CPUSA: Good to be confused with Democrats

[Communist]

.
Convention Discussion (http://www.cpusa.org/convention-discussion-what-s-the-difference-between-the-cpusa-and-progressive-democrats/):
What's the difference between the CPUSA
and progressive Democrats?


by Dan Margolis
March 8 2010
http://www.cpusa.org/assets/Logos/29th_national_convention/_resampled/ResizedImage210143-conv2010logotextscreen.jpg (http://www.cpusa.org/convention-discussion-what-s-the-difference-between-the-cpusa-and-progressive-democrats/)

A certain question has arisen relatively often during this discussion period: "What is the difference between the Communist Party USA and progressive Democrats?" Superficially, that is a good question, superficially: the CPUSA has worked to get Democrats elected, fought for health care reform with the public option, and embraced most of what organized labor has been doing.

Unfortunately, the aforementioned question is often asked rhetorically, so that the person asking can go on to say that our main contribution has to be to introduce the ideas of Marxism and of socialism, or that we should protest or condemn "the other party of capitalism." But if we were to fully embrace that strategy, we could then ask, "What's the difference between the Communist Party USA and the Workers World Party (or any number of the myriad socialist groups, which actually are hard to tell apart from each other).

The question could go further and ask why we've sometimes come out "further to the right" of the progressive Democrats. In 2006, we supported a supplemental budget bill that would have given Bush the money he needed for the Iraq war, but that attached a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, for example.

Then the question arises: If our role isn't to (only) go around talking up the need for socialism and pointing out how bad the capitalist system is, and it's also not to go further "to the left" of the progressive Democrats, then what is it? What's the point of the organization?

The most important thing that the Communist Party has to offer is strategy, based in Marxism. Everything else is secondary to that. Even talk of socialism, while important, isn't helpful unless it's in the context of short- and long-term goals, and what needs to be done now to move forward.
This strategy is outlined in the CPUSA program, "The Road to Socialism."

Instead of simply pointing out the problems of capitalist society, and the need for something better, it is a nearly 90 page discussion of the various contending forces in society, how they are arranged right now, what the current power relations are, and, out of all this, what is the way to move forward towards the goal. Out of this study, the idea that there are three stages, three strategic battles that have to be fought and won, came to be embraced. With each stage of battle, there is, singled out in the document, a core enemy, an enemy that needs to be battled at the local, state and national level, and, on the other side, all of the forces that can be brought together to defeat that enemy (needless to say, the working class is always at core of these forces).

This strategic line can help to provide good tactics, and the clarity to actually win fights and move forward, in any given struggles. Also, the strategic line is based on a real understanding of society-not how we would like things to be. We know that, given the balance of forces in society, we're nowhere near a fight for socialism, and trying to move people to fight for that, or for some sort of strongly anti-monopoly program, would be a losing battle. Between here and there, there's another battle to win.

A concrete example of the usefulness of this strategy: we said that the fight for health care reform, along the lines Obama and groups like Health Care for America Now outlined, was the only step forward actually possible, given the alignment of forces-where the labor movement is, the makeup of the Senate, grassroots groups-ready to fight. Consequently, the CPUSA embraced that struggle, to the chagrin of some who thought that this was a sellout of the Single Payer movement. But, as we've seen, this is where the real fight was.

We were right about that, but what did we add? Firstly, we fought to bring people on board. As I mentioned, a number of people on the left didn't agree with this position. Secondly, and more importantly, we were able to use our strategic line to argue for what is right, to keep in perspective the real enemies. If Obama didn't do this or that, we argued why this was the case, and made it clear that he is not the enemy, at least not now; the real enemy is the Republican ultra-right. The Blue Dog Democrats, as odious as they can be, aren't the enemy either. In this and all other struggles currently, we make the point that targeting them-Obama, the Blue Dogs, etc.-simply lets the tea partiers, the CPAC people, all these types, off the hook and dilutes the movement forward.

The previously mentioned argument around funding for Bush's war in Iraq is another example. We correctly calculated that we couldn't-and can't-get Congress to simply cut off war funding, and to fight for that would be divisive to the anti-war movement. The best possible step forward was to restrain the Bush administration, and thus weaken them. In all areas, this strategy, with modifications based on local particularities, bears fruit: What is the best next step for normal U.S. ties with Cuba? To alleviate the miserable economic conditions workers in this country face? In the battle against racism? Etc.

The strategy is pro-active, as well. Having looked at the current troubles, and the demoralization that has occurred since the 2008 elections, our line is even more important: Obama and the Democrats are not the enemy; they represent better possibilities for working people than the Republicans.

Still, we argue that the role of labor and its closet allies (those who are racially and nationally oppressed, women, young people) has to be increased, and that the grassroots activity on the ground needs to be increased in order to help the Democrats secure at least their best agenda; so doing would both guarantee a real defeat of the extreme right at the ballot box later in the year, and also lay the groundwork for further stages of struggle.

If there were a bigger Communist Party, even of just 10,000 members, we would likely have seen health care reform pass much easier. We would likely see the Employee Free Choice Act passing soon, and so on. Building these struggles is the best way to build the party, and, conversely, building the party is the best way to build these struggles forward, past the 2010 elections and towards an anti-corporate fight. Without an organization fighting for a good strategic line, the movement could go anywhere, but likely nowhere.

In some ways, the fact that people confuse us with progressive Democrats is good; it means that we've tapped into mainstream sentiment; we're not off in left field. I didn't join the Communist Party because of some socialist dream; I joined because I want to be involved in a fight to better society, and the Communist Party seemed, and still seems, the best vehicle for that. The fact that socialism is the outcome of such a fight is incidental to that fact. The case should be the same for the vast majority of people that we will recruit, if we play our cards right.


.

[Nolan]

Fucking reformist traitors.

[GPDP]

Can't say I'm surprised.

These clowns need to renounce the communist label once and for all.

[Tablo]

CPUSA, lol. They've been a joke for years. I would sooner vote for a Stalin cult than a front group for the Democrats.

Not that I would even vote.

[Zeus the Moose]

Consequently, the CPUSA embraced that struggle, to the chagrin of some who thought that this was a sellout of the Single Payer movement. But, as we've seen, this is where the real fight was.

Yeah, and you still fucking lost when you were fighting on the public option.

Fortunately, the Singler-Payer movement seems to have other plans, and hasn't let the ball-and-cup game in Congress or the protestations of "pragmatists" prevent it from organising to get union support. It's still hard to tell if the unions will make good on this- as some unions have been supporting Single-Payer on paper for some time while in practise mobilising for the public option, or worse- but maybe that this debacle is out of the way, we might be able to get somewhere better.

Of course, that's assuming the passage of this healthcare "reform" bill won't have the effect of demobilising many liberals and "progressives," and we know how similar things have worked in the past...

[Ramon Mercador]

They may be Reformist but at least they are Communist.

Long live Stalin

[Axle]

They may be Reformist but at least they are Communist.

Long live Stalin

They've been Communist-in-name-only for years. They're an insult to actual Communist parties and actual Communists. CPUSA is dead weight.

[Ramon Mercador]

They've been Communist-in-name-only for years. They're an insult to actual Communist parties and actual Communists. CPUSA is dead weight.
OKAY INSULT THEM ALL YOU WANT... maybe they did "sell out," but the real DEAD WEIGHT is you Trotskyites, anarchos and LeftComs ok??? u guys are RUST on the scabbard of the Red Workers sword. At least the CPUSA did ACTUAL STRUGGLES for civil rights and working people while WTF were you Trots doing CRITICIZING A REAL WORKERS STATE.. REAL NICE JOB. WONDER WHY PEOPLE SEE U AS NOTHING TODAY AND MARXISM-LENINISM IS GROWING WORLDWIDE.

LONG LIVE STALIN.

[Saorsa]

'Ramon Mercador'? Really?

[core_1]

u guys are RUST on the scabbard of the Red Workers sword.

LONG LIVE STALIN.
You're a very poetic reformist.

[KurtFF8]

Not everyone in the CPUSA is happy with the idea of just becoming a wing of the Democratic party, however:
http://mltoday.com/en/pre-convention-discussion-cpusa-at-the-crossroads-798.html
http://mltoday.com/en/has-the-cpusa-vetoed-march-20-795.html
http://www.facebook.com/cpusa?ref=search&sid=5230652.3295972472..1#!/notes.php?id=53167307346&style=1

[Tablo]

Not everyone in the CPUSA is happy with the idea of just becoming a wing of the Democratic party, however:
http://mltoday.com/en/pre-convention-discussion-cpusa-at-the-crossroads-798.html
http://mltoday.com/en/has-the-cpusa-vetoed-march-20-795.html
http://www.facebook.com/cpusa?ref=search&sid=5230652.3295972472..1#!/notes.php?id=53167307346&style=1 (http://www.facebook.com/cpusa?ref=search&sid=5230652.3295972472..1#%21/notes.php?id=53167307346&style=1)
Very true. There are legitimate Revolutionaries in the party, but I think it is about time they left that awful organization.

[zimmerwald1915]

In some ways, the fact that people confuse us with progressive Democrats is good; it means that we've tapped into mainstream sentiment; we're not off in left field. I didn't join the Communist Party because of some socialist dream; I joined because I want to be involved in a fight to better society, and the Communist Party seemed, and still seems, the best vehicle for that. The fact that socialism is the outcome of such a fight is incidental to that fact. The case should be the same for the vast majority of people that we will recruit, if we play our cards right.
So the goal is nothing but the movement everything? How fresh, innovative, inspiring and original!

Fucking traitors.


OKAY INSULT THEM ALL YOU WANT... maybe they did "sell out," but the real DEAD WEIGHT is you Trotskyites, anarchos and LeftComs ok???
I'm honored that we get a place in your silly little rant, but seriously...die in a fire.

I'll probably edit this post to be more polite, and perhaps even substantive, in a few hours. I've had a bad day and am currently insomniac.

[KurtFF8]

Very true. There are legitimate Revolutionaries in the party, but I think it is about time they left that awful organization.

Or they could try to steer the party in the right direction again. The party has resources and a rich history that would be nice to salvage I would say.

And a note on other comments here: this is just one position being presented at the convention for the CPUSA, I posted various other links to differing positions that are equally not "The CPUSA says..." So don't take this as a starting point to criticize the CPUSA as a whole saying that being Democrats is a good thing: they aren't saying that!

I'm not a fan of the CPUSA: I think their tactics over the past few years especially have demonstrated a reformist tendency. But it seems you're quoting one of their convention discussions as if it's the party line, and it's not. I posted a link to some discussions that are highly critical of this sort of reasoning.

I'm not trying to defend the CPUSA, I think they speak for themselves, but if you're going to criticize them as a party, you should criticize their actual party line.

[RedScare]

Ridiculous. These guys need to get their shit straight. They're not being confused with the Democrats by anyone with an ounce of sense, it's just a revival of Cold War propaganda by the far right, for the rest of the right.

[KurtFF8]

And here's another article, written by a CPUSA member that opposes this lining with the Dems

http://mltoday.com/en/tailing-the-democrats-forsaking-struggle-799-2.html

[heiss93]

Well one has to understand the importance that that trade union consciousness played in the creation of the social democratic welfare state. Now as Marxist-Leninists we want to go far beyond the welfare state. But as long as the leftwing in the USA remained defined by the liberals, who had long become a center-right force in the rest of the world, any hope for socialist consciousness would be a chimera. Obama is a liberal, not even a social democrat. But some of the reforms he is pushing is pushing the USA towards the verge of social democratic trends. While in Europe trade unions played a reformist role, in the USA the influence of Gompers and the Cold War led to the acceptance of the Meany AFL-CIO of the liberal-conservative status quo.

I think the task is analogous to Lenin's Two Tactics or Mao's New Democracy. When the bourgeoisie is too cowardly or corrupt to fulfill its' progressive role, the proletarian party must do it for them. Whatever its limitations the development of trade-union consciousness and the social democratic welfare state played a progressive role in the European worker's movement. This does not mean that is should not ultimately be surpassed by Leninism. But I think the failure of the USA to develop to that level has had a crippling affect on the Communist movement.

Also look at the storm of resistance from the fascist-populist ultraright, Obama stirred up, with even his limited reforms. You act as though we are in a vacuum when in fact the socialist left in the USA is minuscule while the neofascists are real, present and growing danger.

[KurtFF8]

It's hard to label this new rightist movement as a fascist movement. Protofascist at most. They don't have a Left to repress, so the ruling class isn't looking to establish some sort of dictatorship to back against a workers' movement because the workers' movement is so weak that it isn't a threat to the ruling class!

[blake 3:17]

The ANSWER coalition is gearing up for the first significant anti-war marches since Obama took office, planned for the March 20 anniversary of the Iraq war....("With 1000 US soldiers dead in Afghanistan, Time to Revive the Anti-war Agenda" http://codepink4peace.org/blog/2010/02/with-1000-us-soldiers-dead-in-afghanistan-time-to-revive-the-anti-war-agenda/)

March 20th is a National Day of Action Against the Wars and Occupations. Coordinated actions are planned for cities in other areas of the U.S., as well as the March On The Pentagon in DC. But in the section from the cpusa 29th National Convention Official Discussion Document on US Foreign Policy extracted below it would seem that such anti-war marches are slammed as counter-productive and divisive ("...it leads to isolation of the peace movement from the rest of the all-people’s movement particularly labor and African American, Latino and other communities." See document extract below).

Can the Webb Leadership of the CPUSA actually be suggesting that American labor, African Americans and US Latinos are indifferent to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

Or is the inference that the CPUSA leadership does not presently deem it politically expedient to participate in anti-war protests in the streets of the nation? Isn't the role of a Communist party to lead the struggle against imperialist wars?

What is the CPUSA Leadership's position on Obama's massive military surge in Afghanistan ? How does the Webb-group leadership of the CPUSA participate in the struggle for world peace and against wars undertaken by the Obama Administration ?

Can the attribution be true that Webb's leadership group has virtually called off marching against its ruling class's imperialist wars because these adventures are now led by a Democratic Party administration?


http://mltoday.com/en/has-the-cpusa-vetoed-march-20-795.html

[heiss93]

It's hard to label this new rightist movement as a fascist movement. Protofascist at most. They don't have a Left to repress, so the ruling class isn't looking to establish some sort of dictatorship to back against a workers' movement because the workers' movement is so weak that it isn't a threat to the ruling class!

The Teabaggers are proto-fascist only in the sense that they have not found their Fuhrer. But we are already at the point where mobs of brownshirts surround congressmen shouting N*gger and f*g. There have been massive deaththreats just for passing this sub-Bismarckian healthcare bill. We have already had two terrorist attacks on government institutions. A well-armed "patriot" militia movement far stronger than the 1990s anti-Clinton version. Fascism like socialism and "normal" capitalism, adapts itself to local national variants and traditions. While in Germany, Japan, and Italy it took the form of state worship, in the USA it has a libertarian populist veneer. It is true that fascism has historically been used to crush growing socialist movements. But there HAS been a historic shift to the left, because of the 2008 crisis, and the Teabagger movement is precisely about smashing the discontent with capitalism brought about by neoliberalism. Because the teabaggers do not mechanistically match 1930s fascists, is no reason to be caught off guard. I do think the word fascist is thrown around by the left to lightly, which prevents us from recognizing the real wolf when it shows itself. But make no mistake about it the Teaparty is the genuine article. To tear apart the Popular Front in the face of such a dangerous enemy is suicide.

IS there any doubt that if the teaparty was to gain power they would impose the open terroristic dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?

[the last donut of the night]

OKAY INSULT THEM ALL YOU WANT... maybe they did "sell out," but the real DEAD WEIGHT is you Trotskyites, anarchos and LeftComs ok??? u guys are RUST on the scabbard of the Red Workers sword. At least the CPUSA did ACTUAL STRUGGLES for civil rights and working people while WTF were you Trots doing CRITICIZING A REAL WORKERS STATE.. REAL NICE JOB. WONDER WHY PEOPLE SEE U AS NOTHING TODAY AND MARXISM-LENINISM IS GROWING WORLDWIDE.

LONG LIVE STALIN.


http://raluxa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/trlht.jpg


It's fuckers like you that make me have to counter "But Communism is a simplistic ideology, that only leads to dictatorships" arguments.

Fuck off.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Blue Dog Democrats, as odious as they can be, aren't the enemy either

Say what? They align themselves with the Republican right on a number of issues.

What the hell is the matter with this party?

Obama is an avowed New Democrat, a third way-ish coalition of pro-growth, pro-Wall Street Democrats that believe in strengthening globalization and free trade. His Secretary of State Rham Emanuel is the biggest New Dem in the White House and he counsels Obama on several issues.

Obama came out on Fox that he bypassed the left and negated their concerns in an effort to bring in the right and have a centrist bill.

Does the CPUSA not understand that the Dems do not care about progressive values at all and could care less about bringing social democracy?


Obama and the Democrats are not the enemy; they represent better possibilities for working people than the Republicans.

At a very, very, very minute level do they represent a better alternative to McCain/Palin. But what we are living with in the White House right now is the third Clinton administration.

Sometimes they make things worse for the working class as they fuck up both the social service sector and expand the private sectors reach. At least Reagan, Bush I had the decency to leave the rest of the social programs that they didn't cut alone. Under Clinton and his bi-partisan efforts welfare was reformed and all sorts of "efficient" reforms to make the public sector look more like the private sector took place. Now people can't even count on the public sector for much help!

WTF is wrong with the CPUSA?

In order to gain power, you first have to capitulate to it?????

I've read Sam Webb's "Road to Socialism". It was the dumbest crap I've ever read in my life and was not Marxist, heck, barely even Progressive.

[Crux]

So why do these quite moderate centrist Democrats feel the need to gloss over their center-liberalism with marxist terminology? I mean there are Liberals that clearly stand to the left of the CPUSA.

[Robocommie]

It's funny because of how deluded they are. "It's good that people think we're Democrats, it means we're joining the mainstream!" Fuckers, you can't possibly BE in the mainstream because your name is the COMMUNIST Party!

If they want to be mainstream so badly, why not just fucking ditch and join the Democrats? Clearly they believe socialism is just a "dream" to be achieved maybe one day. I can't even imagine how they feel about the communist society that is implied in their name.

These guys are a disgrace to the Leftists that founded their party back in 1919, the ones who used to have to form underground cells to escape Justice Department wrath.

[Crux]

To tear apart the Popular Front in the face of such a dangerous enemy is suicide.

What popular front? You're not seriously comparing the present day Obama administration with the Spanish Republic are you? Because that wouldn't be deluded, that would hint that you've lost pretty much any sense of reality what so ever.

[Red Commissar]

You can thank this movement to Gus Hall's attempts to make them more accepted. He's a sell out.

[Outinleftfield]

The Teabaggers are proto-fascist only in the sense that they have not found their Fuhrer.

They have. Her name is Sarah Palin. She's the perfect fascist "Fuhrer"(or Muhrer?). They all love her, she draws crowds, can make great speeches, is photogenic, and most importantly she's a controllable idiot.

And the fucked up thing is she could win! She could be president in 2012. I would not be surprised. The right voted Bush in twice and the right is just getting stupider so its not crazy to think theyd vote her in at least once.

[RedScare]

They have. Her name is Sarah Palin. She's the perfect fascist "Fuhrer"(or Muhrer?). They all love her, she draws crowds, can make great speeches, is photogenic, and most importantly she's a controllable idiot.

And the fucked up thing is she could win! She could be president in 2012. I would not be surprised. The right voted Bush in twice and the right is just getting stupider so its not crazy to think theyd vote her in at least once.
Sarah Palin will never win the Presdiential election running as the main candidate, there's simply not enough to her as a candidate, and not enough of her die hard supporters. I'd bet my fucking life on it, she will never be president.

[zimmerwald1915]

You can thank this movement to Gus Hall's attempts to make them more accepted. He's a sell out.
I prefer to thank Earl Browder for that particular development, myself.

[Robocommie]

Sarah Palin will never win the Presdiential election running as the main candidate, there's simply not enough to her as a candidate, and not enough of her die hard supporters. I'd bet my fucking life on it, she will never be president.

Yeah, she's got a die hard base, but they represent the far right fringe of the Republicans. In order to be President you have to not only appeal to a base but also to the swing voters, and she's just too ridiculous.

I mean, God help me if I'm wrong.

[RadioRaheem84]

I could see Palin being a strong contender, but I think that the establishment doesn't like fringes from either the right or the left. She would never become President. Vice, maybe but only if she's with a moderate, right wing candidate.

[Crux]

Bear in mind though that she was the vice president of the oldest candidate ever. I defiantly think she might stand for president.

[zimmerwald1915]

Interestingly, there does exist precisely one instance of the vice presidential candidate of a losing ticket going on to later win the Presidency: Franklin Roosevelt.

[KurtFF8]

Bear in mind though that she was the vice president of the oldest candidate ever. I defiantly think she might stand for president.

That's different. VP candidates are picked by the Presidential Candidates' campaign: not popularly chosen. She was a virtual unknown outside of Alaska and some insignificant conservative circles before she was announced to be McCain's VP pick.

[Tablo]

"Fuhrer"(or Muhrer?)
The female form of Führer is Führerin.

[KurtFF8]

A lot of the posts in this thread seem to have ignored that the OP is quoting something from a Party Convention discussion, not an product of the Party itself. I've quoted and linked a few different articles that are critical of this stance, and while the CPUSA certainly is under right-wing/reformist leadership still (and has been for some time), not all members are content with that fact.

[RadioRaheem84]

A lot of the posts in this thread seem to have ignored that the OP is quoting something from a Party Convention discussion, not an product of the Party itself. I've quoted and linked a few different articles that are critical of this stance, and while the CPUSA certainly is under right-wing/reformist leadership still (and has been for some time), not all members are content with that fact.

The leadership of the party certainly doesn't represent the views of its members. I was almost recruited to join the local chapter here and I met a lot of their members. Many were not liberal reformists and were in fact Marxists, but there were some that believed that socialism was not a viable option in the States, and the best we could hope for right now is social democracy.

I was also given a copy of Sam Webb's idiotic manifesto. It was so revisionist that it made the CPC look good.

[KurtFF8]

Don't get me wrong, as I've said earlier: I'm not trying to defend the CPUSA. But this particular attack is on one discussion article, and as I've demonstrated: there are also discussion articles that are radically different than this one.

[Robocommie]

You know what would be funny, is filing a lawsuit in a US court to get the Communist Party to abandon the name, on the grounds that it defames Communist Parties.

[zimmerwald1915]

You know what would be funny, is filing a lawsuit in a US court to get the Communist Party to abandon the name, on the grounds that it defames Communist Parties.
Why bother? The left already knows the CPUSA's a joke, and the right thinks the Democrats are communists anyway.:laugh:

[RED DAVE]

A lot of the posts in this thread seem to have ignored that the OP is quoting something from a Party Convention discussion, not an product of the Party itself. I've quoted and linked a few different articles that are critical of this stance, and while the CPUSA certainly is under right-wing/reformist leadership still (and has been for some time), not all members are content with that fact.But it says a tremendous amount that such an idiotic piece would even appear.

People who think that the CPUSA can be transformed into anything but its own rotten self probably need a 12-Step Program.

Stalinists Anonymous

I admitted that I was powerless over stupidity, and that my life had become unmanageable.

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

Whatever her, Palin's, "base" is, the real base is real money, big money, bankrolling her. Could she be president. Why not? As has already been pointed out, Bush 2, the idiot love-child of the idiots Reagan and Thatcher was president twice.

Never underestimate the venality, the viciousness, the violence, the vindictiveness of the US petty-bourgeoisie. Never underestimate the ability of the US big bourgeoisie to mobilize and manipulate the petty bourgeoisie.

[S.Artesian]

That's different. VP candidates are picked by the Presidential Candidates' campaign: not popularly chosen. She was a virtual unknown outside of Alaska and some insignificant conservative circles before she was announced to be McCain's VP pick.

Comrade,

Presidential candidate are picked also. The "popular choice" is in all practicality the product of advertising, bribery, and thuggery. And the thuggery starts, but only starts, with the fact that its an electoral vote, not a popular vote that determines the victor.

[zimmerwald1915]

That's different. VP candidates are picked by the Presidential Candidates' campaign: not popularly chosen. She was a virtual unknown outside of Alaska and some insignificant conservative circles before she was announced to be McCain's VP pick.
There was a reason she was chosen to be McCain's VP pick. It's not as though McCain got drunk one night, picked her name out of a hat, and declared "I'm sticking with the serendipitous choice of my tremor-prone hand, alcohol, and the laws of probability"*. She was chosen, in part, because a part of the American bourgeoisie wanted Palin "talked up", because they wanted to give her a bigger platform than "Alaska and some insignificant conservative circles".

*Yes, this is how McCain talks when there's nobody writing his words for him :p

[KurtFF8]

Comrade,

Presidential candidate are picked also. The "popular choice" is in all practicality the product of advertising, bribery, and thuggery. And the thuggery starts, but only starts, with the fact that its an electoral vote, not a popular vote that determines the victor.

Well obviously, but my point is that while there is at least some facade of democracy for Presidential candidates: there isn't even that facade for VP picks, as they're just picked directly whenever the Presidential campaign wants.


There was a reason she was chosen to be McCain's VP pick. It's not as though McCain got drunk one night, picked her name out of a hat, and declared "I'm sticking with the serendipitous choice of my tremor-prone hand, alcohol, and the laws of probability"*. She was chosen, in part, because a part of the American bourgeoisie wanted Palin "talked up", because they wanted to give her a bigger platform than "Alaska and some insignificant conservative circles".

*Yes, this is how McCain talks when there's nobody writing his words for him

Of course there was a reason, the GOP wanted to capture its more conservative base because they felt McCain wasn't going to do the trick. Although at the same time they knew that Obama was likely going to win, so they didn't quite go for the best ticket ever.

[Communist]

.
Anyone else find the direction this thread has gone in somewhat of an exercise in prophetic creepiness? The article was about how some self-identifying communists are sticking up for the Democratic party, not going after even the blue dogs, while attacking the GOP at every turn.
It should be understood that the Democrats are no different than the Republicans, both are capitalist lackeys and imperialist lapdogs. Both are equally unworthy, both do the same things, just talk a bit differently.

And yet this thread drifts toward...attacking Republicans.

Yep. I wish I could say I were surprised.

.

[zimmerwald1915]

And yet this thread drifts toward...attacking Republicans.
Division of labor. We attack the Democrats in the healthcare thread, the Republicans in this one. Or something.:p

[Robocommie]

Why bother? The left already knows the CPUSA's a joke, and the right thinks the Democrats are communists anyway.:laugh:

Yeah, but if people think the only thing Communism is about is higher taxes and social programs (not that I have problems with those per se) then we're never going to widen our appeal.

We have our work cut out for us because we've got decades of Cold War propaganda, as well as the historical circumstances of major famines and bureaucratic corruption saddling us.