Communist Party USA [Archive]

Marston

24 Jul 2006, 06:39 AM

People will make fun of you for joining a party which hasn't been relevant since Eugene Debbs last ran for president.

Oh, that was the Socialist Party. I guess the Communist Party USA has never been relevant.

s'box

24 Jul 2006, 06:43 AM

Your phone and internet would be tapped, the government would put your name in its big bin of 'arrest arbitrarily if it comes up' files, and the government will know everything you say and do during every meeting you go to and anything you do within it.

This probably isnt the case any more, but at one point the Communist Party USA was half government agents or informants or something ridiculous like that.

Plus you'd be joining a party whos current political stances are guided by the last soviet leader to give it orders (ol' gorby, so theyre hardly even communists anymore), and nothing you could do would ever change that.

Really if you have to join a communist party, go elsewhere. The socialist party usa seems like quite a nice bunch, without all that tacit wanting to shoot people junk too!

Ferrus

24 Jul 2006, 08:30 AM

The ramification would be that you wouldn't be able to emigrate to Germany should the Nazi's regain power.

Frigus

26 Jul 2006, 06:06 PM

The ramification would be that you wouldn't be able to emigrate to Germany should the Nazi's regain power.
I'd say that was a pretty hard one to deal with.

cryingmime

26 Jul 2006, 06:36 PM

What negative ramifications might ensue if I joined the Communist Party (USA)?
you'd have to buy a lot of red clothes and attend secret meetings in undergroung parking lots.

Jacque

26 Jul 2006, 11:39 PM

Governments are only interested in threats posed by organized parties. CPUSA probably gets as much attention as a...bubblegum comic strip.

Madrigal

27 Jul 2006, 12:47 AM

What negative ramifications might ensue if I joined the Communist Party (USA)?

Wasting your time
Being a counter-revolutionary element
Being boring

Stoic

27 Jul 2006, 12:53 AM

I imagine that the ramifications would be similar to joining any other party.

Believe it or not, but the government still keeps very close tabs on leftists.

Just last week some guys house in Montana was raided because he was distributing material that questioned the official 9/11 story.

nobarcode

27 Jul 2006, 01:41 AM

lol

So, who is the leftist?

ShadyShady

27 Jul 2006, 01:46 AM

What negative ramifications might ensue if I joined the Communist Party (USA)?

Being sent to Guantanamo when McCarthy is resurrected.

Also getting shot in the back of your head when the kgb is done playing with you doesnt sound very fun...

http://rapidshare.de/files/26894185/KGB_Defector_Tomas_Schuman_Explains_How_Communist_Subversion_Works.mp3.html

around 44:30 he starts talking about what happens to wannabe revolutionaries when they are no longer useful...

goodbye comrade. *bang*

Stoic

27 Jul 2006, 03:14 AM

lol

So, who is the leftist?

Probably anyone interested in joining the Communist Party.

SeierTapt

27 Jul 2006, 07:17 AM

Wasting your time
Being a counter-revolutionary element
Being boring

Word, son.

mancroft

27 Jul 2006, 09:39 AM

What sort of Communist?

Marxist, Leninist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist?

Personally, I think that if you are going to do this properly there is only one answer:

a good old traditional hard-line, die-hard, totalitarian Stalinist.

That's the way to go!

Oh, and here's a photo of a cat. He's a Meowist.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rvloon/pics/cats/snuf.jpg

What negative ramifications might ensue if I joined the Communist Party (USA)?

People will call you a Pinko Commie Fag.

you'd have to buy a lot of red clothes

You wouldn't be able to live in Baghdad because people who wear red get killed.

Madrigal

27 Jul 2006, 01:30 PM

What sort of Communist?

Marxist, Leninist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist?

Personally, I think that if you are going to do this properly there is only one answer:

a good old die-hard, totalitarian Stalinist.

I think he said "the" Communist party (which is stalinist), not "a" communist party, which could be anything.

mancroft

27 Jul 2006, 01:38 PM

I think he said "the" Communist party (which is stalinist), not "a" communist party, which could be anything.

I was being facetious (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=facetious).

Anyway, the CPUSA is Marxist-Leninist.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/

jread

28 Jul 2006, 05:36 AM

Wasting your time
Being a counter-revolutionary element
Being boring

Could not have said it better.

s'box

28 Jul 2006, 05:37 AM

I think he said "the" Communist party (which is stalinist), not "a" communist party, which could be anything.

The CP-usa isn't stalinist. They went along with the soviet line all the way through, solid krushevite revisionism and just have been dwelling in gorbachev since.

The rabid stalinists in the us are the progressive labor party and the workers world party.

Anonymous

28 Jul 2006, 07:03 AM

A bit off the topic, but I think I found the party that Bush really should have run for. http://www.falange.us/

Madrigal

28 Jul 2006, 02:28 PM

Wow. Some people seem to not know that "marxist-leninist" translates as Stalinist.

mancroft

28 Jul 2006, 02:34 PM

Wow. Some people seem to not know that "marxist-leninist" translates as Stalinist.

Not in the UK it doesn't.

Marxist-Leninist = theorizers.
Stalinist = kick-ass implementor.

Stalin's main contribution was to forcibly implement Socialist theory although he did make some theoretical contributions:

The main contributions of Stalin to communist theory were:

* Socialism in One Country,
* The theory of aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism, a theoretical base supporting the repression of political opponents as necessary.

from

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

Madrigal

28 Jul 2006, 02:49 PM

Not in the UK it doesn't.

Marxist-Leninist = theorizers.
Stalinist = kick-ass implementor.
They never say they're stalinists. That doesn't mean they don't constitute putrefactive stalinist carcasses, in the broadest sense of the word. All soviet satellites essentially adopted stalinist-leaning programs and implemented them in their respective countries. This includes, among other things, an aversion to direct-democracy organizations, a justification of co-existence, a love of reformist policies and the erasure of the prospect of armed revolution, a shameful collaboration with national bourgeois parties on different levels, a renunciation to classism, a betrayal of workers' struggles, and you're free to pile some more shit on top of that.

mancroft

28 Jul 2006, 02:58 PM

They never say they're stalinists.

Depends who the they are.

If you mean CPUSA then this may be true but there are still people in the UK who are openly Stalinist (although not many of them) and certainly still people in the former Soviet Union who are still openly Stalinist.

Madrigal

28 Jul 2006, 03:14 PM

Depends who the they are.

If you mean CPUSA then this may be true but there are still people in the UK who are openly Stalinist (although not many of them) and certainly still people in the former Soviet Union who are still openly Stalinist.

I meant those who hide behind the label of "marxist-leninist". But sure, that doesn't mean there are no self-proclaimed stalinists. The thing is, genuine Stalinists are such vote-whoring reformists they'll hide their stalinism from the masses before scaring them with such an ugly word.

These people know the extent of their own agreement with Stalinism, they just don't want to proclaim it openly to the masses. In their bureaucratic minds, the masses wouldn't understand why Stalin wasn't the boogieman they have been taught he was. And that is probably the only thing they are right about.

Are there little sects out there jumping around openly proclaiming stalin's greatness? Maybe. Only a stalinist with nothing to lose can be that honest (= tiny group that has no relevance whatsoever among the left).

s'box

28 Jul 2006, 08:54 PM

Wow. Some people seem to not know that "marxist-leninist" translates as Stalinist.

Most trotskyites ive seen have ardently stuck to the label marxist-leninist, usually with a thousand pamphlets that argue that not only are they marxist-leninists they are the true ultra supermax marxist-leninist and no one is anywhere near as marxist-leninist as they are.

They seem to be the most ardent label hoppers as well though, most local groups call only call themselves socialists nowadays and you dont get near lenin till you get to their literature table.

Madrigal

28 Jul 2006, 09:25 PM

Most trotskyites ive seen have ardently stuck to the label marxist-leninist, usually with a thousand pamphlets that argue that not only are they marxist-leninists they are the true ultra supermax marxist-leninist and no one is anywhere near as marxist-leninist as they are.
Very true, they claim to be leninist, but you will probably not see any of their materials saying "marxist leninist", but actually "trotskyist" or "trotskyist leninist", because it is a known fact that not specifying that you are a trotskyist leads one to suspect you are a stalinist. That's just the way it is.

They seem to be the most ardent label hoppers as well though, most local groups call only call themselves socialists nowadays and you dont get near lenin till you get to their literature table.
As a broad propaganda tool, the word "socialist" is more easily understood, and less sectarian, than "trotskyist". (And after all, they are socialists too.)

Ferrus

29 Jul 2006, 03:06 AM

Maoism still seems popular in the Indian sub-continent (well Nepal and West Bengal predominately), and Maoism was just Stalinism for raggy arssed peasents.

nobarcode

29 Jul 2006, 05:48 AM

Probably anyone interested in joining the Communist Party.You edited your post. Why?

booyalab

29 Jul 2006, 06:03 AM

I think he said "the" Communist party (which is stalinist), not "a" communist party, which could be anything.
huh?

Jacque

29 Jul 2006, 07:35 PM

Communist Party (kom'ye-nist par te) n

1.

a. An established political group defined by the books they read as opposed to their accomplishments.

b. A social gathering or group involved in a silly enterprise especially for pleasure, amusement or self pity.

Frigus

29 Jul 2006, 11:07 PM

spasmfrog

29 Jul 2006, 11:27 PM

Where do I buy that dictionary?
Sounds like the work of Ambrose Bierce, maybe someone's channeling his spirit.

Jacque

30 Jul 2006, 05:44 PM

Sounds like the work of Ambrose Bierce, maybe someone's channeling his spirit.

You know, I was holding a seance the other day with my internet following when I became possessed with the spirit of old Ambrose. My mouse darted across the Ouija board/mousepad with much deliberation pausing only to dispense with the occasional pop-up ad until I had arrived at the site of my spiritual destination: The Devil's Dictionary. It was like unearthing an ancient relic imbued with the mystical powers of a long dead cult. Nevermind that Google had resulted 1.9 million other such sites, I was enamored and felt obligated to communicate the wishes of this cursed and restless spirit who had offended God by penning in the name of the Devil. That wish was to for all not to despair, there is still vacancy in hell for cynics.

"DICTIONARY, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work." - The Devil's Dictionary

It might be neat to see a sticky devoted to a revised dictionary.