Sunday, August 15, 2010

America's Democrat-Socialist Party

I've long written about this — most recently at "Progressives Are Communists (If You Didn't Know"). It's a done deal now. Leftists can quit lying about it. The Democratic Party is a socialist party. (I call them commies, and while there's some additional steps in the Marxist dialectic before you get there, the ultimate destination is the same no matter how one self-identifies). The key posts are at Gateway Pundit and Nice Deb ("Can We Call Them Democrat Socialists, Now?").

Below is the screencap from the Democratic Socialists of America, "
What is Democratic Socialism?" Notice how the manifesto states that "we are not a separate party" from the Democratic Party of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid:



Gateway Pundit links to the party's blog, American Socialist Voter. Then there's a link to the DSUSA homepage. And then clicking around the "about" page, we find the "Where We Stand" pamphlet, with the chapter, "Strategy for the Next Left." And as explained there:
Socialists have historically supported public ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations -- in order to eliminate the injustice and inequality of a class-based society, and have depended on the the organization of a working class party to gain state power to achieve such ends. In the United States, socialists joined with others on the Left to build a broad-based, anti-corporate coalition, with the unions at the center, to address the needs of the majority by opposing the excesses of private enterprise. Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies. Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized.
And additionally:
Social Redistribution. Social redistribution -- the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society -- will require:
1. massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs,income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, and

2. a massive shift of public resources from the military (the main user of existing discretionary funds) to civilian uses.
Although such reforms will be very difficult to achieve on a national scale in the short term, their urgency increases as income inequality intensifies. Over time, income redistribution and social programs will be critical not only to the poor but to the great majority of working people. The defense and expansion of government programs that promote social justice, equal education for all children, universal health care, environmental protection and guaranteed minimum income and social well-being is critical for the next Left.
Okay, a "shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society," or to "spread the wealth around." We've heard that before:


Going back over to the
American Socialist Voter homepage, the site is careful in attempting to distance itself from violent Marxist-Leninist revolutionary agitation. And of course this is always the case with socialists (who are all by definition Marxists) as they try to revive a world-historically discredited ideology. Hence, today's leftists embrace a subterranean neo-communist ideological program that works to destabilize and transform democratic-capitalist institutions from the inside. This is the "burrowing from within" associated with Alinsky's Marxists. More on this here: "Obama = Alinsky = Gramsci = Marx."

Conservatives know most of this already. See Melanie Phillips' essay from September 2008, "Revolution You Can Believe In." Save it. Put all of this at your sidebar. Never confuse "liberals" with "progressives." (
As Maureen Dowd does today at New York Times.) These people are Marxists. They've adopted a go-slow approach to the revolutionary agenda. It's about burrowing, destabilizing, indoctrination, and infiltration. Unfortuntely, hubris kills the grandest ambitions, and the Democrat-socialist redistribution scam is being increasingly repudiated by the American public ("Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama"). November will see an epic smackdown against the radical left members of the Democratic congressional party. Then in 2012 President Hussein will be repudiated. The country can then try to restore some of its founding principles, not to mention a little sanity.

RELATED: From DSA internal documents, "
WHO ARE THE SOCIALIST IN ELECTED OFFICE TODAY — DSA-Members: American Socialist Voter - Democratic Socialists of America."


T.L. Davis said...

Perhaps it is time for the Republican Constitution Party just to sort of define the sides for the average Joe who tunes into the elections about every four years to vote for president.

Anonymous said...

"The Democratic Party is a socialist party." Are you serious? Is this suppose to be a serious piece. God. You wingnuts are ridiculous. You are stuck in 1954. You are like one of those 1960s radicals that never grew up.

AmPowerBlog said...

Damned serious, Anon. Amazing how you diss the essay when the evidence is all right here. Create a Blogger profile if you want to continue commenting here. Debate ideas. Don't name call. Generally, anonymous comments are delelted.

Anonymous said...

This is amusing. A long time ago, the progressives in the house used Bernie Sanders private website (socialist). Now they have their own...

JBW said...

"Debate ideas. Don't name call."

Bwahahaha! Kettle, this is pot: uh, you're black. Keep entertaining us, Don.

AmPowerBlog said...

JBW: You missed your chance to debate ideas by totally ignoring any substantive points I've made, substituting those with chants of "NANNY STATE."

I keep you around for the laughs, of course.

JBW said...

Oh, by substantive points I assume you're referring to calling me a loser and definitively stating that "Drugs are bad". Oh yes, you're a master debater.

And the best part is that your pathology allows you to actually believe that you keep besting me with "substantive points". As I've said before, I don't blame you for shrinking from the challenge: I wouldn't want to debate me either.

AmPowerBlog said...

JBW if you go back to your first post on this "debate" you ignored my main points and lambasted me as a nanny stater. Can't debate that, especially since you're too stupidly ignorant to see the total nanny state hypocrisy in your die-hard support for "THE ONE."

Obambi's going down. Maybe we'll get someone back in there who believes in the rule of law. You sure don't, but hey, at least pretending to be "libertarian" instead of a drug-addled loser gives you cover.

JBW said...

Hmm, here are the "substantive points" from your post "I Don't Smoke Pot, and I don't Like It":

- You don't like cannabis.
- Conflating cannabis use with the overdoses of people you've known.
- Worrying that your sons will use drugs.
- You don't like drug culture.
- You don't like that one of your former students was arrested for selling drugs.
- Saying cannabis is evil and dangerous.
- A Visine joke.

And as ludicrous as some of these "main points" were I refuted every one of them in my rebuttal post which you summarily ignored. Yes, I used the term "nanny state". Once, in the second to last sentence in the last of nine full paragraphs.

Calling Obama names and me a loser isn't debate Don, and merely stating that you don't like things or that they're "evil" aren't main points of any cogent argument. Now insistently tell me how you've just bested me again.

JBW said...

Yeah, that's what I thought.