moonbattery.gif


« Obamunists Help Themselves to Credit Card Numbers | Main | Open Thread »


October 15, 2008

Communists Ecstatic Over Economy, Obama

The recent economic turmoil and the terrifying possibility that Barack Obama could actually be elected President aren't bad news for everyone. The US Communist Party is delighted. At the party's New York headquarters, regional party chairman Libero Della Piana crows:

We are very excited, we feel that we are at a turning point. We can afford to be less on the defensive for the first time since Ronald Reagan, and we can say our word in rebuilding America on a new basis, rebuilding a better world, instead of one based on the greed of the few.

Of course, to rebuild the country as the Soviet Union II, first they'll have to bulldoze the old America. Obama plans to accomplish this by jacking up taxes in the face of a recession, which can be expected to produce a depression. The last depression gave us the New Deal, including a host of entitlement programs that will eventually bankrupt the country. But FDR's misguided socialist thuggery will look like a blossoming of liberty compared to what Obama's supporters have in mind.

Exults Della Piana:

We hope to be part of the discussion. I can see a role for the Communist Party in this next period.

Many of his staff wear pictures of Obama on lapel buttons. All BHO has done is smoke a lot of dope and write two memoirs, but already he's up there with Marx and Stalin, based on what he threatens to do to the world's Last Best Hope.

obama_communist.jpg

Hat tip: Knowledge Is Power, on a tip from V the K.

Posted by Van Helsing at October 15, 2008 7:35 AM

Comments

Excerpted from a document written and published in 1958.


The CPUSA’s forty-year existence has held six united front periods...
On a number of counts, this seven-year interval -overspanning the stock-market crash and the worst years of the depression -is one of the most revealing in the history of the CPUSA. For what the Party did at that time tells us much about what we can expect of it if our democratic society is again confronted by a major economic crisis.

The depression was, for all America, an experience so profoundly traumatic that almost any brand of radicalism which was then manifest has passed muster among us as a natural product of despair or of helplessness to relieve despair. Hence, we have tended to overlook certain facts. One of these is the obvious fact that Communism was in no possible sense a product of the depression. Another is that the depression was not, for the Communists, a time eof despair, but of unprecedented optimism. The very type of crisis that Marxism-Leninism had promised them had come to pass. America, at last -with millions unemployed, desperate farmers, bankrupt Ұetty bourgeoisieӠ-had become a field white unto the harvest. If communist laborers were few in comparison with the total population, they were fired by hope; they had answers to give where no one else had; and they were schooled in politicizing tension and unrest.

Ever since that time, their writings have been tinged with nostalgia for the depression years. Even John Gates, when he was still editor of the Daily Worker, acknowledged the existence of this nostalgia -while doubting its tactical wisdom: “Some comrades say that all we have to do is sit tight until the next depression and the return old days of the thirties. . . . The workers do not consider the days when they starved as the ‘good old days’. (2)

What, then, did the Party do with a depression at its disposal? In 1929 -to quote John Gates again- the basic industrial workers were unorganized, the Negro people lacked organization and leadership,” and the CPUSA “had a virtual monopoly in filling the vacuum.” (3) How did it relate to America’s need? How did it use its opportunity?

As we have already noted, it set itself to discredit the leaders of all non-Communist working groups and to win over their members for its own purposes. While it constantly agitated for reforms that appealed to large “ready-madeӠgroups -and claimed the credit for any that were achieved -it always labeled these as transitional demands”‘ linked them up with propaganda for the abolition of capitalism and “bourgeois democracy.”

To give itself new sources of Party membership and new spheres of influence, it created a host of Ҧront” organizations: groups not formally connected with the Part, but dedicated to enacting its program. The leadership in these was securely in Communist hands; but the membership included as many non-Communists as possible. In the language of the Party, such “fronts” were “transmission beltsӠ(using Lenin’s phrase) between the “revolutionary van the “unorganized masses.”

Posted by: Artfldgr at October 15, 2008 7:54 AM

another excerpt... though this one plays more towards tactics, that alinsky and others formalized and distributed without telling the users that these tactics tear apart merit, and make it a thugocracy in which blackmail is the operative method allowed to be most successful.


is there any doubt, that once this changes over, that these same fruitbats will go the way of the people protesting in tianemen square.


the Communists have on their hands the odd double task of seeming to be allied with reformers and yet seeking both to discredit them and to prevent their getting problems well enough solved to lower “class tensions. For this task, the united front affords an ideal maneuvering ground. It makes “legitimate” the presence of Communists at problem points in our society where reformers are at work. Being on hand, they can make the most of every chance to assume “vanguard” role: to grab the spotlight by first inducing strife and then being more “brave” than reformers in fighting the “forces of reaction.” Also, they can do what Marx recommended in his Address to the Communist League: namely, outbid the reformers by being less “timid” and more “generous” in the demands they make in behalf of the needy and discontented.

They enjoy here the same advantage Lenin enjoyed when he set himself to outbid and discredit the provisional government: namely, that of being irresponsible. Reformers, like the provisional government, take a responsible attitude. society, with all its faults. They do so because they regard our society as their own, and want to help make it function -not to prove that it is “bankrupt.” Hence, they feel that they can, in good conscience, recommend only such solutions to problems as seem both workable and fair all across the board. Communists, being ideological expatriates, are not thus constrained. just as they profess a strictly “class” morality, so they propose strictly ‘class” solutions to problems; and they shape their proposals, not in terms of workability, but of wide appeal and of educative” value with respect to the “class” nature of the “bourgeois capitalist State.”


Reformers cannot deal in the Communist type of “immediate demand,” -but they can be doubly discredited by it. By comparison with the more “courageous” and “generous” Communists, they can be discredited in the eyes of those who suffer privation and injustice; and by their united front association with the Communists, they can be discredited in the eyes of the conservative community. Thus, many times, they not only lose good will and practical support for the causes they care about but are themselves diverted from, these causes to problems of self-justification and self-defense.



and almost forgot the source information..


WHAT WE MUST KNOW ABOUT COMMUNISM

Chapter Eleven

TACTICS AND STRATAGEMS: THE UNITED FRONT




and since i dont have time to post again today (probably)



If the CPUSA was ready for revolution, the American people, as it turned out, were not: not even the unemployed and bankrupt. For a time, in the depths of the depression, the tactic of the “united front from below” netted the Party a host of new members; but, on its own testimony, it lost them as fast as it gained them. Thus, we read in a small pamphlet, issued by the Central Committee of the CPUSA and dated September 1932, a startling admission: “No fewer than 10,000 to 12,000 new members join the Communist Party of America every year, yet the total membership of the Party does not rise above 10,000 to 12,000. This means that every year practically the whole Party membership changes.” (5)


On the basis of this and other evidence, we must conclude that the ‘good old days” of the depression are remembered with nostalgia by veteran members of the CPUSA not because of any marked and durable success in building the Party but because revolutionary aims and allegiances could be openly declared, confidence was at flood tide, and “immediate demands” around which fervent programs of agitation could be developed were unlimited in number. In practical fact, the “united front from below” ended, not as a successful coalition of the party with authentic non-Communist groups, but simply as a drawing together of all the elements already sympathetic to Communism. it became, we might say, a coalition of the Party with its own “front” organizations.


How, then, shall we account for the fact that by 1939 the CPUSA had 59,000 members? The answer lies in the formation of the third united front: ‘the People’s Front Against Fascism.” We can date this from the Seventh Congress of the Comintern, which met in Moscow, in July-August 1935, to deal with the threat to the Soviet Union represented by the Axis powers; and specifically, at that time, by the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo alliance. The key speaker at this Congress was Georgi Dimitrov, General Secretary of the Comintern, and he urged that Communist Parties, particularly in tlie capitalist countries, give up their “left sectarian” tactics and set about creating the broadest possible “front” against fascism. Their aim should be to establish “unity of action of all sections of the working class, irrespective of the party or organization to which they belong.” (6)


Posted by: Artfldgr at October 15, 2008 7:58 AM

Funny, China is moving towards capitalism and America is moving towards communism. Okay, it isnt really funny, its quite scary.

Will one day our children be on boats trying to get into China to escape The Communist States of America?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 15, 2008 8:20 AM

maybe...

but if you pay close attention, china is doing waht some science fiction stories have promoted.

building the emerald cities where workers who work hard can be allowed to be transfered and be free.... and so these "gardens of capitalism" are like domesticating wheat, rice, or corn...


wild capitalsim to them is like wild rice... but if they could plant capitalism, like a farm, and restrict it to the farms like corn, till it wont grow anywhere else..

not only will it be an economig boom for them, but that can be used to hold a huge carrot that never comes to the prols in the rest of the country.

one has to realize that without any political or operational limits, literally anything can be tried no matter how depraved the results may appear... and they can do it even if it kills 100 million and doesnt work.

fun fun fun

Posted by: Artfldgr at October 15, 2008 8:25 AM

There are times when somebody must actually see what's coming. They see the water pulling way back and they know there will be a terrible wave. The hand comes out and writes on the wall during a party. They see the idiots celebrating that their troops have moved into Poland. They dance in the streets because Pearl Harbor was bombed and there is no problem they missed the carriers. They went out from Washington with picnic baskets to watch the one of the first battles of the Civil War. History is replete with examples of idiots celebrating what became total disaster. Now the whole world seems ready to celebrate the election of Obama. It may very well be the greatest disaster mankind has ever known!

Posted by: jim johnson at October 15, 2008 10:21 AM

How the libeals like to desicrate old glory replace the 50 stars with ether the hammer and psycle of the commie dirtballs or the 70s chicken footprint of the chickens of the 70s including our former dictator BILL CLINTON

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at October 15, 2008 11:45 AM

You know, as much as I didn't (and don't) like Bill Clinton, his Presidency could have been worse - much worse. That much will become clear in a few weeks, whichever candidate wins. If Obama wins, it will become much clearer, much faster. Clinton was a liberal, yes, but not an obscenely Marxist liberal - he had a measure of practicality that could surprise you. When he stopped playing politics and actually paid attention to the situation at hand, he was capable of making decisions that were of actual benefit to the country. Yes, his foreign policy stunk, but what do you want out of the left?

I say this not to praise Bill Clinton, but to paint a backdrop for the coming administration, during which we may well look back on Clinton's presidency as "The Good Old Days." Jesus, has it been that long since Reagan? I fear that it has, and unless another Ronaldus Maximus comes along soon, whoever follows the next President (hopefully in 4 years, not 8 - or 10 if you're Obama) will be just as bad as the last few.

The kicker is this: being the President is not really rocket science. Americans function best when left largely to their own devices. The President's job is not to rule the country, but to protect the country and our free-market economy from enemies, foreign, domestic, and moonbat. We don't need piles of regulations or thousands of government departments mucking around in the mundane details of everyday life - the market takes care of those things. Keep our enemies at bay, apply reasonable regulation to the marketplace (that keeps the truly dishonest from taking advantage of the honest), keep the tax burden from stifling investment, stop the Congress from doing the dumb things it likes to do, and the rest will run itself. That doesn't mean that everything is always "fair", and benefits don't always happen instantly, but it works itself out.

We are about to get a crash course in why socialism doesn't work on any kind of large scale. And it doesn't matter who wins, because that process has already begun with the nationalization of the mortgage and banking/credit industries, the loan packages (that we will never get back) to the auto industry, and the money paid out to AIG that puts the US people now in the insurance business as well. We are fortunate that anyone is still willing to lend money to the United States, and that is a testament to the vast wealth and success of this nation more so than an endorsement of the yahoos running it. In four years we may not be so lucky. And the moonbats around the world cheering on said yahoos may not be cheering much longer either when they discover that a healthy US is key to a healthy Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa. Will they bail America out when they discover that we are "too big to fail?" Unlikely.

Posted by: CoderInCrisis at October 15, 2008 3:33 PM