Communist Party Goals of 1963

Nah, it actually kind of sucks. A list of dubious origin (the wording already makes it look like something a paranoid rightwinger afraid of eeevil promiscuity would dream up in his nightmares), consisting of points that mostly haven't come true. Not much to see here. Posting something like that and getting called on it is not trolling, sorry to disappoint you.

When I read the original post, the first thought that came to me was, "I didn't know you could get that high and still type."

Jesus, Maud Dib, did you drink the leftover KoolAid from Jonestown ??

Another link:

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Before you hoot and throw feces at the source like the monkeys you are, note that external analog sources are cited.

Wow. Now we know how to get Nightbird back. Step on his/her/its commie toes.

"The truth will set you free" of everything except Nightbird, I guess.

It's still all coming from The Naked Communist. That's not going to change, you know.

And you still haven't demonstrated why the highlighted portions of the OP -- which originated in 1958, for those not keeping track -- are incorrect.

Coincidentally enough, that's not going to change, either.

I notice nobody has addressed this.

Edit.

Major flaws in the reasoning of this whole thing:

1. The goals listed do not appear to ever have been stated by actual Communists. Instead, they appear to have been made up by another individual with his own, completely different agenda.

2. The list assumes many things to have happened that really, in any realistic sense, have not.

3. The original poster assumes there's deep significance to the things that have come to pass, such as the Panama Canal's return to Panama, ignoring the fact that it's entirely possible for multiple groups to have the same goal for different reasons. (For example, I could note that the KKK favors abolishing affirmative action, and most Republicans favor abolishing affirmative action. Does that make Republicans equivalent to the KKK?)

When something is deeply flawed on this many levels, it's hard to take it seriously.

Hell, "The Naked Communist" is actually a piece of Anti-Communist work. Not that I terribly care for communism, but it is disingenuous to cite a list of communist goals created by someone who was anti-communist.

Skousen was more than a little out there.

That being said, there was most certainly a communist conspiracy in the US. The KGB made sure of it. Hell, the ongoing myths that the CIA assassinated Kennedy and the Hoover was a crossdresser were published by a small publishing house that was a KGB front according to their own internal archives. They did infiltrate the state department and MI5 in the 50s, and they did steal technical information on the atomic bomb thanks to 'fellow travelers' in the intelligentsia.

So it's no surprise to me the Red Scare had so much potency. They were a much graver threat than the terrorists we face today, had much more support, and they were successful in many cases.

Still, Skousen was a John Birch Society member, and those guys took their paranoia too far, including opposing the civil rights acts in the 60s because of supposed communist infiltration.

As far the list, it wouldn't surprise me if many of these things were part and parcel of some groups within the communist movements dogma's.

However, communism was by no mean a monolithic entity or even ideology.

It certainly looks like that list does represent quite a bit of what the 'progressives' of today want (and of course progressive WAS how the self-described communists described themselves in previous generations), and because of that some of it has been achieved.

Not all of it is bad, though certainly it's an active attempt at multilateralism as opposed to american exceptionalism.

Can't have that. It makes people feel bad.

Prove what? The Communist element in this nation is dead.

If you're going to argue otherwise, you're far beyond reason.

That the bolded items on the list haven't or aren't occurring. Pay attention.

Ehm, No they're not.

Poisoning the well?

Wow, they sure sound like a major political force. Cause only the big parties can afford a fancy website.

They're not doing well over here, either. But they're trying. There was a big strike yesterday, with the union people marching down the streets and chanting slogans. (They're upset with the government's plans to change the "right" to retirement at 60.) Red t-shirts with a hammer and sickle all over, but they just don't have the numbers any more to get people elected.

One result of that is more and more little splinter parties, because a lot of them blame "The Party" for things not going well. (That's the communist mentality, after all: If anything goes wrong, it has to be the fault of the central authority.) So they keep coming up with new ones, because no one takes the French Communist Party seriously any more. I saw a sticker today for a "New Anti-capitalist Party."

It will just crash and burn like all the rest, with almost no one even noticing.

...because any and all disagreement with the Red Room Party Line is dismissed as "poo poo."

Wow, Godwined yourself early in the game, didntcha?

So, from "they're dead" to "they're weak and pathetic." Care to pick one and stick with it?

Wow, Godwined yourself early in the game, didntcha?[/QUOTE]

It's a valid observation. But because it casts your idols in too clear and unfiltered a light, you jump right to the Godwin Copout. Let's just not talk about the Purges or the Holodomor, eh? Why let people in on the switch before they've swallowed the bait?

It's a valid observation. But because it casts your idols in too clear and unfiltered a light, you jump right to the Godwin Copout. Let's just not talk about the Purges or the Holodomor, eh? Why let people in on the switch before they've swallowed the bait?[/QUOTE]

Is there a Godwin's Law for Stalinists?

Of course there isn't. That would be fair and objective, two things the "Oh, that wasn't really Communism!" crowd can't abide.

Maybe we should invent one.

We already have Muad Dib's Law. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison of Confederates to Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Wouldn't do any good. Most people don't even know what Godwin's law is for Nazis. They think it means you shouldn't introduce comparisons to Nazis, or that you "lose the argument" if you do, or some other such nonsense.

It's either lack of education, which is sad, or deliberate distortion of the truth, which is dishonorable. Either way, I have seen very, very few internet discussion board threads mention Godwin's Law and have the discussion turn around what the principle actually says.