Some may well do. But i'll take it than that you accept that majority of the left of US politics are not communists or on the extremes of leftism.Originally Posted by seanfhear
Probably, but it is actually hard to judge these days. There is certainly a good number around the edges of the American Democratic Party that you would never like to see have real power.
Just look at their reactions to the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Genuinely interested, seanfhear, how do you define communism? Or, rather, what does it mean to you? And which American politicians are communists - not by name-calling but by their actions which are congruent with Communism? I'm curuious because the Communist Party USA claims a mailing list (which I would infer is not the same as a paid-up membership) of 20,000. (The cynic in me thinks half of those are probably in the FBI!!)
By the way, this is the official CPUSA statement on the murder of Charlie Kirk:
What do you take from that?The cycle of political violence that’s plagued the U.S. grew worse with the killing of right-wing Christian nationalist Charlie Kirk in Utah. The Communist Party USA rejects such violence.
In response, the MAGA movement, including Trump, have blamed Kirk’s murder on the “radical left,” labeling left politics a national security threat and calling for a crackdown and even war.
Yet, according to even ruling class law enforcement, the main source of political violence in our country is the radical right. This includes the thousands of insurrectionists whose attack on the U.S. Capitol the Trump White House pardoned, giving not only a nod and wink but outright approval. It also includes the assassination just weeks ago of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband. MAGA’s complete hypocrisy seems endless, and their refusal to address the use of weapons of war on our streets is a case in point.
The working-class and democratic movements know full well from our own long experience that acts of violence and terror only serve the interests of the forces of hate, racism, intolerance, and reaction.
Political violence against individuals, including mass shootings, serve no useful purpose, and we condemn them. Only systemic change will bring about the society we seek. Such change must come through non-violent peaceful mass struggle. The Communist Party USA recommits itself to this goal. We shall not be moved.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
I will say that some of them are probably cos-playing as Communists, after-all so many of them are actually doing extremely well out of Capitalism.
Thing is, ya never really know the real Communists until they get the power to be real Communists.
Ya really get to know Communists when they become killing Communists i.e When they get the power to become killing Communists !
Seanfhear: if an undergrad gave me that answer in an essay, they'd fail the assessment for not addressing part a and for omitting part b. I'm going to pin you down here, and I'll make my questions more specific:
What are the characteristics that help you to identify communism as distinct from the moderate left?
Which of these characteristics are most unacceptable to you, and why?
Can you name three American politicians who exhibit those characteristics of communism, giving an example of each characteristic?
What is your reponse to the CPUSA statement on the murder of Charlie Kirk?
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Well, the Communists will kill you as soon as it suits them, and as soon as they have the power to do so, Because killing is the only thing that Communists are really good at.
AOC, Pocahontas, Jasmine Crockett, ( three off the top of my head ) ~ As I say it hard to differentiate between the Democrats cos-playing as Communists and the Democrats that would be Communists if they had the power to be Totalitarian Communists !Can you name three American politicians who exhibit those characteristics of communism, giving an example of each characteristic?
What Communists say and what Communists do doesn't very often tie in together.CPUSA statement
But fascists kill indiscriminately, and absolute monarchs, theocrats and sundry despots of all political persuasion, left and right.
I disagree: once you know the characteristics it's quite easy to distinguish committed Communists from those exploring their political position.
AOC: why is she a communist?
Jasmine Crockett: why is she a communist?
I don't want an opionion: I want a reasoned answer with an example.
Pocahontas died in 1617, about 250 years before Communism became a political ideology, and I'm unsure if there has been any exploration of her political affiliation though there has been a lot of ahistorical fetishising of her. Native Americans might have emphasied community or communalism at tribal level, but so too did Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno in 1931 in opposition to communism, socialism - and capitalism.
I'm sure you didn't intend to list only three women of colour as your sample, and that it's just coincidence.
It absolutely does.
So once more:
What are the characteristics that help you to identify communism as distinct from the moderate left?
Which of these characteristics are most unacceptable to you, and why?
Can you name three American politicians who exhibit those characteristics of communism, giving an example of each characteristic?
What is your reponse to the CPUSA statement on the murder of Charlie Kirk?
Last edited by Eminence Grise; 16/09/2025 at 1:04 PM.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Moderate left. Interesting turn of phrase that is worth discussion. There doesn't seem to be room for someone to be considered moderate anything anymore. As evidenced on here, if you hold liberal views on certain matters you are branded a commie killer; similarly if you hold more conservative views on these matters you are branded a fascist nazi. There is a lot of room for moderate views but nobody is interested in defining what these are. "If you're not with me, you are the evil enemy". We give way too much precious oxygen and airtime to extremes that represent probably 10% of the population (5% on each side) but those with vested interests like to paint that number at closer to 50%/50%. The topics of most dispute are so debate worthy too, like if you can really get stuck into them in a productive way, hear all sides, understand all fears, you might actually find a compromise that all sides can live with (isnt that what life is about?) - things like immigration, racial equality, womens rights (incl. transgender rights)...but sadly its become a game of "who can shout/shoot loudest".
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
It's the killing Communists that I don't like, and that is all Communists when they get the power to do their Communist killing.
That's a fair point I think. Something that Irish politics/society seemed to be more resistant to than others was those extremes. In fact, overall, I think we're still a lot more moderate and tolerant of debate than elsewhere. The marriage equality and abortion referenda were examples of what would certainly be seen in the current light as liberal ideology being supported by the majority. A large part of their success seemed to come down to a willingness to debate and to be open to change. The social benefits were sold, and there was an acceptance or acknowledgement from many on the more conservative side that while gay marriage or abortion might not align with their personal views, there was potentially wider societal benefits and they wouldn't directly have to change their own views.
It feels like fear and anger have taken over from any kind of rational or moderate thought process for too many. The acceptance of world leaders brazenly lying, fake news, etc. all seems to be exacerbating the extremes. Again, social media seems to have a lot to answer for. There's now almost a fear of mainstream media and a belief that partizan, unregulated, extremist views, coming from within these social media bubbles is somehow better. Any kind of opposing view is dismissed, blocked, unfollowed, unfriended, so the bubble becomes more and more narrow and the moderate or different views start to completely disappear. Then when you come out of that bubble, there's screams that those views must be lies, because they don’t exist within their bubble, other than in being vilified.
So many views now are one liners, I think we’re seeing it in this thread. Ask for an explanation and a little bit of detail or logic and it doesn’t exist. The argument is just shout louder and it seems to be grounded in fear more than anything else. If it’s different then it must be bad, because my bubble says it’s bad. It’s going to be so hard to reverse this and it’s probably going to take a generation or more. It might well take a world war.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Tallaght Stadium Regular
I'm rarely intemperate here, though there have been a few times I feel I've crossed the line and my toes are on it now, so I'm going to disengage. I have no respect for the opinions you've given, but I can, at least, respect you and hope that someday we can have a meaningful, honest discussion.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Everything you both say – and the bits I edited for brevity – I agree with. History goes in cycles and MAGA is really a reborn version of the American Party – the Know Nothings of the 1850s. But while its influence was short lived (though not its legacy) and confined to America, MAGA has seeped into global discourse, and it’s an ideology that revels in brashness, undermining of civility and revelling in ignorance. How can rationality counter tactical, bad-faith irrationality? Answers on a postcard, please.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks