obama moved to Hawaii when he was around 10 years old.

Image

I think Obama quotes/speaks of/shares experiences with Frank Marhsall Davis 27 times in his own auto-biography. Also, Frank's name was scrubbed from future editions of "Dreams from my Father". Don't spend any brain power questioning why he would do that though

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:43 pm
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:We also have to include Obama's deep connections with Frank Marshall Davis


So I was teetering at "B" (rational statement with which I disagree), but the conspiracy theory pushes me back into a "C" (irrational statement).

John Hinckley's family were friends with the the Bush family. When he shot Reagan was it part of a Bush plot to propel George H.W. into the White House?

Imagining Manchurian Candidate scenarios, multi-layered plot lines and decades long plans that have been cultivated in the shadows can definitely make politics fun. But usually they're things one should not openly discuss if one wants to be taken seriously. Kind of like jock itch.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:54 pm
by BigBallinStalin
saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.


I do not believe Obama is a Marxist, and agree with those who say he is conservative. However, if we are applying Marxism based on a 150 year old treatise instead of more contemporary definitions, Scott may have a point.

    > 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    One could argue that Obama's tax policy are equal to a heavy progressive tax.

    > 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

    as above, vis a vis the Capital Gains tax

    > 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    One could say the Federal Reserve and TARP are roads to this end.

    > 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

    One could argue proposals like the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 are a road to this end.

    > 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into
    > cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    One could argue the existing government stakes in GM, Chrysler and ongoing ownership of the TVA, etc. are a road to this end.

    > 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and
    > combination of education with industrial production.

    This has already come to pass.

So, if Scott says "Obama is a Marxist" is this: (a) a rational statement with which you agree, (b) a rational statement with which you disagree, or, (c) an irrational statement?


In the sense in which you described Marxism, it would be a rational statement which I might agree with but am having difficult with accepting as true because...

the above are not including the other main demands of Marxism--namely, 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Therefore, the way in which you described Marxism cannot correct because it isn't Marxism.


We could settle for "Quasi-Marxism," or lol "Obamism," but that renders Marxism meaningless--in comparison to other terms which better describe Obama.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:55 pm
by Phatscotty
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:We also have to include Obama's deep connections with Frank Marshall Davis


So I was teetering at "B" (rational statement with which I disagree), but the conspiracy theory pushes me back into a "C" (irrational statement).

John Hinckley's family were friends with the the Bush family. When he shot Reagan was it part of a Bush plot to propel George H.W. into the White House?


duh :P

saxitoxin wrote:Imagining Manchurian Candidate scenarios, multi-layered plot lines and decades long plans that have been cultivated in the shadows can definitely make politics fun. But usually they're things one should not openly discuss if one wants to be taken seriously. Kind of like jock itch.


Davis was a Marxist, and he mentored Obama. No conspiracy to see here. Just a Marxist Frank Marshall Davis mentoring a young and impressionable Barack Hussein Obama, for years. Obama thought of him as the father he never had.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:03 am
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Imagining Manchurian Candidate scenarios, multi-layered plot lines and decades long plans that have been cultivated in the shadows can definitely make politics fun. But usually they're things one should not openly discuss if one wants to be taken seriously. Kind of like jock itch.


Hey, Davis was a Marxist, and he mentored Obama. Not conspiracy to see here. Only Marxism


David Horowitz' parents - HIS PARENTS!!! :o - were members of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Not book club "I'm a Marxist - can I get a grande espresso, I'm late for the midnight showing of Easy Rider?" kind of Marxists but, training-in-the-forest with AK-47 Marxists. Is David Horowitz a Marxist sleeper agent secretly trying to destroy the Republican Party from the inside?

That question probably doesn't matter because, as your dramatic photo evidence shows, Obama and Davis TILTED THEIR HEAD THE SAME WAY IN PHOTOS A PHOTO. Case closed. Point, Scott.

Image

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:50 am
by Phatscotty
hahaha chuckle. I have actually heard Horowitz speak many times, and if he is a Communist sleeper cell, then he is giving away all the Communists secrets! But maybe they are fake secrets, hmmmm. I just wanted to show photos of the 2 people that had more influence in Obama's life than terrorist Bill Ayers, and bonafide Marxist Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

But, to get back to the most serious of business, I want to know. Can the community agree, that what is meant by the word "Marxist", (to speak simply for maximum communication impact) as one who prescribes to, follows, is heavily influenced by, shares the philosophy and the theories of Karl Marx and Communism? Anyone feel free to add what else defines a Marxist.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:00 am
by BigBallinStalin
But the means and ends differ.

Being a Marxist != being a social democrat, or Stalinist, or progressive---even though those forms of governance share some/many similarities.

It just isn't accurate to label a social democrat or progressive as a Marxist.




(Furthermore, thanks, BVP for clearing that up, and you're still a socialist.)

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:04 am
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:But, to get back to the most serious of business, I want to know. Can the community agree, that what is meant by the word "Marxist", (to speak simply for maximum communication impact) as one who prescribes to, follows, is heavily influenced by, shares the philosophy and the theories of Karl Marx and Communism?


That seems like a reasonable definition Scott, in that you limit it to "is influenced by ... the theories of Karl Marx" and not an illogical "is influenced by ... people who are influenced by Karl Marx."

For instance, Saxi loves Oprah but that doesn't mean he supports Obama.

Image

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:19 am
by Phatscotty
BigBallinStalin wrote:But the means and ends differ.

Being a Marxist != being a social democrat, or Stalinist, or progressive---even though those forms of governance share some/many similarities.

It just isn't accurate to label a social democrat or progressive as a Marxist.



(Furthermore, thanks, BVP for clearing that up, and you're still a socialist.)


I wish to challenge the progressive assertion. The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's. They may have dropped a couple of planks from their agenda over the last century, but I would say the drops are more due to being outdated. You seem to agree there are some/many similarities, I would just state it's my opinion that the similarities that Progressives share with Communists/Marxists are many/barely indistinguishable. Especially with all the class warfare and racial and social division that is starting to be called "acceptable".

I understand people have the urge to get defensive because of the negative annotations connected to Marxism/Communism, but those annotations are well deserved and when you strip it all down to philosophy and policy and words and actions, they are the same thing if you allow just a little room for evolution and the technological era.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:36 am
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.


No, this did not happen. There are six unarguably national Communist parties operating in the United States under the following names:

- Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist)

- Communist Party USA (Paleo-Marxist)

- Workers World (Juche)

- Socialist Workers Party (Pathfinder)

- Socialist Party USA (Trotskyist)

- Party of Socialism and Liberation (?)

I've never heard of an extant group called the Progressive Party. I bing-dot-commed for their website but couldn't find it.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:56 am
by Phatscotty
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.


No, this did not happen. There are six unarguably national Communist parties operating in the United States under the following names:

- Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist)

- Communist Party USA (Paleo-Marxist)

- Workers World (Juche)

- Socialist Workers Party (Pathfinder)

- Socialist Party USA (Trotskyist)

- Party of Socialism and Liberation (?)

I've never heard of an extant group called the Progressive Party. I bing-dot-commed for their website but couldn't find it.


I'm pretty sure they did. And I know the links are in the forum because I posted it before. I'll have to find them tomorrow, and you will have to wait until then to tear it apart.

EDIT: Here is one starting point down a different rabbit hole

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:16 am
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.


No, this did not happen. There are six unarguably national Communist parties operating in the United States under the following names:

- Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist)

- Communist Party USA (Paleo-Marxist)

- Workers World (Juche)

- Socialist Workers Party (Pathfinder)

- Socialist Party USA (Trotskyist)

- Party of Socialism and Liberation (?)

I've never heard of an extant group called the Progressive Party. I bing-dot-commed for their website but couldn't find it.


I'm pretty sure they did. And I know the links are in the forum because I posted it before. I'll have to find them tomorrow, and you will have to wait until then to tear it apart. I know the first Progressive Party was founded in 1912, and the Communist Party at that time ceased I think in 1909m then came back in 1919, then changed back to the progressive party again in 1924, etc


The only reference I could find to the event you described ("The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.") was in a joke made by Allan West on YouTube.

The Progressive Party founded in 1912 was created entirely as a personal political vehicle for Teddy Roosevelt to run for President after he failed to get the Republican Party nomination, and was named that because Roosevelt supported women's suffrage. It folded almost immediately after Roosevelt lost the election. It was definitely not a Communist Party and I have never heard any mainstream - or even fringe - history text claim the former Republican president Teddy Roosevelt was a Communist. There are many parts of history that are debatable, however, arguing whether the Soviet Union in 1917 or the U.S. in 1900 was the world's first nation with a communist government is probably not one of them.

    Also, any group founded before 1935 is easy to identify as a Communist Party because they were required, under the rules of the COMINTERN, to name themselves Communist Party of France, Communist Party of Mexico, Communist Party of the United States, etc.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:20 am
by BigBallinStalin
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.


No, this did not happen. There are six unarguably national Communist parties operating in the United States under the following names:

- Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist)

- Communist Party USA (Paleo-Marxist)

- Workers World (Juche)

- Socialist Workers Party (Pathfinder)

- Socialist Party USA (Trotskyist)

- Party of Socialism and Liberation (?)

I've never heard of an extant group called the Progressive Party. I bing-dot-commed for their website but couldn't find it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

is what PS probably means by "progressives."

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:21 am
by Phatscotty
haha well I was careful to say "I think" because I knew I wasn't totally sure, but I found this. Although I think most of the nutmeat is in the first half of the article, I'm sharing the whole thing because it's an interesting read.

The Communists in America were raided in the early late 10's and early 20's, and they needed to go underground. A face lift and a name change would eventually come with that. Please note I am not sharing this as some smoking gun piece of evidence, but I have to go to bed and we'll get into it tomorrow. I promise

Communist party, in the United States
in the United States, political party that espoused the Marxist-Leninist principles of communism.

Origins

The first Communist parties in the United States were founded in 1919 by dissident factions of the Socialist party. The larger, which called itself the Communist party of America, consisted of many of the former foreign language federations of the Socialist party, in particular the Russian Federation, and the former Michigan Socialist party. The other, named the Communist Labor party, was led by Benjamin Gitlow and John Reed. The parties immediately became subject to raids by agents of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer and local authorities. These raids resulted in a sharp drop in party membership and, in Jan., 1920, forced the Communists to go underground.

Early Years

In May, 1921, under strong pressure from the Third (Communist) International, or Comintern, the Communist groups in the United States were united as the Communist Party of America. The Comintern also forced a change away from revolutionary militancy to working through established labor organizations and developing a mass following. Accordingly, in Dec., 1921, the Communists organized the Workers party of America, as a legal, acknowledged organization, and by 1923 the underground party had ceased to function. Attempts were made to work through the growing farmer-labor movement of the early 1920s, but they failed, opposed by most farmer-labor leaders and Progressive leader, Senator Robert La Follette. Unsuccessful Communist-led strikes among textile workers in Passaic, N.J. (1926), in New Bedford, Mass. (1928), and among New York City garment workers (1926) also lessened Communist influence in trade unions.

During this period two factions developed within the party. One, led by Jay Lovestone, was generally socialist in background and concerned with political theory. The other, led by William Z. Foster and Earl Browder, was more syndicalist in background and interested in union activity. These two groups alternated in party leadership until 1929, when the Comintern ordered that Foster's group gain control to carry out the Comintern policy line established at its Sixth World Congress (1928). The party was renamed the Communist party of the United States of America.

This era, called the Third Period, saw the development of the theory of "social fascism," by which labor and socialist leaders were denounced as more dangerous enemies of the workers than the fascists. American Communists also made a major appeal for African-American support, calling for the creation of a black republic in the South, on the grounds that African Americans were a national, not a racial, minority. The adoption of the new party line coincided with the beginning of the depression of 1929, and as the economic crisis grew, Communist membership increased. However, its policies isolated the Communists both in politics and in the unions, so that despite increased membership and some success in organizing the unemployed, the party's influence remained small.

Popular Front and World War II

In 1935 the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern announced another change of direction. It now stressed the need for a "popular front," a movement to create political coalitions of all antifascist groups. In the United States, the Communists abandoned opposition to the New Deal; they reentered the mainstream of the trade union movement and played an important part in organizing new unions for the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), for the first time gaining important positions of power in the union movement. As antifascist activists they attracted the support of many non-Communists during this period.

The party's attacks on Nazi Germany ended abruptly with the signing of the Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact in Aug., 1939, and World War II, which immediately followed, was denounced as an "imperialist" war caused by Great Britain and France. American defense preparations and aid to the Western democracies were vigorously opposed as "war-mongering," and Communist-dominated unions were quick to go out on strike. However, when Germany attacked Russia in June, 1941, the Communist position on the war changed overnight from "imperialist" to "democratic." The party, under the leadership of Earl Browder, now went all out in its support of the war. Strikes were opposed as a hindrance to the war effort, and in 1944 the U.S. Communist party "disbanded" as a political party to become the Communist Political Association.

The Cold War

In 1945, Browder's policy was attacked as being one of the "right deviationism," and he was replaced by William Foster. This change in line and the beginning of the cold war brought the party, which had achieved relative respectability during the war, under renewed attack. In 1948 the Communists supported the presidential candidacy of Henry A. Wallace on the Progressive party ticket, but he obtained only slightly more than a million votes.

Communist influence in labor unions came under increasing attack. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 denied the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board to unions that failed to file affidavits avowing that their officers were not Communists, and in 1949—50 the CIO expelled unions that were still Communist-dominated. In Mar., 1947, President Truman barred Communists or Communist sympathizers from employment in the executive branch of the federal government. The sensational confessions of former Communists, such as Whittaker Chambers, and increasing evidence of Communist espionage led to highly publicized investigations by Congress (especially by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Subcommittee on Government Operations), the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and federal grand juries.

In Oct., 1949, 11 top Communist leaders were convicted on charges of conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government. In June, 1951, the Supreme Court found the Smith Act of 1940, under which the convictions had been obtained, constitutional, and the government proceeded to bring many lesser Communist officials to trial. In 1950 the McCarran Internal Security Act required that all Communist and Communist-dominated organizations register with the federal government the names of all members and contributors, and the Communist Control Act of 1954 further strengthened the provisions of the McCarran Act by providing severe penalties for Communists who failed to register, denying collective bargaining power to Communist-dominated unions, and taking away the "rights, privileges and immunities" of the Communist party as a legal organization. At the same time many states passed "little Smith Acts," with such provisions as the requirement of loyalty oaths from state employees and the denial of a place on the ballot to Communist parties. This was also the period of Senator Joseph McCarthy's hysterical search for Communists in all branches of government.

In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin's excesses, along with the Russian suppression of the Hungarian revolt in that same year, created new schisms in the U.S. Communist party, which lost thousands of members. The Supreme Court has upheld many of the provisions of the Smith and McCarran acts as they apply to the leadership of the Communist party, but several decisions of the 1960s substantially voided sanctions against the rank and file except where some active conspiracy against U.S. security is proved. As a result the party resumed open activities in 1966 and ran candidates in presidential elections, but the contemporary party is a very minor political force. In the late 1980s, party leader Gus Hall criticized the Gorbachev reforms in the USSR, but as Communism collapsed in the USSR, it was claimed that Hall had received $2 million from the Soviet party. Subsequent declassification (1995—96) of intercepted Soviet cables confirmed that party members had indeed spied for the Soviet Union before and during the cold war, although some scholars questioned the extent to which the cables could trusted.


http://education.yahoo.com/reference/en ... CommunisUS

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:27 am
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:haha well I was careful to say "I think" because I knew I wasn't totally sure, but I found this. Although I think most of the nutmeat is in the first half of the article, I'm sharing the whole thing because it's an interesting read.

The Communists in America were raided in the early late 10's and early 20's, and they needed to go underground. A face lift and a name change came with that. Please note I am not sharing this as some smoking gun piece of evidence, but I have to go to bed and we'll get into it tomorrow. I promise

Communist party, in the United States
in the United States, political party that espoused the Marxist-Leninist principles of communism.

Origins

The first Communist parties in the United States were founded in 1919 by dissident factions of the Socialist party. The larger, which called itself the Communist party of America, consisted of many of the former foreign language federations of the Socialist party, in particular the Russian Federation, and the former Michigan Socialist party. The other, named the Communist Labor party, was led by Benjamin Gitlow and John Reed. The parties immediately became subject to raids by agents of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer and local authorities. These raids resulted in a sharp drop in party membership and, in Jan., 1920, forced the Communists to go underground.

Early Years

In May, 1921, under strong pressure from the Third (Communist) International, or Comintern, the Communist groups in the United States were united as the Communist Party of America. The Comintern also forced a change away from revolutionary militancy to working through established labor organizations and developing a mass following. Accordingly, in Dec., 1921, the Communists organized the Workers party of America, as a legal, acknowledged organization, and by 1923 the underground party had ceased to function. Attempts were made to work through the growing farmer-labor movement of the early 1920s, but they failed, opposed by most farmer-labor leaders and Progressive leader, Senator Robert La Follette. Unsuccessful Communist-led strikes among textile workers in Passaic, N.J. (1926), in New Bedford, Mass. (1928), and among New York City garment workers (1926) also lessened Communist influence in trade unions.

During this period two factions developed within the party. One, led by Jay Lovestone, was generally socialist in background and concerned with political theory. The other, led by William Z. Foster and Earl Browder, was more syndicalist in background and interested in union activity. These two groups alternated in party leadership until 1929, when the Comintern ordered that Foster's group gain control to carry out the Comintern policy line established at its Sixth World Congress (1928). The party was renamed the Communist party of the United States of America.

This era, called the Third Period, saw the development of the theory of "social fascism," by which labor and socialist leaders were denounced as more dangerous enemies of the workers than the fascists. American Communists also made a major appeal for African-American support, calling for the creation of a black republic in the South, on the grounds that African Americans were a national, not a racial, minority. The adoption of the new party line coincided with the beginning of the depression of 1929, and as the economic crisis grew, Communist membership increased. However, its policies isolated the Communists both in politics and in the unions, so that despite increased membership and some success in organizing the unemployed, the party's influence remained small.

Popular Front and World War II

In 1935 the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern announced another change of direction. It now stressed the need for a "popular front," a movement to create political coalitions of all antifascist groups. In the United States, the Communists abandoned opposition to the New Deal; they reentered the mainstream of the trade union movement and played an important part in organizing new unions for the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), for the first time gaining important positions of power in the union movement. As antifascist activists they attracted the support of many non-Communists during this period.

The party's attacks on Nazi Germany ended abruptly with the signing of the Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact in Aug., 1939, and World War II, which immediately followed, was denounced as an "imperialist" war caused by Great Britain and France. American defense preparations and aid to the Western democracies were vigorously opposed as "war-mongering," and Communist-dominated unions were quick to go out on strike. However, when Germany attacked Russia in June, 1941, the Communist position on the war changed overnight from "imperialist" to "democratic." The party, under the leadership of Earl Browder, now went all out in its support of the war. Strikes were opposed as a hindrance to the war effort, and in 1944 the U.S. Communist party "disbanded" as a political party to become the Communist Political Association.

The Cold War

In 1945, Browder's policy was attacked as being one of the "right deviationism," and he was replaced by William Foster. This change in line and the beginning of the cold war brought the party, which had achieved relative respectability during the war, under renewed attack. In 1948 the Communists supported the presidential candidacy of Henry A. Wallace on the Progressive party ticket, but he obtained only slightly more than a million votes.

Communist influence in labor unions came under increasing attack. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 denied the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board to unions that failed to file affidavits avowing that their officers were not Communists, and in 1949—50 the CIO expelled unions that were still Communist-dominated. In Mar., 1947, President Truman barred Communists or Communist sympathizers from employment in the executive branch of the federal government. The sensational confessions of former Communists, such as Whittaker Chambers, and increasing evidence of Communist espionage led to highly publicized investigations by Congress (especially by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Subcommittee on Government Operations), the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and federal grand juries.

In Oct., 1949, 11 top Communist leaders were convicted on charges of conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government. In June, 1951, the Supreme Court found the Smith Act of 1940, under which the convictions had been obtained, constitutional, and the government proceeded to bring many lesser Communist officials to trial. In 1950 the McCarran Internal Security Act required that all Communist and Communist-dominated organizations register with the federal government the names of all members and contributors, and the Communist Control Act of 1954 further strengthened the provisions of the McCarran Act by providing severe penalties for Communists who failed to register, denying collective bargaining power to Communist-dominated unions, and taking away the "rights, privileges and immunities" of the Communist party as a legal organization. At the same time many states passed "little Smith Acts," with such provisions as the requirement of loyalty oaths from state employees and the denial of a place on the ballot to Communist parties. This was also the period of Senator Joseph McCarthy's hysterical search for Communists in all branches of government.

In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin's excesses, along with the Russian suppression of the Hungarian revolt in that same year, created new schisms in the U.S. Communist party, which lost thousands of members. The Supreme Court has upheld many of the provisions of the Smith and McCarran acts as they apply to the leadership of the Communist party, but several decisions of the 1960s substantially voided sanctions against the rank and file except where some active conspiracy against U.S. security is proved. As a result the party resumed open activities in 1966 and ran candidates in presidential elections, but the contemporary party is a very minor political force. In the late 1980s, party leader Gus Hall criticized the Gorbachev reforms in the USSR, but as Communism collapsed in the USSR, it was claimed that Hall had received $2 million from the Soviet party. Subsequent declassification (1995—96) of intercepted Soviet cables confirmed that party members had indeed spied for the Soviet Union before and during the cold war, although some scholars questioned the extent to which the cables could trusted.


http://education.yahoo.com/reference/en ... CommunisUS


I just did a CTRL+F and didn't see any references to Obama.

I did find two references to two separate groups called "Progressive Party."

    According to Wikipedia, the first "Progressive Party" which - according to the article Scott provided - opposed communists, existed from 1924 to 1948 and was unrelated to Teddy Roosevelt's "Progressive Party" (1912-1916).

    According to Wikipedia, the second "Progressive Party" existed for 7 years from 1948-1955, was also unrelated to Teddy Roosevelt's "Progressive Party" (1912-1916). Their candidate was cross-endorsed by the CPUSA in one election.
I don't believe this demonstrates "The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's."

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:22 am
by BigBallinStalin
Yeah, but that's what they want you to think.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:31 am
by saxitoxin
BigBallinStalin wrote:Yeah, but that's what they want you to think.



Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:00 am
by BigBallinStalin
That's the best I've ever seen of Alex Jones.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:19 am
by thegreekdog
Okay, here's the deal PS. Your definition of Obama as a marxist and/or progressive hinges upon things he's said or people he's associated with. My definition of Obama as a Republican in Democrat clothing hinges upon the laws he's signed and the policies he's implemented since being president. Are you saying that a better barometer of the president's political ideology is what he's said and people he's associated with? If the answer to that question is yes, you are delusional, but let's say the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, my response is, "so what?" since the evidence of the last four years points to him being a Republican, not a marxist and not a progressive.

Let me give you a simple example - I can say that I prefer the Waterloo map to all other maps. I an in a user group that mostly plays the Waterloo map. If I have never played Waterloo, does that make me a Waterloo player? No, it does not.

This is not a criticism of your being able to criticize the president. Rather, this is a criticism of how you have labelled the president and how you present your arguments. He is NOT a Marxist. He is NOT a progressive.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:11 am
by Woodruff
saxitoxin wrote:Image


That is a great picture/caption combo. <chuckle>

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:14 am
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:I wish to challenge the progressive assertion. The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's. They may have dropped a couple of planks from their agenda over the last century, but I would say the drops are more due to being outdated. You seem to agree there are some/many similarities, I would just state it's my opinion that the similarities that Progressives share with Communists/Marxists are many/barely indistinguishable. Especially with all the class warfare and racial and social division that is starting to be called "acceptable".


It's humorous that you believe the "class warfare and racial and social division that is starting to be called 'acceptable'" is coming solely from the Democrats. Not surprising...just humorous.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:31 am
by Gillipig
BigBallinStalin wrote:In order to answer this question, I'll assume "Marxist" means "one who wishes to implement the means and seeks the ends as described in the Communist Manifesto."


Is there any other valid use of the word Marxist? Is marxist like racist? What you call someone you don't like but can't explain why?

Oh.....It's you. Excuse me I thought I was speaking to someone else.

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:21 pm
by AndyDufresne
Night Strike wrote:Enacting laws without Congressional approval while ignoring laws already on the books. Yesterday was the first official day of his illegal Dream Act Amnesty Program.

Did Reagan and IranContra do all that?

Or, here is another good dateline from 1987:

WASHINGTON — With 17 months of his presidency remaining, Ronald Reagan will bank on executive orders and judicial action to implement social policies that he cannot persuade Congress to enact, Gary L. Bauer, the President's chief domestic policy adviser, declared Thursday.

Bauer, the feisty attorney Reagan named to push his social issue agenda, said the President may accomplish some of his goals in such areas as abortion and pornography through a series of executive orders and by his appointment of conservative judges to the federal judiciary, including his nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.

"With a hostile Congress that doesn't show much sign of coming toward us on some of these issues, it behooves us to take the initiative when we can take it," Bauer said.

There are a number of things "the President can unilaterally do," Bauer said, as evidenced by the plan Reagan announced three weeks ago to curb federal funding for organizations and groups that support abortion.


Also, two more fun notes from the article on Regan, especially the second item in reference to your concerns about immigration ;) :

--The Administration dropped Reagan's campaign pledge to eliminate the Education Department because it could find no more than seven or eight senators who were willing to endorse the idea and "decided instead to make sure that as long as we're in office anyway that the department runs like a Reagan Department of Education, that is, to emphasize back-to-basic values, that sort of thing."

--He would oppose increasing federal funding to help border states such as California and Texas cope with the additional burden of providing services for illegal immigrants who are becoming legal under the new immigration law. In the long run, he said, the border states "are going to be helped a lot more by a vibrant long-term economic expansion than they will be by whether one categorical program in Washington has a couple billion more dollars in it or not."



--Andy

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:24 pm
by Woodruff
AndyDufresne wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Enacting laws without Congressional approval while ignoring laws already on the books. Yesterday was the first official day of his illegal Dream Act Amnesty Program.

Did Reagan and IranContra do all that?

Or, here is another good dateline from 1987:

WASHINGTON — With 17 months of his presidency remaining, Ronald Reagan will bank on executive orders and judicial action to implement social policies that he cannot persuade Congress to enact, Gary L. Bauer, the President's chief domestic policy adviser, declared Thursday.

Bauer, the feisty attorney Reagan named to push his social issue agenda, said the President may accomplish some of his goals in such areas as abortion and pornography through a series of executive orders and by his appointment of conservative judges to the federal judiciary, including his nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.

"With a hostile Congress that doesn't show much sign of coming toward us on some of these issues, it behooves us to take the initiative when we can take it," Bauer said.

There are a number of things "the President can unilaterally do," Bauer said, as evidenced by the plan Reagan announced three weeks ago to curb federal funding for organizations and groups that support abortion.


Also, two more fun notes from the article on Regan, especially the second item in reference to your concerns about immigration ;) :

--The Administration dropped Reagan's campaign pledge to eliminate the Education Department because it could find no more than seven or eight senators who were willing to endorse the idea and "decided instead to make sure that as long as we're in office anyway that the department runs like a Reagan Department of Education, that is, to emphasize back-to-basic values, that sort of thing."

--He would oppose increasing federal funding to help border states such as California and Texas cope with the additional burden of providing services for illegal immigrants who are becoming legal under the new immigration law. In the long run, he said, the border states "are going to be helped a lot more by a vibrant long-term economic expansion than they will be by whether one categorical program in Washington has a couple billion more dollars in it or not."

--Andy


SOROS!!!!!

Re: Is Obama a Marxist?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:22 pm
by Phatscotty
BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's.


No, this did not happen. There are six unarguably national Communist parties operating in the United States under the following names:

- Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist)

- Communist Party USA (Paleo-Marxist)

- Workers World (Juche)

- Socialist Workers Party (Pathfinder)

- Socialist Party USA (Trotskyist)

- Party of Socialism and Liberation (?)

I've never heard of an extant group called the Progressive Party. I bing-dot-commed for their website but couldn't find it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

is what PS probably means by "progressives."


Yup. Before peeps start flippin out, yes, I know that the Progressive Party of today is no longer trying to resegregate our military, like Woodrow Wilson did, that the PP of today is no longer making alliances with the Klu Klux Klan, like Woodrow Wilson did, the PP of today no longer seeks to push for abortion of any pregnancies that won't be a white baby, like Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood), but the PP of today does seek to redistribute the wealth, just like FDR, to take from one person and give to another (after the government removes it 50% cut...oops, i mean "waste"), the PP of today does seek to grow the government larger and more powerful, defacto shrinking our Liberty, the PP of today does advocate for universal gov't programs (healthcare, education), the PP of today is just as anti-free markets, anti-free speech, and anti-freedom in general as they always have been. Not that most of them know they are against freedom, but they just think about it wrong (such as the chik-fil-a thing) and they are the source of most of the garbage (just as much by Progressive Republicans as well)

I hold that the PP of today found a new, more useful way to convince their disciples to stay and serve on the plantation, and they have not changed because they realized their history of racism was wrong, but they changed because they are better and smarter and richer now and have different systems to manipulate and control people