Is DU a friendly place for leftists and communists?

[StrictlyRockers]

I mean leftists and communists who support the Democratic Party, of course.

Asking for a friend..

[DBoon]

1. My opinion only

is yes, as long as they are polite, non-disruptive and respect the rules of DU

[StrictlyRockers]

3. Thank you for offering your opinion.

I am entirely uncertain whether you are right.

[mopinko]

2. as long as they dont support 3rd party candidates.

[StrictlyRockers]

4. If that's not against the rules, it should be.

This is a place to support Democrats, or so I thought. Why would support for third-party candidates be allowed?

[Crunchy Frog]

8. It is against the rules. nt

[brush]

5. Of course. One thing to keep in mind, IMO, millions of voters...

in the nation consider the word "socialism" toxic even though many aspects of our society are socialism at work.

I'm saying this as a guy whose first vote for president was the Gus Hall/Angela Davis ticket when I lived in Berkeley, CA. back in the day.

I should add Bernie Sanders, a touchy subject here to some, is ahead of his time as America is not ready for him yet.

[Walleye]

17. I love Bernie. I just don't think he can get elected president. Not even sure he could do the job

I think most of us lean pretty far left. Sometimes some of us are just more pragmatic than others. I really think our goals are the same, we can take different approaches to getting there. As opposed to the Republican Party who seem to be against everything American, and it seems like they’re not for anything. Cast my first vote for president for Shirley Chisholm in the California primary. Not sure what progressives would call her today

[Crunchy Frog]

27. Shirley Chisholm was the first candidate I ever supported. Couldn't vote for her though,

as I was only nine at the time.

[Walleye]

29. 1972 was the first election I was old enough, had to be 21 then.Good for you supporting Chisholm

[electric_blue68]

56. Huh? In 1971 18 yr olds were allowed to vote. I was proudly in the first wave!

[StrictlyRockers]

79. I think that's pretty cool

Jessie Jackson was the first candidate I supported. I was 16 in 1984 and couldn't vote.

I do remember celebrating with my mom when Carter won in 1976, though. She bought us a big bag of peanuts. I was eight.

[brooklynite]

116. "...whose first vote for president was the Gus Hall/Angela Davis"

Okay. I can be friendly in asking "why did you vote for a communist who supported the anti-Democratic Soviet Union"?

[brush]

122. It was a vote in solidarity with Angela Davis/the Black Power/George and Jonathan Jackson movement.

Like many people as they've gotten older, I've gotten more conservative. Now I'm a progressive Democrat.

[madville]

6. Democratic Socialist is a trigger

Democratic Socialist is the big trigger around here, the Bernie crowd lays low until election times when it’s time to cause chaos.

[StrictlyRockers]

12. Yeah, it seems like a place that is friendlier to moderates.

I'm just wondering if it's a waste of time to point out to the people here that socialism is the wave of the future whether they are ready for it or not?

[NJCher]

14. +1

Capitalism’s days are numbered.

[Walleye]

18. Looking at what's happening I'm not sure what the wave of the future is.

I hope it goes the way you predict, but the present circumstances are to the contrary

[StrictlyRockers]

19. I think there is data arguing for your position and for the opposite.

The youth in this country are extremely progressive. It might take a while, I see what you're saying, but the progressives will win the day, eventually. I truly believe this.

[Walleye]

23. Not a doubt in my mind,Progress always wins.

I just worry about how many reactionary laws and violence will happen on the way. The right wing are still fighting a culture war that we won years ago.That’s the problem we beat them in elections we beat them in the culture war but they just keep on fighting us it’s like the old Confederacy

[StrictlyRockers]

24. Yeah, you said it.

That's it. That's the problem.

I don't know what else to say. When do they realize they already lost the war?

They should give up the battle and join the party. It's actually nice over here.
Do none of them want universal healthcare or college?

[brooklynite]

120. How many of the youth are expressing their progressivism...

..on their capitalism produced laptops and smartphones?

[StrictlyRockers]

126. ooo you're so ironic, brooklynite

How cutting!

[progressoid]

141. Turn and face the strange...

?downsize=600 &output-format=auto&output-quality=auto

[RobinA]

167. Nice, But

he wrote that 50ish years ago. I was "these children" and I am now closing in on retirement. Today's "these children" roll their eyes at me and think, "Ok Boomer." And so it goes.

[progressoid]

170. And?

Seems like it is still relevant today. I am at the end of the boomer generation with millennial children. Occasionally one of my kids will say, "OK Boomer" And rightfully so. Its not like we've left them with the most promising future.

If you are closing in on retirement, you're going to need those younguns to keep your SS checks and pensions going. Unless you sitting on a small fortune, in which case, maybe they have a right to be irked at you.

[Rob H.]

146. That's some big Turning Point USA energy

Charlie Kirk would be proud.

[Act_of_Reparation]

163. Well, they're obviously wrong then.

Check and mate.

[lagomorph777]

164. The wave of the future is rising sea level.

We are in a literal battle for survival against the right: the pro-global-warming, pro-COVID party.

[Walleye]

165. Very sad, but very true. Young people are gonna have to step up, I'm feeling very old

[elleng]

31. waste of time

[StrictlyRockers]

33. Thanks.

I used to feel like this was a friendlier place. I'm not sure what happened. It was cool when Skinner ran it. I love EarlG, too! He's awesome.

But, it seems kind of anodyne now. It's not the same.

[Tree Lady]

42. I don't think its the site

I think its after Trump came on the scene and no matter what he did he got away with it changed the atmosphere around here. My personal opinion is a lot of us are tired, frustrated and angry at what a good portion of America is turning into.

I think we had more hope when Obama first came in before republicans decided to block everything he did.

And those things were all before covid, add the last two years and its no wonder we aren't all hanging out having fun.

[Hekate]

52. +1. Add exhausted to the point of numbness to that. Furthermore, add old enough to know...

… what we see happening with our own eyes.

[StrictlyRockers]

55. Those are good points.

Maybe that explains it.

They say you can't go home again. But I can still yearn for it, can't I?

[iemanja]

36. How do you figure that?

and where are you talking about?

I'm not talking about what should happen but rather what is actually happening. Because we want something doesn't make it true.

[StrictlyRockers]

37. I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. n/t

[iemanja]

38. You say socialism is the wave of the future

whether people like it or not. What is your evidence for that claim?

[StrictlyRockers]

40. Demographic data

The youths in the country are going socialist. They are going to turn the USA into a socialist country. Probably, neither of us will be alive to see it. But, it will happen.

[iemanja]

41. I see zero evidence of that happening

We are about to become a fascist state, not a socialist one. I always knew that if a revolution came to this country, it would be a far-right wing one. That is the nature of American society.

[StrictlyRockers]

62. Seems pessimistic to me.

Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, but it seems to me like we are winning. Dems have control of both House and Senate and the Executive Branch of government. I think we'll win this November, too.

We'll know if I'm right in ten months.

[Hortensis]

84. Calling liberals "moderates" is less accurate and meaningful than calling ice cream chocolate.

The Democratic Party is America's liberal party.

It is very strongly dominated by people who believe in liberal principles, ideals, and goals. That has to be known before one can understand our party's role in America's liberal democracy. To put it mildly!

Liberal Democrats range in ideology and temperament anywhere from somewhat liberal, to moderately liberal, to strongly liberal, to extremely strongly liberal.

Liberal beliefs, including belief in pluralism and representative government, start disappearing and being replaced by others as one moves either right into the realm of conservativism or farther left into the realm of LW extremism, and in that latter is a key clue to the answer to your question. Here's another:

From DU's Core Principles: Democratic Underground is an online community for friendly, politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government.

Btw, many deliberately use the word "moderate" to smear Democrats, most commonly as a "dog whistle" meaning that we're really practically Republicans and in the pockets of big business. Of course, some use it because they hear it and don't know any better; they're drawn to liberal positions on issues but lack understanding of the liberal principles that underlie them, and of course of the liberal party that protects them. Such as,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

[betsuni]

85. Thank you. Calling Democrats establishment/moderates/centrists/neoliberals/corporate Dems

corrupted by campaign contributions and not progressive and same as Republicans and so on only helps Republicans.

[Hortensis]

88. Yup. Labels that deny who and what we are serve all hostiles

and opponents who want to replace Democrats. That's why they do it, of course -- to trick people into voting for them by claiming to be, in a very real sense, what we are and to do what only we have ever done.

[brush]

103. Well said. I too hate that "moderate" tag/smear as most here...

are center-left to progressive.

[Hortensis]

105. Yes, though a liberal who isn't also progressive has to be a pretty odd bird.

We designed progressivism as an intrinsic element of our great experiment in democratic government.

As President Lincoln described it: Government OF, BY and FOR the people. For Democrats it isn't a question of IF we should use government to serve us in ways only it can do best but how and how much we should.

[brooklynite]

147. We seem to be bouncing among terms...

The OP started out asking about Communists. Then we got in to progressives who want to be socialists. Then we discussed where liberals fit in. Hard to follow the flow of the discussion.

I would net it down as follows.

COMMUNISM as an economic AND political structure will never happen.

SOCIALISM as an economic structure will never be adopted by any Democratic Government.

PROGRESSIVES by and large want improved Capitalism with a social safety net, and do not for the most part aspire to SOCIALISM.

LIBERALS are the baseline of the Democratic Party, and are where our primary pool of votes come from.

[RobinA]

168. You Were Doing Fine

until you got to "liberal." Liberal philosophy far predates any Democratic Party, and indeed, this country as an entity.

[Polybius]

90. What's the Socialist position on the CA looters?

Because doing nothing repulses me.

[MrsCoffee]

157. You mean the organized robberies?

There has been no “looting” in California.

[Polybius]

173. Whatever it's called

Please proceed.

[EX500rider]

95. "that socialism is the wave of the future"

The wave of the future is governments owning the means of production? That never turns out well.

[Demsrule86]

100. I wish that were true, but I don't see it happening at the moment. With our system of

government, we must compete in moderate to purple areas and they are not liberal.

[brush]

102. We're mostly left of center to progressives here, not moderates.

Moderate is sort of a smear to most of us. If you think spending time here is a waste of your time, that's on you. What we're about is helping Democrats win elections in order to get positive things done for people and the environment.

As far as socialism, where the government owns the means of production, how do see that coming about and how soon since you say it's the wave of the future?

And please cited a nation where socialism is successful in providing for it's people and is extant and has been in operation for decades.

[brooklynite]

117. That's like saying "monorails are the transportation of the future...and they have been for decades"

Last edited Sun Jan 30, 2022, 11:43 PM - Edit history (1)

On what basis is an economic model that no nation has freely adopted the wave of the future?

[StrictlyRockers]

150. Are you saying that monorails aren't great methods of transportation?

It’s not my job to educate you on monorails.

Watch The Simpsons. Listen to James Brown.

[betsuni]

151. "It's not my job to educate you on monorails. Watch the Simpsons. Listen to James Brown."

[brooklynite]

156. No, they're not...

...they're highly inefficient in terms of switching and more costly than equivalent conventional rail. That's why relatively few have been built outside of amusement parks and Worlds Fairs. However, people keep advocating for them because they're SEEN as a futuristic means of transportation.

[RobinA]

166. Mostly Kind Of

center right here if you ask me. But if you live in the US, I think you'll have a hard time convincing people there's socialism on the horizon.

[ismnotwasm]

171. You clearly don't read enough cyberpunk

😌

[Celerity]

20. Democrat socialist triggers me because it is a false label, wilfully and erroneously chosen by a

group of politicians who espouse nothing more than bog standard social democratic ideas and initiatives. NONE of them (at least not the ones who have been elected at federal level) are actual socialists as none, not even Bernie, advocate for a core plank of actual socialism, that being the expropriation of the means of production by the state.

They hubristically assume that they re-write hundreds of years of definitions (both academic and in everyday common life) of socialism simply by claiming it means something else. This is especially hazardous to our electoral chances, as the US is still a very reactionary place, with millions who instantly make the false jump from socialism and directly proceed to communism as a 100% interchangeable label in terms of defining political and economic schema.

I also get extremely frustrated when we here in the Nordics (I live in Sweden) are ludicrously labelled as socialist countries. Tell your average Swede they live in a socialist nation and they will laugh in your face. We here in the Nordics have extremely vibrant capitalist sectors (well regulated and also more robust at multiple levels than the US capitalist sector, such as productivity per hour worked, and higher median incomes when taken as a whole region) that work synergistically hand in hand with expansive social welfare state superstructures to provide an extremely high quality of life.

The actual Socialists and Communists here have never once, in Swedish history, been in power in a government, even with the Social Democrats (who are actually rather hostile to them over a long historical basis). At most they occasionally engage in a 'supply and confidence' scheme with a sitting left leaning government.

[StrictlyRockers]

34. This is great info.

I think everything you said is accurate. The US has a long, long way to go. I look to the Scandinavian countries as good examples of well-regulated socially democratic governments. We could learn a lot from them.

But, for now, too many Americans act like they are allergic to learning new ideas...

[Celerity]

48. The very well run (politically) countries on the earth make up a very short list for me

Obviously ALL have large flaws, none are perfect, but all are vastly better run from top to bottom (and many are far more diverse than the average American thinks, especially Sweden) IMHO than the US

In order

New Zealand
Switzerland
Norway
Denmark
Sweden (would number 3 except for our somewhat disastrous refugee policy from 2003-2015, which has allowed the far right Sweden Democrats a foothold in the Riksdag, our parliament, albeit with no true power as of yet)

Finland (the only nation on the list we would never consider moving to, as all the other Nordics offer a higher quality of life for us)
Canada (only place there we would consider moving to is Vancouver)
The Netherlands (prefer Rotterdam to Amsterdam)
Austria (Vienna is the only place we would live in there, it offers an astounding level in terms of quality of life)
Belgium (would be higher except they have such large issues with political dichotomous tensions between the Walloons & the Flemish)
Australia (too RW at times to rate higher, but we adore Melbourne, and Sydney is great too)

[StrictlyRockers]

63. This is all interesting information I agree with.

It confirms many of my opinions.

Thank you for sharing this.

[DFW]

132. Belgium also has a big problem with government corruption.

They have a whole division of financial police whose job it is to fight money laundering. Since the people who really launder money are either untouchable or shoot back, they instead go after dealers in diamonds and/or gold, confiscate everything, and then decide how much to give back, when the accused is found to be innocent. I once had lunch with the majority leader of the Belgian Senate, and she said they were aware of the problem, but the government was too weak to tackle it. I am there often for work, speak French and Flemish, but would never move there or mount a business there. It‘s a nice place to eat, but I wouldn‘t want to live there.

[Celerity]

138. Germany is easily the best run of the bigger nations (40 million and up) Japan 2nd, but also massive

corruption. Same for Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong (plus the Chinese are destroying a lot of freedoms there). Singapore is very low corruption, BUT too authoritarian for me, LKY casts a long shadow there from the grave.

Luxembourg is great but too little to really count. My wife has a cousin who married a Portuguese-descent Luxembourger and we actually had a wonderful time there visiting them for a week back in 2018. Iceland is superbly governed, but is even smaller pop-wise than Luxembourg.

Liechtenstein is basically a smaller US suburb in size, lol (world's most secure/discrete banks though!). Same for Monaco (size wise), as well as Andorra and San Marino.

That is about if for any sort of remotely well run places. Of course this is all just my opinion, not a fact.

Finally, just for the record, we grew up in a very flawed nation (the UK) and we would live in France and Italy (pass on Spain and Portugal), so a nation does not have to be immensely well governed for us to live in.

[DFW]

161. If we were to move anywhere, it would be to a neighboring country

Either the Netherlands or Switzerland. My wife is from the extreme northwest of Germany, where "Pladdütsch" is spoken, and she understands Dutch reasonably well. She speaks less Schwyzerdütsch, or "Swiss German," but since the written language there is usually high German, she would have no problem there.

I could probably handle France, as I am used to the place, and speak the language. My wife understands some, but would have to go through intense refresher courses. I speak Italian, but my wife doesn't, and we don't go there much, anyway.

Portugal is a bit too far removed for me, both geographically and culturally. I could handle Spain fine, as I used to live there. I would move to Barcelona, as it is practically home territory for me, and I speak Catalan. But my wife speaks neither Catalan, nor Castilian--i.e. "Spanish"--so that wouldn't be an option for us. I wouldn't ask her to move to a place where I would be perfectly at home, and she would not.

A friend of ours who used to be station chief for West German radio news in Moscow would never ask his Russian girlfriend to move to Germany. He could arrange it, but she speaks no German or English, and would be restricted to other Russian speakers in her social life, and he would never ask that of her. He goes back there as often as he can, of course.

[electric_blue68]

64. When I grew up in the early '60's...

Socialism = Communism

It took until my early 30's to understand about Nordic Democratic Socialism (and perhaps a few other places I don't know what they are perhaps some mentioned on the list).
I began to like it more and more. I don't believe in Socialism, but Democratic Socialism...

I'm retired but if paying higher taxes meant all these really strong safety net provisions including medical care, and other things involving education, work perks, and vacations, etc Yeah, I could support that.

If we manage to fight off an authoritarian take over (with part of me reeling from just typing these words), I'd be happy to know we've got more progressive young people now (which I've read glimpses about).

But I am also a pragmatist seems we have to go somewhat slowly or risk a reactionary result (of course I know Obama being elected twice triggered severe reactionary racism and Hillary running evoked severe reactionary sexism). Maybe in time we could go feet, even yards instead of inches. Maybe something exponential will occur.

btw your friend wouldn't be Jerry D would it? 🙂
I just invited politically active progressive, and leftish people from an off topic political sub form from a non political site to check DU out.

[StrictlyRockers]

66. I agree with all of this.

I don't think many of us were ready for the wave of reactionary hatred that followed Obama and also Hillary. It's real, and I'm afraid of pushing too far, too fast in this country after seeing how pissed off the heartland/fly-over/Deep South parts of the country got about the rapid changes.

But I'm also pissed off that the establishment constantly tells us we have to wait. Waiting often means never.

[betsuni]

67. Who is "the establishment" and how are they telling us "we have to wait"?

Do you mean not having enough votes to pass progressive legislation?

[brush]

104. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Aren't you the one advocating for...

socialism being the wave of the future? You know, the state owning the means of production? What happened?

Now you're all of a sudden abandoning that stance and shifting away from it to the Nordic model.

I have to call you on this. What's up, are you a socialist or not?

[Hekate]

110. In post 53 he says, "I'm a communist... an anarcho-communist." When someone tells you who they are...

I think I'm about as lefty as a conventional leftist can get. I'm a communist. I might be an anarcho-communist if I read more. I'm really into co-ops. I'm 54.

[brush]

112. Communist, anarcho-communist, or a socialism-is-the-wave-of-the-future...

kind of guy or whatever he claimed to be, he sure got off all of them quickly after reading Celerity's post.

Makes one question his true commitment to his claimed ideologies at all, or whether he actually knows what they are really about. I mean who, after all the failed communist collectives in the former USSR, Stalinist purges, Maoist failures, etc., would claim to be a communist, or even want to be one?

[betsuni]

114. Made me think of the anarcho-syndicalist commune scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

[StrictlyRockers]

177. Honestly, I think of myself as a practical progressive/communist.

I don't expect we will achieve communism in my lifetime, so I am happy to sign up for the next best thing. I'd like socialism, but we won't be seeing that soon, either.

I don't think democratic socialism is as much of a pipe-dream as the other two, so I'm happy to call myself that. I think the label progressive/leftist works. I'm also a registered Democrat and I vote Dem. So I'm happy to be called a Democrat. Any of these work. When I take political compass tests I'm wayyy in the far corner, where you'd expect me to be.

I'm a pragmatist. I want us to get things done in this country. I want to help the people. I want to see legislation passed. I'm willing to ally with anyone who is not a Trumper or a Nazi if we can get laws passed that will help the poor. I don't see a lot of caring about the poor, and I care a lot.

I think capitalism did good things for a while, it created wealth for some, but now it's become something of a monster in the US, and too many people suffer because of it. Poor people have no voice and no power. No one speaks for them. They are left to suffer and have miserable lives in the richest country in the history of the world. We could easily end poverty in this country if we muster the political will to actually help people.

I don't think labels are important. I think helping the poor is important. That is my campaign.

[betsuni]

178. "We could easily end poverty in this country if we muster the political will to actually

help people." What does that mean, exactly?

[iemanja]

45. Thank you!

I've been saying this for ages. The bastardization of the term socialist infuriates me as well. We're told public highways are socialist, that Eisenhower was a socialist--all kinds of ridiculous claims.

[Celerity]

49. Eisenhower was more of an ur-type dirigist (to a point), within an American framework of constraints

[StrictlyRockers]

70. I love learning new words.

But I couldn't even find this word on Google.

What the heck does "dirigist" mean?

Also, what is an "ur-type"?

[Celerity]

75. Dirigisme or dirigism (from French diriger 'to direct') is an economic doctrine in which the state

plays a strong directive role as opposed to a merely regulatory or non-interventionist role over a capitalist market economy. ... State capitalism is a related concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

Dirigiste policies often include indicative planning, state-directed investment, and the use of market instruments (taxes and subsidies) to incentivize market entities to fulfill state economic objectives.

'ur-types' are proto, early, sometimes primitive typologies of something

Ur- is a German prefix meaning 'primeval'

[StrictlyRockers]

76. Thank you for educating me.

Appreciated.

[StrictlyRockers]

65. lol Eisenhower wasn't a socialist

And public works aren't socialism, either.

Words have meanings.

[regnaD kciN]

26. So, in other words...

…leftists and communists are welcome here, as long as they shut up?

[iemanja]

46. This is a Democratic site

for Democrats. It's in the terms of service.
It's not called leftist underground or socialist underground. It's called Democratic Underground. It's all very straight forward.

[StrictlyRockers]

71. The question is whether you welcome leftists who campaign for Democrats.

Do you?

Or are you hostile to leftists who support Democrats every election?

[iemanja]

73. As far as I'm concerned

if you vote for Democrats in every election, you're a Democrat. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs in the Democratic Party, and disagreement is perfectly fine.

[StrictlyRockers]

78. Ok, good.

Just checking. I really wasn't sure I was welcome here anymore. Actually, I'm still not sure, but thank you for saying this.

[brooklynite]

155. That said, advocating for socialists or communists to run as Democrats isn't likely to go over well

You're welcome to do so, but be prepared to explain why that would be a good political decision.

[Fla_Democrat]

7. Huh?

[StrictlyRockers]

11. Huh, what?

Your opinion is that it's best to get high and rub your eyes before coming to this site? What am I missing here?

[Fla_Democrat]

32. A lot

[StrictlyRockers]

74. Ok, then I shall rub my eyes a lot and smoke a lot before coming here.

Thank you for your advice.

[Fla_Democrat]

101. It certainly couldn't hurt

De nada.

[roamer65]

9. I am FDR hard left.

I’m still here.

[StrictlyRockers]

10. That is encouraging.

Thanks

[multigraincracker]

13. Dad was born in 1913 in

SW Arkansas and said he’d been a Democrat his whole life, he either voted for them or against them. In the old South there were some Dems we’d all of voted against.

[multigraincracker]

15. George Wallace was one as an

example.

[StrictlyRockers]

21. Fascinating

I like to study history. The parties have morphed and changed over the decades.

[multigraincracker]

25. In 1968 George Wallace was

the nominee of Michigan for President. 4 years later Jessie Jackson was. There are big Ds and small Ds.

[StrictlyRockers]

28. Wow, that is so interesting.

Michigan has lots of liberals and also lots of conservatives.

George Wallace was a horrible racist, right? And Jessie was Mr. Rainbow Coalition. That's amazing.

[ShazzieB]

153. Yes, George Wallace was a racist all right!

One of the things he's most famous (or maybe I should say infamous) for was literally standing in front of the entrance of the University of Alabama when he was governor of that state, blocking the path of black students who were trying to enroll.

[brush]

106. You mean the dixiecrats, right? Those who moved to the republican...

Last edited Sun Jan 30, 2022, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

party in the '60s as the civil rights movement moved LBJ left with his Great Society policies and of course the 13-15th Amendments...and seating Fannie Lou Hamer's Freedom Democratic Party at the '64 Dem convention.

[multigraincracker]

124. I think dad grew. He became a modern Dem.

Hated Reagan, went to OCS with him and thought was a bad actor and bad politician.
Liked Johnson and Truman. Love Clinton, they were from the same town.

Dad grew after he got his Phd in genetics.

[Celerity]

30. minus the systemic (Japanese internment camps, AA exclusion from the New Deal, etc) racism I'm sure

African Americans and the New Deal

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3447

Until the New Deal, blacks had shown their traditional loyalty to the party of Abraham Lincoln by voting overwhelmingly Republican. By the end of Roosevelt's first administration, however, one of the most dramatic voter shifts in American history had occurred. In 1936, some 75 percent of black voters supported the Democrats. Blacks turned to Roosevelt, in part, because his spending programs gave them a measure of relief from the Depression and, in part, because the GOP had done little to repay their earlier support.

Still, Roosevelt's record on civil rights was modest at best. Instead of using New Deal programs to promote civil rights, the administration consistently bowed to discrimination. In order to pass major New Deal legislation, Roosevelt needed the support of southern Democrats. Time and time again, he backed away from equal rights to avoid antagonizing southern whites; although, his wife, Eleanor, did take a public stand in support of civil rights.

Most New Deal programs discriminated against blacks. The NRA, for example, not only offered whites the first crack at jobs, but authorized separate and lower pay scales for blacks. The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) refused to guarantee mortgages for blacks who tried to buy in white neighborhoods, and the CCC maintained segregated camps. Furthermore, the Social Security Act excluded those job categories blacks traditionally filled.

The story in agriculture was particularly grim. Since 40 percent of all black workers made their living as sharecroppers and tenant farmers, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) acreage reduction hit blacks hard. White landlords could make more money by leaving land untilled than by putting land back into production.

As a result, the AAA's policies forced more than 100,000 blacks off the land in 1933 and 1934. Even more galling to black leaders, the president failed to support an anti-lynching bill and a bill to abolish the poll tax. Roosevelt feared that conservative southern Democrats, who had seniority in Congress and controlled many committee chairmanships, would block his bills if he tried to fight them on the race question.

snip

[StrictlyRockers]

77. Can one argue that FDR did a great job considering the mores and political climate of the time?

He was restricted by the times, and he did the best possible job fixing the problems that one could expect? He had good outcomes after failing at first in the late 30s. He tried to balance the budget and it was a disaster. It was only through deficit spending that things started to turn around, and then WWII helped.

[Celerity]

81. oh, yes, of course, on balance he was the best POTUS since Lincoln, I just always have to include

the racism as well, being a female of colour myself. I also, like you said, believe he was restricted by the times he lived in. He certainly was not, by nature, a flaming racist like Woodrow Wilson was. Wilson is my least favourite Democratic POTUS of the last 150 years, until we get to the train-wrecks that were Andrew Johnson and before him, James Buchanan

my top 5

[StrictlyRockers]

82. I like you.

You're smart.

[Celerity]

83. no, I just pay attention & remember things, plus I had an extremely conducive to learning upbringing

I got lucky in the genetic and time/place birth lotteries.

[betsuni]

35. FDR was a capitalist, liberal Democrat. His policies weren't socialist, thought socialism dangerous.

DUers are FDR Democrats. Don't know what "FDR hard left" is.

There's a myth that "Today's liberals reject FDR's political agenda because FDR was a democratic socialist."

"And so they see liberals as either conservative (neoliberal) or corrupt. Their reasoning is this: Liberals reject democratic socialism and FDR was a democratic socialist, so liberals reject FDR. This is nonsense. FDR hated socialism, which already meant democratic socialism back then. Modern liberals are FDR liberals, and they agree with FDR about rejecting socialism, and they support his political agenda."

Steven Stoft "How Democrats Win, Resisting Dark-Side Radicalism"

[iemanja]

47. There was a very active communist party

during the 1930s. FDR was not "hard left." Leftists were communists, not Democrats. Now, later in the decade the communist party made a sort of accommodation with capitalist states to combat fascism, but that didn't make the Democratic Party "hard left."

Communists and socialists certainly influenced the New Deal, as workers and farmers' movements forced FDR to act. https://socialistworker.org/2008/11/14/who-made-the-new-deal

[A HERETIC I AM]

16. You have been a member here for almost 16 years.....

and you ask this now?


You probably already know this, but the type of person that posts here skews older, i.e. 50 +, and even though a significant number remember the summer of '68 very well (to pull a date out of nowhere), they seemed to have moved on, and often not to a more liberal space, it would seem to me.

This board sure as hell has lost a lot of its sense of humor over the years, that's for sure.

[StrictlyRockers]

22. This is the post I was looking for.

I just want my opinions confirmed, like most old people.

[Tree Lady]

44. Were you here during the last primary?

A good chunk of DU was for Elizabeth Warren. I was one of them. Now that Joe is president which we all voted for and support we just aren't as obvious.

By the way age wise I am 65 and my views haven't got more conservative as I age. I still consider myself progressive on most issues.

[StrictlyRockers]

53. If it were possible for me to drift further left, I would.

I think I'm about as lefty as a conventional leftist can get. I'm a communist. I might be an anarcho-communist if I read more. I'm really into co-ops. I'm 54.

Warren is very progressive. She was my second choice. I liked her a lot then, and I still like her.

DU is a weird place lately. I don't post here much, just when I'm bored and seeking entertainment because I've recently given up smoking herb. DU is like a beloved older brother who went away to study at college and came back convinced they know it all. Some of the people who post here a lot seem overly invested in outcomes and cliquish about the site. It's fine. I'm happy to take on the role of gadfly.

[Hekate]

57. If you review the TOS, you will see the board is set up to support Dems & get Dems elected...

It is not, repeat not, set up to support communists or anarcho-communists.
If you only come here to relieve your boredom, I don’t know what to say.

Your post to which I am replying:

I think I'm about as lefty as a conventional leftist can get. I'm a communist. I might be an anarcho-communist if I read more. I'm really into co-ops. I'm 54.
…………..
DU is a weird place lately. I don't post here much, just when I'm bored and seeking entertainment because I've recently given up smoking herb. DU is like a beloved older brother who went away to study at college and came back convinced they know it all. Some of the people who post here a lot seem overly invested in outcomes and cliquish about the site. It's fine. I'm happy to take on the role of gadfly.

[StrictlyRockers]

58. Thank you for helping me.

You are doing a great job, Hekate.

[Hekate]

61. You're welcome. If you sincerely want something to read, I suggest Alexander Solzhenitsyn...

Last edited Sun Jan 30, 2022, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

At the time I started reading his books, they still had to be smuggled out of the USSR in order to be published at all. The money he earned from sales of his books could not be sent to him, but was banked in the West until he was finally kicked out of the country.

I am not sure why the Soviet government didn’t kill him outright — they certainly had no qualms about killing a lot of other people. The current guy — Putin — came up in the KGB, was in East Berlin when the Wall fell, and has never gotten over the loss of the Soviet empire.

Communism has never worked out well for “the people,” aka “the masses,” as it promised — not In Real Life.

[betsuni]

91. Recommended memoirs I read recently: "Mastering the Art of Soviet Cooking" by Anya von Bremzen

who grew up in the Soviet Union and "This is Paradise!" by Hyok Kang, who escaped North Korea at eighteen years old.

[Demsrule86]

140. Overly invested in outcomes?

You mean like winning elections? Yeah well, I find your comment insulting and folks at DU are not know it all either. Interesting, that you distinguish between Democrats and those on the left who may or may not be a member of a third party and who may or may not vote Democratic in every election which remains the only way to stop the right.

[StrictlyRockers]

144. This is exactly the kind of post I am referring to.

Thank you for providing me with an example of the issue I am addressing in this thread.

I'm referring to leftists who are registered Democrats like I am.

Are you welcoming and friendly to all Democrats here, or is it only the Democrats whose beliefs and politics align perfectly with yours?

It seems like the latter, and please, do correct me if I am wrong! I could be misinterpreting what you are saying here.

[RobinA]

169. Groupthink Is As Prevalent

here as any other place where humans collect.

[mvd]

39. I'm pretty far left

Sometimes even more than Bernie. I sure wish he could have been President and argue he could have won, but that’s for a different topic. I think DU is more moderate than it used to be, but I have seen signs of the old DU coming back. And regardless, there are a lot of great people here. Really came through when I needed help.

[StrictlyRockers]

60. Yeah, DU can be pretty great at times.

I agree. It's a special place.

I think it should be a welcoming place for ALL Democrats, not just Democrats who meet with approval from the gatekeepers of who is actually a REAL Democrat.

[JI7]

43. What does that mean ? Why would anyone want to be a communist considering the horrible record

it causes suffering and people risk their lives to get to evil capitalist countries .

[Hekate]

59. It really does sound nuts. Communism has not worked out well In Actual Real Life. Millions died...

Millions more suffered — and still suffer.

[herding cats]

50. People have changed, not this site.

I've been here since 2004 and I've seen all the local, petty and useless wars. They bore me to the bone and I have zero time for any of them. They're distractions, at best at this point. The stakes are a lot higher now than they were in 2004. I only thought things were bad back then, that train wreck is now like the good old days in my rearview mirror. Things are literally that bad now.

Meanwhile, out in the fray we ignored the reality of a possibility of a Trump like candidate. We believed people were trending more progressive, as they are in urban pockets, but we thought it was a national trend. I'm guilty of this, I freely admit, I wanted to believe enough people were thinking like I do in this nation by a majority. I was wrong. Painfully, and irrevocably wrong. This doesn't touch on statewide politics which are a mess. Nothing is as simple as we wish it were. The complexities are the extent of a melon size of onions layers.

Progressive change has to happen on local levels. Then tout our accomplishments and use them to move National. Local action is the way to create sustainable change. Until we can do this nothing is going to change. I'm not wrong on this. Too many people are trying to change things before we get local change and validation it can work effectively. That's not a winning strategy. Then we get angry and attack people within our own system. We're the best at chopping our own selves off at the feet. Which the Republicans have been exploiting for decades now.

Oh, and on edit: no, we're not pro Communist. That's a painfully failed concept rife for corruption. Nope all the hell out of that.

[StrictlyRockers]

69. This is a progressive country.

We have the majority, and Americans support progressive policies across the board. Don't believe the hype.

I'm not asking you to be pro-communist, I'm just testing the waters to see how hostile people are to the idea here, at this point in time. Thank you for making your opinion clear. You write well. That's what I am looking for, clarity.

And you make some good points. I don't think drastic change will happen rapidly, either. I think we have to put in the work. I know I work hard campaigning for the Democrats I like. I do a lot. I'm not sure DU has as much of a "Big Tent" attitude as the Democratic Party does. Maybe DU could reflect on that. That's just my opinion, though. And I don't spend much time on this site.

Yours is also just one opinion, but I think you are in the majority in this small, intimate, quiet pond. Leftists may not feel welcome here, even the ones who fight hard for the Democratic Party every election.

[Demsrule86]

142. No it really isn't. Just look at voting patterns. Progressives mostly win in Deep blue states and

districts.

[StrictlyRockers]

143. I'm just talking about polling data.

Every progressive issue has majority support in national polling.

[herding cats]

174. We have an extremely weak majority.

Sinema has showed herself to be at best a fool, at worst an attention seeking, opportunistic, power hungry, money grubbing jerk for sale to anyone willing to pay her attention and feed her ever growing ego. Manchin is still the same today as ever before. The only difference is he's more than a tad high on his current power level. He's in this for what he, and his own, can personally gain. As always, except his leverage level is higher now than before. What ticks me off the most is knowing my angst over his position is a source of laughter for his smarmy ass.

Which means we don't actually have a true solid basic majority beyond the House Right this moment. Trust me, I know it sucks. I feel the pain every single day.

I'm extremely progressive, I just accept local political realities and the fact that a lot of people play politics on the internet, but never follow through. It's a game of follows and likes. I realize that's an accepted metric, which I'm fine with being a reality. I assume for every 1000 new followers I may truly reach 1-10 if I'm lucky, and get them to think and maybe really engage in their communities. Which is my ultimate goal.

As to DU, it's now, and has always been, a kind place where I can commiserate about the idiots we all have to navigate on the right while trying to create change in our communities.

Also, it turns out we weren't as far left overall as I'd assumed. I'm still sitting here reeling from Trump being elected, so excuse me if I seem a bit jaded. My mistake, but national polls seem to always reflect the people who do not live in rural areas. Yet, thanks to how our political system is established, those vast rural areas have far too much weight in our political outcomes. We need to be wiser and accept that when choosing our candidates.

[StrictlyRockers]

175. This is all true.

I 100% agree with you.

Do you have a Twitter?

I'm at @StrictlyChristo and also @christoq

https://twitter.com/christoq
https://twitter.com/StrictlyChristo

[herding cats]

185. I''ve been on Twitter. Since 2012

I said a lot of words for an "I agree with you 100%" and a quick Twitter flog.

Read me, speak to me. Use your words. This is an entirely different format. We're not limited on how many characters you can use here to express yourself.

I looked at your Twitter, you don't have a lot to actually say. Make a statement. Make at least a few threaded tweets. Say something. Be for something. I didn't see any of that.

[betsuni]

186. +1

[jcmaine72]

51. Yes, as long as you know and accept when to tread lightly.

Speaking as a Democratic Socialist myself, the balancing act that one has to sometimes perform here to avoid being wished to the cornfield can be a little trying, especially when you're new and possess a low post count and no one trusts you. However, it can be done.

In all honesty, I attribute my survival here for five years mainly to my learning when to keep my opinions to myself. Whenever my principles as a Socialist are at odds with current mainstream Democratic Party positions (which they often are), or whenever one of the left-leaning politicians that I support within our party falls out of favor for a day or a week and starts getting lambasted here, I simply avoid arguments and post my opinions in places that are more in tune with my personal beliefs.

The only time I really thought I'd get banned here was during the 2020 primaries, when Mike Bloomberg essentially purchased a (D) next to his name and everything in his horrible past, from his blatantly racist Stop and Frisk policy as NYC mayor, his shady (to put it mildly) business practices, to all the nasty things he has said over the years about Democratic politicians, were all suddenly and miraculously forgiven in an instant. I argued with several fellow DU'ers, netted a couple of hides, and just sucked it up as a lost cause and took a break from posting here for several months.

However, the occasional thorny patch aside, it's definitely worth coming here and being a small part of the DU community. There are so many intelligent, conscientious, and genuinely funny people here. It's a wonderful community overall, and an indispensable part of my daily routine.

[StrictlyRockers]

72. This is the best advice in this thread, so far.

You're right.

I don't agree with you that it's worth coming here and being a part of this community, though. I remain to be convinced, and I've been posting here for 18 years.

This site hasn't made me laugh in years. I don't see the funny. There are no funny people here anymore, the place is a humor desert. I go where I find enjoyment. That's mostly Twitter, and that's why I have 100,000 active, loyal Twitter followers. DU isn't worthy of my attention. My Tweets get more monthly views than this entire site does.

The only poster here worthy of my time is malaise. Her posts are good, the rest are mostly dreck.

Naw, that's bullshit, there are lots of great posters on DU: Nevilledog, babylonsister, H20Man, kpete, I could think of a few more if I tried. But it's not enough to make up for all the dreck. I would be here more if I didn't have to do so much sifting to find the good stuff...or if the site had given me a single chuckle in the past five years.

[orleans]

54. as an aside--i googled: difference between liberal and progressive

google throws up these questions & answers you can click on; here's what two of them were

what are the beliefs of the progressives?

Characteristics of Progressivism included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind's ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in an obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, a belief in the ability of experts and in the efficiency of government ...

what does liberal mean in politics?

Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy.

so--maybe i'm a liberal progressive or a progressive liberal.
i remember taking a poll that rated dems and my liberal/progressive rank showed only 6% of the dems were in my percent group. happily my daughter also scored in that 6%. (i googled and just found the quiz--the category i'm in is "progressive left." here's the link if you're interested:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/

[Tomconroy]

68. The Democratic Party trends pretty liberal.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/the-democratic-coalition/

But the term 'communist' at this point seems pretty quaint.
The term 'Socialist' seems to cover a pretty wide spectrum of views. Neither label will get you elected in too many states. But I don't think espousing such views will get you banned, probably just disagreed with, depending on the specific issue involved.

[Skittles]

80. I'm calling BS

I'm sure your friend would have said DEMOCRAT PARTY

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

86. Dammit, Skittles, ...

I hate when my coffee sprays out of my nose.

[Skittles]

87. *snort*

[Hekate]

98. Well-spotted, Skittles

[StrictlyRockers]

118. not funny! I find that term extremely offensive.

I hope you're joking. Still not funny, though.

[Skittles]

130. :)

I hope you are joking too

[StrictlyRockers]

131. lol

i am

[Skittles]

133. WOOT!

great thread

[Klaralven]

89. Classical communism, socialism and capitalism are all pretty much obsolete

In particular, it seems clear that the government owning the means of production is a bad idea, since governments are incompetent at operating and especially of improving the means of production. Government ownership leads to corruption of both business and government, to inefficient operation of the economy, and to technological stagnation.

On the other hand, it is also now clear that the economy can be strongly influenced by the government through financial and other regulation, by tax policies, by subsidies, and by government purchasing decisions. In most countries, about a third of the economy is under direct government control through taxation and spending.

So "socialism" could be redefined as a philosophy of political economy that prioritizes the achievement of social goals by using government control of the economy to provide ample and equitably distributed good and services.

And "capitalism" could be redefined as a philosophy of political economy that prioritizes the growth of the economy and the accumulation of assets with minimal government control and interference.

With that redefinition, I think there is a lot of support by Democrats for socialism.

[brush]

109. Re-defining anything in words doesn't make anything a reality.

Socialism is socialism and communism is communism. Neither has been successful. Your first paragraph is what it is.

[JanMichael]

92. I've been on DU since 2001. So yeah it's okay.

I guess if a hard capital L Leftist myself can be here for 20 some years then yes I guess it's okay.

I used to post more Lefty articles and things like that but reality is I don't post many original threads anymore.

So Democratic Underground is pretty much a good space although it's gotten less "salt" over the last few years which may or may not be a good thing.

I always think it's kind of amazing that we've had people on here for 20 years or 15 years.

[betsuni]

93. For those who think the "establishment" Democratic Party needs to be "overhauled"

because of imaginary corruption and being the same as Republicans, I recommend Jackpine Radicals and Justice Democrats as very friendly.

[Hekate]

99. +1

[retread]

94. Is this the "friend" you are asking for??

[StrictlyRockers]

125. My friend is not a phooka.

haha hehe hoho

Almost made me smile.

[ancianita]

96. Of course, as long as they're Democrats. I'm to the left of Bernie and have been here eleven years.

Of course it's friendly.

I suggest that one define such terms like leftist and communist. There are no more communists, except in communist governments; say, China, Russia, No. Korea. They're not grampa's communism anymore; nor do grampa's communists exist here anymore.

Most communist countries have capitalist economies and autocratic governance that's labeled communist; they are, however, fascist oligarchies. Yet their people, who trade and travel, are not members of any local communist office. Even though a country like Cuba has a communist government (I've twice traveled there in the last six years), they have a Bernie Sanders socialism that is part of a worldwide solidarity system, particularly with countries in Africa, and secondarily in the Americas.

[StrictlyRockers]

123. Good info.

Thanks!

[KG]

97. short answer - no

long answer - also, no

[StrictlyRockers]

119. Why not?

Or is this your personal opinion?

[ancianita]

128. Uh, not to butt in, but look at KG's post count.

DU is pretty self evident, and if you want shortcuts to understanding it, maybe go to the Ask the Administrators, or check out the Lounge.

You really just need to lurk more and learn more. Lurk and learn.

[StrictlyRockers]

129. Lurking for 17 years isn't long enough.

Ok, thanks for the advice, newbie. I'll lurk longer.

[ancianita]

134. Guess not, given your op question. Thanks for the info; duly noted.

[StrictlyRockers]

137. The question is only meant to spark debate on the subject.

Thank you for participating. Correct me if I misinterpret what some seem to be saying here.

SOME Democrats are welcome on DU, but only if they align perfectly with my politics and point of view. Others are not.

Is that it? Is that what you are saying? Or do I have this wrong?

[ancianita]

160. Cool.

Some Democrats? No. ALL Democrats are welcome on DU.

Yes, you have it wrong. I never once implied that any Democrat has to align with my point of view. In fact, I'm known for posting that even on their worst day, any Democrat is better than any Republican on their best day.

We're straight?

[StrictlyRockers]

179. Yes, yes.

You never said anything like that. You're cool. I was just trying to make a point.

I hope and expect this to be a welcoming site for ALL Democrats.

You were not the one guilty of POSSIBLY gatekeeping who is considered a REAL Democrat on DU, whether or not they have the official party designation beside their name. It's against the rules to attack Dems on this site, but it is still allowed sometimes. It seems unfair to me. I'm super fair-minded, that's all.

That's really it. I'm slightly ticked that the rules sometimes aren't applied equally, but to be honest I'm not married to any of the candidates I advocate for. Sometimes you root for someone who is not good at being a politician. Sometimes they're lousy at campaigning but they have great policy positions.

My problem is that I'm a little too fair-minded. I get a bit too upset at perceived injustices. Everyone has their own specific biases. The world continues to turn. I'm not the Karen-whisperer. I should let things go, and get over them more quickly. It's not that important. I think I'm getting there. I'm improving.



lol I'm dumb, I still get mad when someone is wrong on the internet lol

oh, the injustice! the horror!

something for me to work on, a learning opportunity..

I can't help but laugh at myself for it now

[Patterson]

107. I have no use for communism and socialism. I don't consider AOC, Bernie, etc. socialists.

[UnderThisLaw]

108. It should be

It seems friendly enough for conservatives

[Hekate]

113. DU works to support Dems, elect Dems, keep Dems in office. DU doesn't permit 3rd party campaigns

… in this space. We are liberal — so is the Democratic platform. We embrace a range of opinions and ideas.

In Real Life, as opposed to fervent imagination, we are a 2-party country. If the US had a Congress that created coalitions out of multiple parties, we’d have a parliamentary system, and small minority parties would have a powerful swing effect (see: Israel).

Third party campaigns have consistently betrayed Democrats, by ensuring GOP wins along narrow margins.

rant off

[Generic Brad]

111. I don't follow any "-ists" or "-isms"

But a good idea is a good idea and transcends labels. Good, constructive ideas are always welcomed here.

[brooklynite]

115. Does "friendly" mean "nobody challenging their opinions"?

[StrictlyRockers]

121. No

It means they are allowed equal opportunity to challenge others' opinions.

[48656c6c6f20]

127. I support Skittles but I wouldn't vote for them

I think the key thing is to support and Vote Democrat

[Skittles]

152. I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

[Raine]

135. Communism 👎 nt

[GoodRaisin]

136. I don't know, but it's a place that's more in line with how I think

than the other side is, that’s for sure. “Leftists” for sure. “Communists”, I really don’t care if it’s comfortable for them or not. Bottom line is there is nothing at all appealing about the Republican agenda and I welcome anyone who opposes it, which is what you get here.

[Tommy Carcetti]

139. Communists are good at identifying problems, terrible at coming up with solutions.

And obviously there’s no market for Stalin love here. Or any Soviets for that matter. Soviet Union was a brutally repressive regime that was basically an attempt to reboot the dying Russian empire into a more populist form.

Leftists? Well, I suspect we’re all of left here to some degree, at least nominally left of center.

Problems come if anyone tries taking the whole Susan Sarandon my-way-or-the-highway mindset and start trashing perfectly good Democrats for not being “pure” enough.

[StrictlyRockers]

145. I'm not a purist.

I'm ready to ally with anyone who fights fascism and works for the common good. At this point, anyone who is pro-democracy is my ally. Bill fucking Kristol is my ally. Freaking David Frum is my ally.

I also want to be able to call out hypocrisy when I see it. Susan Sarandon has made mistakes, but she is also an ally to our cause. She should not be cast aside and written off/canceled by the same people who are decrying "purity" tests. That is hypocritical.

We do it all the time, we form a circular firing squad and aim at our allies for not always being perfect, or for sticking to beliefs that don't align with "mine".

"Anyone further left than I am is a valid target" is no way to run a political party or to reconcile one's politics, in general. But it seems like par for the course in some circles.

[hunter]

148. I'm a Left Wing Social Justice Warrior and Radical Environmentalist.

Twenty years in this Underground.

Nevertheless my politics are practical.

I've supported some Democrats I find distasteful, with $ and words.

But I've always maintained, in this nation's broken and corrupt two party "system," that the Fascist Republican Party NEEDS TO FUCKING DIE!

[StrictlyRockers]

149. I could not agree more.

The Republican Party is a cancer and a blight on this nation.

[Silent3]

158. Susan Sarandon has shown no signs of wanting to be an ally, at least a good one

She's a divisive contrarian with an ego problem. How do you work with that?

[Piasladic]

154. I guess the EffieBlack/Starfishsaver has jaded me

but now I am even more a suspicious wet blanket. As someone on DU smarter than I once said, "check the profile."

[StrictlyRockers]

180. Can you provide me with context?

I'm curious. I avoided this site for years at a time over the past 17 years.

[Silent3]

159. If they're here to be good allies, and follow the rules, the more the merrier

I personally don't consider communism a viable or rational political stance, however, and I don't think a huge number of people here do either. Even among those who rail against the evils of rampant capitalism, I doubt there are many who would rather live under a communist government.

[StrictlyRockers]

181. Fair enough

Good on ya.

[DFW]

162. Plenty on the left support the Democratic Party

The Communists and Socialists have their own parties, so I cannot see why either would even want to hang out at DU. Extremists of either stripe tend to be uncomfortable control freaks, especially once they acquire power, and throughout history, that has never gone well.

When Franco took over Spain, although he did have a considerable minority who supported him, he had his image on coins with a legend saying "Caudillio de España por la gracia de Dios," i.e. "Leader of Spain by the grace of God." Most of my friends used to add, "y por la desgracia de los españoles," i.e. "and to the misfortune of the Spaniards (roughly translated, there)."

[StrictlyRockers]

182. Franco was a fascist.

The second paragraph is extremely interesting, but I don't think it proves your point about socialism. I'm not a Communist, I'm just a communist. I am a Democrat.

[dwayneb]

188. His point was that either extreme can lead to despotism

Reality is that despotism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, whatever word you choose to use, can emerge from any extreme political ideology, whether on the far Left or the far Right.

I think we all know this. Stalin and Mao on the far Left, Hitler and Franco on the far Right. These dictators really couldn't care less about the economic model. What they cared about was POWER - getting it and maintaining it.

Yes today, it's the Radical Right that is the clear and present danger here in the West but that's just a matter of expediency.

Trump is a great example, he fooled around for years trying to decide whether he was a "Democrat" or a "Republican" until 2009 when he finally saw that it would be easy to hijack the GOP and use the ready made brainwashed base to lead him to power. This is a man who could not care less about any platform or core beliefs. One goal only and that is to put himself in power.

[DFW]

189. You got it.

I lived in Spain under Franco as a teenager, and even if his regime had begun to « mellow out » a bit from the days when he thought he needed no more friends other than Salazar, Franco’s fascist Spain was still one of only two countries I have visited where the regime looked though what reading material I had on me when entering. The other was the «true existing socialism, » as East Germany used to label itself. The only difference was that Spain looked at what I had on me, but let me keep it if they found nothing they considered subversive. The East Germans systematically confiscated everything. If it contained the printed word, you did not bring it in. Period.

Like Unamuno told the fascists in 1936, « Ustedes vencerán, porque poseen la fuerza bruta, pero no convencerán. » It was so effective because the words for conquer (vencer) and convince (convencer) are so close in Castilian. « You will conquer, because you possess brute force, but you will not convince. »

He was so accurate. Extremists have often conquered throughout history, but they almost nevern convince. It is why countries ruled by extreme ideologies are so often countries whose citizens try to leave and live somewhere else.

[rockfordfile]

172. I don't support communists. The same goes for right-wing fascists

[AZLD4Candidate]

176. If you read the communist party of the usa platform. . .you may not find much to disagree about

Honestly.

[StrictlyRockers]

183. That's a good suggestion.

I think Marxist might be a better label for me. I studied him at UCSC. Two whole classes, wow!, I'm a Marxist.

I should read the US Communist Party platform. I'd probably find it fascinating.

But I'm really not into being a Communist, I'm just a communist. It would be much more appropriate for someone like me to join the DSA. I've thought about it, there is a local chapter in Santa Cruz. But I suspect those meetings are long and boring. Who has time for arguing theory?

Is the DSA going to achieve legislative victories? The Democrats might, that's why I root for the Dems. Dems at least have a chance at getting laws passed.

We need to help the poor in this country. It's a crime that they aren't boosted up somehow. If there was some kind of party that existed to help the poor, THAT would be my party. Right now, that's the Democrats, I think.

I just can't stand to see so many poor, suffering, homeless, hopeless people living in the richest country in the history of mankind. It severely rubs me the wrong way!

[betsuni]

184. "If there was some kind of party that existed to help the poor": that's why Republicans hate

Democrats: the party's progressive policies help the poor/working/middle classes. The party of equality. Republicans know this. Democrats know this. Public figures who say the Democratic Party has turned its back/ignored the working class are wrong. Who doesn't know this? Asking for a friend.

[Amishman]

187. actual communism? No, it is not compatible with American concepts of private property

which our party supports.