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.
What are the reactions of posters here, to the reaction of a lot of Lefties in America and indeed else-where to the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk ?
Aren't these nasty Lefties actually showing their true colours ?
There is, no way normal civilised people would react in this manner, to such a horrific assassination of a man in-front of his wife and children ? !
Bit late to the party here, but there's some interesting points here that are worth discussing I think (certainly more so than the nonsense Communist stuff)
I think liberalism in general is good, but there's a definite sense that it can go too far and be harmful. I think if you go back 250 years, life was hard and tenuous. Conservatism I would say arose out of a recognition that some things kept you alive more often that not, and those things were good. With the Industrial Revolution, we suddenly had a huge number of options available to us - conservatism became the voice that said "People can't go more than 20 mph or they'll get turned inside out", whereas liberalism said "No, let's invent trains". Conservatism said women at work was bad and gay people were bad, and liberalism said there was no real reason for that.
But now we have too much, and liberalism is reflecting that. We think men can compete in women's sports and that's fair and inclusive. We people who pay criminal organisations to put them on a plane or a boat to another country and "lose" their documents along the way should be welcomed. Liberalism is now becoming the side that has no real reason to it. I think society requires a balance required there, and I think that balance is reason, and a vision of the future. Are there things we want to preserve, for example? Will liberalism harm them? (Women's rights could be an example here)
I think that's a very one-sided argument - very typical of general discussion on immigration. There's plenty of other issues with it. For one, it creates huge issues for developing countries - so when 90% of Jamaican college graduates emigrate, that has a huge impact in terms of holding back Jamaica's development. African countries are facing big problems developing healthcare because when they train doctors, western countries poach them - and so Africans die for lack of adequate healthcare. Indian IT firms have a similar problem with losing key IT staff, again holding back their economy. As Eastern Europe depopulates, the very borders of Europe are likely to be more destabilised - that should be obvious from things happening right now with Russia.
Are these things we welcome?
It was Newton who said "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction", and that's true here as well, yet everybody ignores that opposite reaction. Which is strange - we should be very familiar with the devastating effects of brain drain from our own history.
Another big issue is carbon impact. Emigration/immigration has a very big carbon footprint. A return flight from, say, Ireland to India generates in the region of 3.5 tonnes CO2e. To meet carbon targets, the average individual should be reducing to 4 tonnes CO2e per year, and reducing further from there. (Ireland to Australia is closer to 7 tonnes CO2e). Most Indians I know will fly home at least once a year - and of course they would, to visit family and friends. It stands to reason that a society where an increasing number of people generate an entire year's worth of carbon emissions just visiting relatives is a deeply unsustainable one, and one where climate change is not only not going to be addressed, but is going to accelerate.
I think we need a lot more balanced- and unselfish - discussion about the wider impacts of immigration/emigration. I feel the way we look at it now is very colonialist - we view the developing world's resources as things we can help ourselves to. Raw materials in the olden days, labour now - same story, different resource.
I think your examples here may be biased towards people who have adopted to a culture - and while that deserves to be called out, I think care needs to be taken to put it in an overall context. Is it a majority of people who do that? Did it only work in a world where Irish people were in a 95% majority here, and not (as will be the case in the next 20-25 years) a minority here? How will the GAA manage in the future where the vast, vast majority of people who play (95%+ I think I saw in one article) are ethnic Irish? Is there a level of immigration that can integrate and a level beyond which it becomes a deluge? Is conservative Islam Irish culture? Yet it's growing across Western Europe with no signs that it's interested in integrating. The fact that the most common boy's name in England the last couple of years has been Mohammed I think should be a real concern.
I think the question of "What is Irish culture?" is one of those questions that can be hard to pin down in words so it sounds great, but everyone knows instinctively what the answer is. "What is life?" is a similar one - there's no agreed definition, yet we know what it is. Others will say "What is a woman?", which can be hard to define too once you get into technicalities around intersex of women who've had hysterectomies and so on - yet we all know what it is.
After the moon landing in 1969, the head of NASA - asked about the role of the new EU in the space race - passed a comment along the lines that it would be a shame if it did away with "that great breadth of diversity that is Europe's gift to the world". We're very rapidly getting rid of it now, I feel - everywhere is turning the same. Is that a good thing? Or is cultural diversity worth preserving?
I think the idea of the gender pension pay gap is one of the most bizarre things that modern society has gotten itself offended by. What does it matter if a husband retires with a bigger pension pot than his wife (or indeed, vice versa?) Are husband/wife not a team, after all - or partners, if you will? Do you zealously guard your pension pot and let your partner have none of it? If you got divorced, would it not be split equally?
The idea that mortgages mean that both parents have to work, while true in a lot of cases, says more about the societal failings of Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael in terms of actively ramping up house prices than anything else. It benefits so few people, yet we all seem to think it's great. It's bizarre.
Anyways, a long post to generate some debate! There's lots of stuff I didn't pick on, largely because I broadly agree with what you've said. That doesn't make for interesting debate though!
There has been outright condemnation! There have also been trolls too, but not within Democrat leadership or mainstream. The trolls have also been condemned. Political violence is not acceptable. The impression im getting is that people are selectively seeing only the trolls and everythig gets trolled by some be it on the rght or left.
Actually Candace 0wens, kind of entertaining for all the wrong reasons, right wing podcaster is saying that Kirk was threatened in recent weeks by his own as he was about to start criticising Israel, she claims Netanyahu even contacted him. She is suggesting his death was perpetrated by a pro-Israel camp to silence him. Do I believe it, certainly not, is it possible? its not absolutely impossible. But if people on the right decide to choose her as their 'news' source and an example of right wing opinion across the board then he was assassinated by his own.
There is not a single Democrat politician that has done anything other than condemn the killing. I have not seen a single person other than social media trolls say anything other than the killing was wrong and should never happen in a civilized society. Now the same could not be said for Republican politicians who openly mocked the death of Melissa Hortman, her husband and their dog. (look up Senator Mike Lees response)
Last edited by Razors left peg; 16/09/2025 at 9:19 PM.
Its really not that complicated!!!
It is rich for people on the right in America to get on their high horses about the reaction to the death of this fella,everyone has seen what large parts of the Republican Party have said about the ongoing genocide in Gaza,that is thousands of people being systematically massacred by a ally of there’s,give me a break with pontificating about reactions to tragedy’s…..
Irish by birth ,Harps by the grace of god.
So, it depends on who is getting killed to you ?
Yes Sean that’s exactly what I said!
Irish by birth ,Harps by the grace of god.
Good that you are honest ~ But when you go down that road, of being selective about who you agree with getting killed, then you do need to see where you are, and what brought you here.
Because , when one group of people, say / think, that it is fine to kill this group or other ~ Then other people will decide that is is perfectly ok to reciprocate ! !
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks