We left off on our last article by asking the question of what the Democratic Party really represents: Marxism, Socialism, or Communism?
First let us look at what these words mean before we go any further:
Socialism; – 1 – any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a – a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b – a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 – a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Communism; -1-a – a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2-a – a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that is the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.
Now with those 2 terms in mind, let us look at what a Democracy really means, with the definition thereof.
Democracy: 1a: a government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 : the principles and policies of the Democratic Party in the U.S. 4 : the common people especially when it constituting the source of political authority 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
The first two definitions show the worst of what could be, while the third shows what a real democracy is supposed to be. Does anyone see the difference or maybe a similar idea now being shown by the Democratic Party, where if a minority yells loudly enough, they get control over the majority. Let us continue with what we have to show about the Democratic Party, which, by some standards, may well be the worst idea for any people who wish to work and grow.
Consider the following statements and comparisons dealing with the Democratic Party.
Democrats and Socialism:
In April 2010, the official website of the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA) revealed that organization’s ties to the Democratic Party. Describing itself as a “Party Within a Party,” SDUSA stated the following:
“The Social Democrats, USA kept the name Socialist Party for our political arm because we are the party of Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Helen Keller, Carl Sandburg, Norman Thomas, A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and thousands of people who worked to build the civil rights and trade union movements in this country. Many good folks gave their lives in these movements.
“The Socialist Party, USA, in 1956, chose to stop running candidates of its own, except on rare occasion. During the 1960’s, we began to work in the Democratic Party. This is where our allies in the civil rights and trade union movement worked and continue to work politically. We are proud of what we helped accomplish within the Democratic Party, particularly the civil rights legislation and anti-poverty programs of the 1960’s. The struggle continues….
“Our movement has been involved in the left wing of the Democratic Party since 1947. Socialist Party members helped found Americans for Democratic Action. ADA is this country’s premiere “anti-Communist, liberal” organization. We are proud of our long relationships with Eleanor Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, and others. We look forward to forging a good working relationship with our fellow pro-labor, anti-totalitarian, left Democrats.”
Socialists have aligned themselves with the Democratic Party, not because they were promoting freedom, but because they could easily manipulate the Democratic Party to their ideologies and thus promote a Socialist ideology rather than a Democratic ideology. But that is just the beginning. It does seem that the Democratic Party is willing to have Socialists and Communists helping it win elections, and those groups are more than willing to help the Democrats continue their path away from Democracy and into the vast realm of Socialism and Communism.
“Late in 2010, Communist Party USA member C.J. Atkins called for his comrades to drop their “communist” label, so that they could work more effectively inside the Democratic Party. Soon thereafter, Joe Sims, co-editor of the CPUSA publication Peoples World, acknowledged not only that collaboration with the the Democrats “will be an area of engagement for those wanting to make a difference,” but also that communists might someday be able to “capture” the Democratic Party entirely. Sims warned, however, against dissolving the CPUSA entirely into the Democratic Party. Rather, he advised his organization to remain a separate entity, working both inside and outside the Democratic Party as circumstances required.”
The Communist Party wanted to get into the Democratic Party to “make a difference,” but the difference here would be going from a free nation to a Communist nation. Is our nation really allowing the Communist ideology to take a foothold in the Democratic Party? The answer to that is a resounding yes, especially since the Democratic Party has done so very much to give the Communists a free reign to what they wish and they have been keeping the poor at their level for a very long time. But it does get worse – a lot worse.
“A Party Controlled by Big Lawyers, Big Labor, Big Green, and Big Billionaires
In January 2011, Washington Examiner executive editor Mark Tapcsott enumerated the forces and special-interest groups that now dominate the Democratic Party:
“[B]ig Lawyers … and three other special interests — Big Labor union leaders, Big Green environmentalists, and Big Insiders with billions of dollars in personal wealth and foundation grants — together essentially dictate what Democrats can and cannot support on many key public policy issues…. These four groups provide most of the campaign funding and workers, political and policy expertise, legal and regulatory muscle, and strategic communications for the Democratic Party. Consequently, most Democrats are prisoners of a narrow agenda of constantly growing government budgets, regulation and taxing. have influenced the agenda of the Democratic Party and moved the party far to the left of mainstream America. These special interests have used the power of the purse to co-opt the agenda of the Democratic Party vis-a-vis campaign contributions and independent expenditures.”
The Democratic Party has all but sold out to the very groups they yell and scream about opposing. The Democratic Party seems to be taking care of everyone but the people who get them elected. When we see the names of groups that have become embroiled in the Democratic Party supporting them with either words or with money, we see that they only want the poor to stay that way so they can keep them voting for the Democratic Party so the Party can uphold their donors’ wills, and the donors now are more of Socialists and Communists rather than free-thinking United States Citizens.
COMMUNIST PARTY USA (CPUSA)
Upon its inception in 1919, the CPUSA was inextricably linked to the Soviet Communist International (Comintern), which was controlled by Moscow leadership and possessed “uncontested authority” over all international parties. When it was founded, the Party had approximately 50,000 members.
By the 1920s, the CPUSA’s membership had dwindled to approximately 15,000 because the Comintern forced it to adopt an ultra-revolutionary stance and give up attempts at “coalition building.” The Great Depression presented the Party with an opportunity to recruit and build its membership. Thus the CPUSA used hard times as a propaganda tool to assail the failure of capitalism, targeting particularly the liberal policies of the early FDR administration while successfully infiltrating government agencies, notably the Agricultural Adjustment Administration.
In 1935, with the rise of Nazism, the Comintern changed its policy and adopted the Popular Front tactic, which allowed the CPUSA to pose as the anti-fascist defenders of American liberalism. As Earl Bowder, the leader of the CPUSA from 1935 to 1945, declared, “Communism is Twentieth-Century Americanism.” This new tactic increased the Party’s membership to nearly 100,000 people — its high point — , and it simultaneously allowed the Party to infiltrate a whole host of liberal institutions and use them as front groups. The CPUSA worked especially on becoming a presence within the powerful labor federation, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (which would later merge with the American Federation of Labor, to become the AFL-CIO).
The Unions were incorporated into the Communist Party, which plays well into the Communists’ hands, since the Unions nearly always seem to vote for the Democratic Party. This seems to indicate that the Communists also have a hand in “changing” the Democratic Party towards their way of thinking.
From its inception, the CPUSA had put resources into recruiting African Americans into ranks. While this effort never yielded many members and collapsed with the advent of the Civil Rights movement in the late 1950s, Herbert Aptheker, a long-time member and founder of the American Institute for Marxist Studies, and Angela Davis now attempted to incorporate racial radicalism into the Party.
While its goal has always been the development of a national Communist Party, in 1984 the CPUSA began to giveindirect support to the Democrat Party as the only alternative to the conservatism of the Reagan era. In 1987 Mikhail Gorbachev introduced Perestroika to the Soviet Union, leading eventually to the near disintegration of the CPUSA. In 1992 Herbert Apthetker and Angela Davis split away from the Party to found the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.
In 2008 the CPUSA built what it termed “a labor and people’s alliance” to support Barack Obama’s presidential bid. On January 31, 2009, Sam Webb, the current leader of the CPUSA, gave a speech celebrating that “a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House.” He described President Obama’s inauguration as a sign that “an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream.” According to Webb, the new administration was already considering “a new model of governance” that “would challenge corporate power, profits and prerogatives.”
On November 3, 2010 — the day after mid-term elections in which Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, more than 60 House seats, and 7 governorships — CPUSA Labor Commission chairman Scott Marshall emphasized that his organization had worked collaboratively on political campaigns with AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. Said Marshall:
“The continuing independence of the labor movement was heightened tremendously by the election, and in very specific ways, not just in general. Not only did the campaigning take place from union hall[s],… but this time, as Trumka told us when he was in Chicago, they began the nuts and bolts [of] building independent labor campaign organizations in five key cities around the country.”
complained that prior to the previous day’s elections, a “corporate-Republican alliance depended on lies, fear, and hatred to spread its message”;
praised labor unions for having worked to raise “class consciousness”; and
asserted that a key CPUSA priority for the immediate future would be “to deepen and expand class-consciousness.”
We can take what the Communist Party says and quickly see a very close tie to the words used by the Democratic Party. Look below and see that the Communist Party states; “…CPUSA’s modus operandi is to delegitimize and smear American society by depicting it as deeply and irremediably infested with racism, sexism, homophobia, and all manner of injustice.”
Does that sound like what Hillary Clinton stated recently, using “racism, sexism, homophobia and all matter of injustice” to describe Donald Trump? It is very evident in Clinton’s recent statements about her opponent that Communistic ideology is being used by the Democratic Party.
“CPUSA’s modus operandi is to delegitimize and smear American society by depicting it as deeply and irremediably infested with racism, sexism, homophobia, and all manner of injustice. Click here, for instance, for an explanation of how the organization in 2014 used its flagship publication, People’s World, to foment racial strife in Ferguson, Missouri, in the aftermath of a white police officer’s fatal shooting of a black suspect.”
We will show more in a third article about the connections between the Socialist and Communist Parties in the Democratic Party. For now read this, pass it on, keep it in mind, and watch for the third article on this, where we will show connections to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and how that, along with a few more, aligns the Democratic Party away from the normal people and close to a dictatorship.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.