Who will the Communist Party endorse for 2008?

[QuantumLo0p]

Back in 2004, the Communist Party USA endorsed Kerry-Edwards.

For 2008, who do you think will be the recipient of the infamous CPUSA endorsement?

Obama?
Clinton?
Edwards?

[miloblithe]

CPUSA? Is that like four guys?

[themadchemist]

Well, from what you're saying, it sounds like they endorsed after the Convention...In that case, they'll endorse the nominee.

But the point is...WHO CARES?

[Macky-Mac]

CPUSA? Is that like four guys?

haha......perhaps the OP is thinking of the "Communists for Kerry" parody group that went around "demonstrating" for "their" candidate in 2004? Fox news wasn't aware that it was a group of pranksters and gave a report about them......it turned out they were actually all republicans :p

[themadchemist]

haha......perhaps the OP is thinking of the "Communists for Kerry" parody group that went around "demonstrating" for "their" candidate in 2004? Fox news wasn't aware that it was a group of pranksters and gave a report about them......it turned out they were actually all republicans :p

That's really funny. I'm sure Fox News wouldn't have minded reporting on them even if they *had* known they were Republicans. Sounds like a great rouse to make democrats look bad.

And I was actually surprised by the OP's post--it always seems to me that Communists are as hard on the Democrats as on the Republicans...They hardly even see any difference between the two. There's something about calibrating to set your political barometer with reality that would really do them some good.

[stevento]

But the point is...WHO CARES?

it might hurt someone's campaign and if they are going to endorse after the convention then its certainly going to be democrats

[themadchemist]

it might hurt someone's campaign and if they are going to endorse after the convention then its certainly going to be democrats

Well, I don't think the timing of it would affect whether it was Democrats or Republicans...My point was only that if such an endorsement were to occur post-convention, it wouldn't matter who is running for nomination. The nominee would be endorsed. But they could endorse someone today, tomorrow, or on the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution and you can be damn sure it wouldn't be a Republican.

[Macky-Mac]

well, actually, they didn't endorse anybody in 2004......the CPUSA says it was all a hoax

[halfprep455]

OP,



Stop Watching Fox Noise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[solvs]

WHO CARES?

People trying to link Dems to Communists and Communism.

[Luis]

I might get flamed for this, but I wish Communism should just die and be over with. It's a flawed system.

[solvs]

I might get flamed for this, but I wish Communism should just die and be over with. It's a flawed system.

For all intents and purposes, it is. At least here. Maybe some remnants in other countries, but mostly just govs calling themselves communist. Most of them are just dictatorships.

[ham_man]

For all intents and purposes, it is. At least here. Maybe some remnants in other countries, but mostly just govs calling themselves communist. Most of them are just dictatorships.
I have a theory about this...

[j26]

I have a theory about this...

Where did you get that ridiculous chart from?

[it5five]

I have a theory about this...

And your theory is absurd.

I consider myself a socialist, and am in no way at all fascist.

If you're going to bundle fascism with anything, it belongs with conservatism. But it really doesn't belong on your chart to begin with.

[.Andy]

I might throw a communist party. Everyone would have to bring a plate.

[leekohler]

To the OP- who gives a crap? What is your point with this?

[themadchemist]

I have a theory about this...

On a scale of right to wrong, the 2D chart using social and economic positions as the axes would rate close to right, and this chart would rate at wrong.

[atszyman]

I have a theory about this...

I've seen that theory before here (http://www.slate.com/id/2182871/) and I think it's published in this book (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841), which coincidentally the article is about.

I do think there's some truth to that argument however it depends on how you define Fascism, if is truly just a form of government where the government tries to control all the aspects of citizens lives, then both ends of the spectrum can end up there if you take them far enough. Using the chart to equate Socialism and Fascism is more than a bit disingenuous since you'd have to keep going further left of what would normally be called Socialism.

The spectrum is infinite in either direction and both end up with total government control of your lives however the motivations for that control are different. To call it a circle would mean that someone bat-**** insane enough to be to the controlling end of Socialism, could go even more bat-**** insane and end up a plain conservative...:D

[yojitani]

Communist Party USA is such a misnomer.

[themadchemist]

I've seen that theory before
I do think there's some truth to that argument however it depends on how you define Fascism, if is truly just a form of government where the government tries to control all the aspects of citizens lives, then both ends of the spectrum can end up there if you take them far enough. Using the chart to equate Socialism and Fascism is more than a bit disingenuous since you'd have to keep going further left of what would normally be called Socialism.

The spectrum is infinite in either direction and both end up with total government control of your lives however the motivations for that control are different. To call it a circle would mean that someone bat-**** insane enough to be to the controlling end of Socialism, could go even more bat-**** insane and end up a plain conservative...:D

I mean, I actually agree that if you go far enough left and far enough right, you basically end up in the same place. I haven't yet decided, though, whether that's true conceptually or just practically. It's hard to make the argument that Stalin, for example, really created a Communist state. There were aspects of Communism, and then a whole lot of oppression, because the idea of actually constructing a working Communist state is impracticable. In order to effect such complete redistribution of wealth, you need this overbearing, oppressive government, but then having such a government, which inherently involves a centralization of power (and, more than likely, wealth), then goes to violate your starting principles. So that makes me lean towards it just being a practical limitation.

[Thomas Veil]

I might throw a communist party. Everyone would have to bring a plate.Whoopee. Borscht, pancakes and vodka. ;)