Replies

I'm as anti-communist as the next Freeper, but I question the labeling of some of these groups as "communist," merely because some Lefty web matrix links them.

My own assessment?

All-African People's Revolutionary Party (A-APRP) -- Black nationalist. Sort of the American Nazi Party in blackface.

American Indian Movement -- Grand Governing Council (AIM-GGC) - Also ethnic nationalists. Left, certainly, but not Leninist.

American Indian Movement -- International Federation of Autonomous Chapters (AIM-IFAC) - See above

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) -- Old-fashioned social democrats. Not Marxist, much less Leninist.

Green Party of the United States -- Hybrid of ecologist and left-social-democratic

Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) -- A relic of the 1900-1925 era. Anarcho-syndicalist. They are to the union hall what Libertarians are to the Better Business Bureau.

Labor Party (LP) -- Social democrats

New Party -- Social democrat

Social Democrats USA (SDUSA) -- What does their name say? These people are hardline anticommunists from way back

Socialist Labor Party (SLP) -- Like the IWW, a dinosaur from the early Industrial Era. DeLeonist, which actually predates Leninist communism per se.

Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) -- Basically SDs, but with a Marxist edge.

The Greens/Green Party USA -- See Green Party above

United People's Party (La Raza Unida Party) -- Chicano/Mexamerican racial nationalist (or "AztlaNazi", as I call them)

United States Pacifist Party (USPP) -- Religious pacifist, far closer to Gandhi than Trotsky.

Vermont Progressive Party -- Social democrats smart enough to organize in a small power base filled with rich liberals and old hippies.

Working Families Party (WFP) -- Social democrats. They have members in the NY State Assembly.

Hate to be picky, but lumping everyone to the left of Diane Feinstein under the "Communist" label just destroys our credibility, and makes the real thing look that much more innocuous.

Thank you Mikal, for interjecting a note of sanity.

While I would infer that NONE of these groups are supporting policies that I would agree with, that hardly means that they agree with each other. I would not even say that they are all statist, that is working for greater size and power of government, in general.

They are alike in that they are all more or less opposed to the way things are today ... but then, so are many of us here at Free Republic. We just disagree with them, as they do with each other, on what is wrong and what needs to be done to fix it. (I personally disagree with some of them so vehemently that any discussion of our differences would have to be conducted with "Irish syllogisms.")

VietVet

I would ask the both of you to consider a far broader historical picture than you have demonstrated.

It is not Communisim per-se but the principals thereof that are of consern. It is important to observe that many of the groups mentioned are splinter groups, fronts, and various repackagings of the same source product. Such reformations are designed more for "target" palitibility, directed at the demographic they wish to stooge. This is an intrigal part of the Communist/Socialist/Leftist/Marxist/Leninist etc... methods of operation.

Ultra few are stand alones. Multiple studies and books have been written about these organizations and their layered structures. It is hard for some to believe that there are those dedicated to the eradication of Capitalism/Liberty/Freedom and the foundational institutions thereof. But there are.

You may have read of the thinking ahead towards future generations that our Fore Fathers had in deliberating the founding of this country. Just as they, there are those just as dedicated to it's antithesis. These are just as, if not more so, generational in their thinking as our Fore Fathers were.

Arbitrarily refusing to believe that such would be the case, based on ones asumption that such men could not exist, is to live in denyal or ignorance or a combination of both.

They and their MO exist and can be traced.

Socialism, regardless of it's various forms, is merely Communism in part. As in administering poison, the type and dose is adjusted realitive to the "target".

Actually, didn't the DSA have a list of songs which basically glorify killing the "rich", such as "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ...". Or how about "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie." Does that sound like moderate "Old-fashioned social democrats"?

Very fine posting - informative too. I agree that it's a mistake to label all of these outfits as communist. My own view is that all leftists (and, to a certain extent neocons) are really believers in what I think is best described as a religion. This religion is the very antithesis of traditional Judaism and Christanity (the foundation of Western civilization) and actively seeks the abolition of those faiths along with the civilization built upon them, either overtly or through a gradual subversion of core doctrines - and their replacement with a type of utopia run by a centralized world government (run by the true believers, of course). Every aspect of our existence is to be reconstructed according to this new vision, even elemental, created aspects such as gender, marriage, families, etc. Even the holding an idea that there is anything transcendent of man (natural law, God) is quite unacceptable and must be supressed - using the full force of the state apparatus if necessary. The best overall description I've found is John Fonte's piece about "Transnational Progressivism" - a somewhat clumsy term, to be sure. Diane Alden expanded on Fonte's ideas in some articles she wrote a few months ago.