LONG LIVE THE HOUSE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS ! !

I don't get the post. In the first place, it was apparently written in November 2002, not last November. Second, it was published by WorldNetDaily, founded by the Zionist fellow traveler, Joseph Farah, who is no friend to socialist ideas. No doubt, he would be able to find socialist tendencies in any democrat, progressive or otherwise.

In saying that the article is "accurate," do you mean that it has correctly unmasked the true socialistic nature of the progressive wing of the democrat party? If this is true - which I doubt - what does it really say to people about socialists? For one thing, it says that socialists are deceptive, that they disguise their real intent (a socialist state?) by donning the guise of democrats. By working within the democrat party structure, these crypto-socialists, will bring socialist ideas into the mainstream of political discourse and, thus, make them palatable to the general population, to "remove the stigma" from their minds.

But, even a cursory review of the DSA web site makes it clear that the organization is open about its socialist orientation. If you are proud of the implication that the democratic progressive caucus is the covert arm of the overt DSA, while claiming to be a "progressive democrat" yourself, then you are telling the world that YOU too are not what you seem, and that you are also a crypto-socialist.

Is this conflicted position tenable, especially if people like you yourself relish in its exposure by something like WorldNetDaily, which, at least, is exactly what it seems to be?

For real socialists, politics is not a parlor game.

TO the "real" Socialist,

I posted this from an apparent rightist critic (WorldNetDaily) of the House Democratic Caucus because I thought it was interesting and also because, I thought, the valid information could not be interpreted as an apology for the Democratic Party. (I have gotten enough of that, and responded to enough of it, that I just don't play that name game anymore.)

In saying that the article is accurate I mean that the FACTS given in the article -- including that the caucus includes the Socialist Bernie Saunders and the current Democratic Party leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi -- are accurate.

As for the SLANT that you have read into the WorldNetDaily story -- which probably was intended by the editors of WorldNetDaily -- as to "the true socialistic nature of the progressive wing of the democrat party" (your words): I do NOT think that this means any of the things that you read into it. It isn't even clear what YOU mean by "true socialistic nature" -- a term that needs definition. However, assuming that the progressive wing of the democratic party is somewhat inclined toward socialism under some definitions thereof, (which I do NOT doubt), why on earth would that imply that "socialists are deceptive"? That may be one of many thoughts that WorldNetDaily would like you to read into the phenomena, but it is far from a logical inference or anything that even Joe Sixpack is likely to conclude from the facts. Furthermore, since the obvious seems to have escaped you, "socialists" cohabit an enormous tent together. Some socialists undoubtedly (if you have read any U.S. history) have "donned the guise of Democrats" -- but so what? Some socialists have also donned the garb of the Communist Party. Some have, as is shown by history, donned the garb of the National Socialist Party.

As for your "crypto-socialists" -- I have already had too much of your idiotic conspiracy-theory kind of talk! It's an abuse of good conspiracy theory!

OF COURSE, the DSA is open about its socialist orientation. That hardly needs to be said. It's right there in the middle initial "S" isn't it?

As for your "implication" -- which is actually your unjustified inference -- that "the democratic progressive caucus is the covert arm of the overt DSA" -- that is just another extrapolation by you, for whatever reason I don't get, from the right-wing conspiracy bullshit of the (according to you) Zionist leaning WorldNetDaily.

So I don't get YOUR post, especially the relevance of that WorldNetDaily was founded by Joseph Farah, "the Zionist fellow traveler" ???? That information is strictly according to you -- I just turned this piece up by googling and I'll probably never again see anything by or about WorldNetDaily. Happens that it was an example of what is said, and is true as to the facts, about the House Progressive Caucus -- which, by the way, isn't even a Democratic Party caucus.

I also don't get your idea that you have some kind of patent or copyright on the word "socialist".

I also don't get that you could have contented yourself with presenting the facts about WorldNetDaily and that would have been helpful. While it is apparent that WorldNetDaily is a rightist rag, you could have clarified that point and not ruffled my feathers at all -- I'm not trying to sell the WorldNetDaily!

You could also have pitched the DSA website. Or anything else that might be related to my post. You did not even include such a link!

But you, "Socialist," (IF YOU REALLY ARE WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE ??), could not content yourself with a factual post free of personal vindictive, there's no fun in that, I guess -- so,

as for your snooty implications that I am sneaky and not what I present myself as and that I am a parlor-playing dilletante -- GO FUCK YOURSELF ! !

I'd rather f**k myself than be f**ked by a dissembling phoney like you. My advice to you is to leave socialism out of your confused and bankrupt politics. You give socialism a bad name, contrary to what the progressive caucus of the democratic party - by your own admission, "it's a pretty accurate article" - seeks to do. It's no wonder that democrats find themselves powerless with the kind of fuzzy and muddleheaded "thinking" people like you exhibit. Your sophistry is as dilettantish as your "politics."

And you can give me all the "advice" you want, I'll keep on talking and writing about socialism as I see fit. You may as well start adjusting to the idea that you have no patent on the concept of socialism and no copyright on the word "socialism."

All I know about your concept of socialism is that you think you own it and that any registered Democrat who discusses socialism or advocates it is quilty of "fuzzy and muddleheaded dilettantish sophistry" -- just because you say so.

I don't get what your problem is about my article using the source I did. I clearly state at the outset --

"What may be an 'expose' to some is nothing but praises sung for those of us with a sane point of view."

Is that so hard to get? I'm saying to the rightists "Oooo, calling us 'socialists'? Well, okay, sounds like a compliment to us."

I don't get how that has gotten your 'rhoids in such an uproar. (???)

As far as "My concept" of socialism goes, and this probably sounds dated to a sophisticated political thinker like yourself, I think the basic demands set forth in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 form the basis for a socialist agenda.

As for your reason for posting the article, you say your purpose was to show a rightist perception of the progressive democratic caucus, which is that they are really socialists. Further, that these crypto-socialists, in quoting DSA tactics, seek to make socialist ideas palatable to more moderate democrats through the operations of the Democratic Party. In other words, the progressive caucus of the Democratic Party acts through deception and misdirection in its attempt to foist a socialist agenda on the party. Metaphorically speaking, the members of the progressive caucus are wolves dressed as sheep.

And, you say the article is "pretty accurate," and "What may be an expose for some is nothing but praises for those of us (including you?) with a sane point of view." Thus, you find it complimentary, if you are part of the "us," to be labeled as a participant in this crypto-socialist agenda of deception operating within the Democratic Party. NO?

It doesn't matter to socialists what some democrats think they are or pretend to think. But it does matter when some democrats seek to blur the distinction between democrats - as in democratic party, operating as a major party of the capitalist class - and socialists, who would hardly embrace such an affiliation, by citing and endorsing some rightwing electronic rag's perceptions and conclusions with respect to the identification of progressive democrats as socialists.

Are you part of a clique within the democratic party that seeks to subvert other democrats into accepting socialist ideas without necessarily bothering to tell them that this is your intent? If so, you have very little respect for peoples' intelligence. Your efforts will fail, and all you will have shown for it is alienating the democratic base you target, when they realize what you're about, and fostering within them a visceral mistrust of socialism. Socialists say, no thanks to that nefarious project.

Free advice: Don't piss on your fellow democrats and tell them that it's raining. And, if you are a socialist, quit the democrat party and align youreself with a socialist party. Oh, and you should be more careful about your facts re the date of the WorldNetDaily article. Otherwise, people might not take you as seriously as you would want. Over and out.

And, not only that, but also "Metaphorically speaking" (phrases from socialist's 2nd paragraph).

Thanks for explaining what it is that pissed you off. I guess it's this --

"some democrats seek to blur the distinction between democrats - as in democratic party, operating as a major party of the capitalist class - and socialists"

POINTS TO CONSIDER ABOUT THAT STATEMENT

# 1. I have made no statement to blur the distinction between the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party. However, you -- while identifying "democrats" with the Democratic Party -- did not identify "socialists" with any political party. Therefore, your "socialists" just means what the dictionary says it means -- "advocates of socialism". Are you saying that there are not now and never have been advocates of socialism within the Democratic Party? That would be a demonstrably false allegation. What you are seeking to do is control the party allegiance of any advocate of socialism -- but what if some advocates of socialism so not accept your dogmatic guidance?
______________________________

# 2. You summarize the Democratic Party as "operating as a major party of the capitalist class" and go on to assert that no socialist would affiliate with such. But you have cited THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO of 1848. I quote from that work,

 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

as follows --

"In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie"

"In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists"

"In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846."

"In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie."

So, "socialist," you would say that in all those alliances, the Communists fell to my level, to the level of mere "crypto-socialists"?

I don't know if that's your view or not -- but you have cited that work as the basis of your socialist education???
______________________________

# 3. The Communist Manifesto of 1848 also lists 10 points as its program for socialism at that time --

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Has it ever occurred to you that the modern Democratic Party has played a major part in the implementation of some of these proposals?

* A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (FDR administration)

* Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Wilson administration)

* Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. (All 20th Century Democratic administrations)

Not to mention parts of the other points --

* A heavy inheritance tax (currently being phased out by the Republicans)

* The improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
______________________________

# 4. Here's another quote from the same work --

"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

"The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

"They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

"They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement."
______________________________

Over and out.

It does seem to me that the one who writes under the title "Socialist" makes a very valid point to my understanding. I could be wrong but I think that what he is basically trying to say in part is that American socialism has been hiding in the democrat party for many years until rather recently when it is perceived that there is enough public support to start letting people know real party affiliations and intent. In Europe and elsewhere in the world they have Socialist parties by that name. In America we on the right that are truely in the know about these things have always seen the Democrat party as the Socialist party in America, only some Democrats don't seem to realize it. Why have Socialists hidden in the Democrat party for so many years? (There are a few in the Republican Party as well). It seems that when the American Socialists had formed a political party and run for office that there were very few votes obtained and unlike Europe, Americans by far and large had a great fear of Socialists and Socialist agenda until rather recently. Hence the infiltration of the Democrat party by Socialists who have, to give credit where credit is due, worked hard all of these years to install the socialist agenda in most of America while the bourgeoisie slept and were further lulled into a stupor by the Socialist television networks and programming, not to mention the "hallowed" halls of acadamia. I have to admit, you people have indeed been busy and America is just about like the "Ripe fruit" that Lenin mentioned so many years ago. Unfortunately for us that do not relish your political system Socialists have always "Put their money where their mouth is" while most "Capitalists" are stingy and cheap as well as smug in the false "assurance" that Communism is dead or Socialism is happening elsewhere, not here. America will unfortunately get exactly what it deserves.