See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: FBI tracked King's every move
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/
URL Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/index.html
Published: Apr 4, 2008
Author: Jen Christensen
Post Date: 2008-04-04 13:45:16 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 525
Comments: 40
(CNN) -- FBI wiretaps have "given us the most powerful and persuasive source of all for seeing how utterly selfless Martin Luther King was," as a civil rights leader, according to a leading civil rights scholar. "You see him being intensely self-critical. King really and truly believed that he was there to be of service to others. This was not a man with any egomaniacal joy of being a famous person, or being a leader," said Pulitzer Prize-winning scholar David Garrow in a recent interview with CNN. Hoping to prove the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was under the influence of Communists, the FBI kept the civil rights leader under constant surveillance. The agency's hidden tape recorders turned up almost nothing about communism. But they did reveal embarrassing details about King's sex life -- details the FBI was able to use against him. The almost fanatical zeal with which the FBI pursued King is disclosed in tens of thousands of FBI memos from the 1960s. The FBI paper trail spells out in detail the government agency's concerted efforts to derail King's efforts on behalf of the civil rights movement. The FBI's interest in King intensified after the March on Washington in August 1963, when King delivered his "I have a dream speech," which many historians consider the most important speech of the 20th century. After the speech, an FBI memo called King the "most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country." The FBI began secretly tracking King's flights and watching his associates. In July 1963, a month before the March on Washington, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover filed a request with Attorney General Robert Kennedy to tap King's and his associates' phones and to bug their homes and offices. In September, Kennedy consented to the technical surveillance. Kennedy gave the FBI permission to break into King's office and home to install the bugs, as long as agents recognized the "delicacy of this particular matter" and didn't get caught installing them. Kennedy added a proviso -- he wanted to be personally informed of any pertinent information. While King did have associates who had been members of the Communist Party, by all accounts they severed those ties when they started working in the civil rights movement. What's more, the FBI bugs never picked up evidence that King himself was a Communist, or was interested in toeing the party line. But the long list of bugs in his hotel rooms picked up just enough about King's love life. A decision in a 1977 court case brought by Bernard Lee, one of King's associates, sealed the transcripts from those wiretaps until 2027. But King's associates confirm there were at least two cases in which FBI surveillance caught King in compromising circumstances. The first incident involved King at a party at the Willard Hotel in Washington. The FBI recorded the party and captured the sounds of a sexual encounter in the room afterwards. The second incident occurred during King's stay in a hotel in Los Angeles, California. There, agents heard another drunken gathering in which King told an off-color joke about the recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy. Hoover sent transcripts and excerpts of those recordings to the White House and to the attorney general. Hoover's contempt for King's private behavior is clear in the memos he kept in his personal files. His scrawl across the bottom of positive news stories about King's success dripped with loathing. On a story about King receiving the St. Francis peace medal from the Catholic Church, he wrote "this is disgusting." On the story "King, Pope to Talk on Race," he scribbled "astounding." On a story about King's meeting with the pope, "I am amazed that the Pope gave an audience to such a degenerate." On a story about King being the heavy favorite to win the Nobel Prize, he wrote "King could well qualify for the 'top alley cat' prize!" When King learned he would be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, the FBI decided to take its harassment of King one step further, sending him an insulting and threatening note anonymously. A draft was found in the FBI files years later. In it the FBI wrote, "You are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that." The letter went on to say, "The American public ... will know you for what you are -- an evil, abnormal beast," and "Satan could not do more." The letter's threat was ominous, if not specific: "King you are done." Some have theorized the intent of the letter was to drive King to commit suicide in order to avoid personal embarrassment. "King, there is only one thing left for you to do," the letter concluded. "You know what it is ... You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." With the exception of the wiretap transcripts that remain sealed under court order, many of the other memos were made public as part of high-profile congressional investigations into the FBI's harassment of King. A summary was put together during the course of these investigations. Other memos were released through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Center for National Security Studies in 1978. Another large batch was released through a 1979 FOIA request from David Garrow. While the memos depict a cold and calculating attempt by the government to personally embarrass King, the memos also create an ironic byproduct, according to Garrow. "When you have a wiretap on someone you pick up all sorts of dreck. But in terms of the political history that ironically the FBI has created for us, it's a wonderful resource," Garrow said. FBI tracked King's every move
CNN
Watch how the FBI tracked King's every move »
The bureau convened a meeting of department heads to "explore how best to carry on our investigation [of King] to produce the desired results without embarrassment to the Bureau," which included "a complete analysis of the avenues of approach aimed at neutralizing King as an effective Negro leader."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
Nice try, Jen.
...Both methods yielded similar results, which support the previous findings; that is, of all modern human samples, sub-Saharan Africans again exhibit the closest phenetic similarity to various African Plio-Pleistocene hominins... Now we have posters here calling Obama "overtly communist". J. Edgar Hoover has his spiritual descendants.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
As does Lenin.
...Both methods yielded similar results, which support the previous findings; that is, of all modern human samples, sub-Saharan Africans again exhibit the closest phenetic similarity to various African Plio-Pleistocene hominins... Ari, when you get a minute, perhaps you can make a case to vote for Obama, and use his voting record to help. If I've missed a post of yours that did so, just point me to it. I've not seen anything written by you that persuades.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Holy mackerel, Kingfish!
If anybody bears a burden of proof, I think it's somebody who calls a major contender for the presidency "overtly communist". Can't say I've seen that burden met, or even attempted to be met.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Can't say I've seen that burden met, or even attempted to be met. You know Ari, I've posted enough for you to know exactly what I mean. You rarely offer anything of your own. I'd say this is your opportunity to start bringing a case FOR Obama. I have nothing to defend. I've explained my positions in my own words, provided ample material to make and support my position. It is only my opinion, take it or leave it. Now, it's your turn. We're not changing minds here... remember that. If you just want to pick away at me, then apparently you worry that I'm making sense to someone??? I have no one to vote for, so why should you concern yourself with my opinion of Obama? If he is worthy, then make a case.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Within Marxist communism the largest trends are inspired by the writings and actions of Vladimir Lenin. Whilst the common denominator is Marxism, some of them are nonetheless in conflict. The most influential branches of the communism tree are: the teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin, Marxism->Trotskyism and Marxism->Leninism->Maoism. Some other, lesser known flavors are Council Communism, De Leonism and Left Communism. Communism, or communist society is the name of the social formation, which, according to Marxism is a classless society in which all property is owned by the community as a whole and where all people enjoy equal social and economic status. Communism in its original meaning is a social theory and political movement for the direct and communal control of society towards the common benefits of all members, the society being the communist society, see below. See also Religious communism. According to Lenin's approach the first step of the long term process of developing a communist society is a revolutionary seizure of political power; in Marxist terms, the domination of the bourgeoisie is to be replaced by the domination of the working class. In Marxist literature this political stage is called the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin argued that the revolution would occur first in less developed nations, such as Russia, and would require a vanguard of the proletariat composed of a relatively small tightly organized communist party. Communist parties are in power in People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba. Between 1917 and 1991, a communist party founded by Lenin controlled Russia and founded the Soviet Union. Early communism In 1534 John of Leyden turned the city of Munster into a commune called "New Jerusalem" in expectation of the Second Coming and introduced polygamy (going partway towards Plato's ideal) before the city was taken by a Catholic army, leading to a massacre. Thomas More's 16th century work Utopia depicted a society organized along communist lines. The idea floated around during the Enlightenment, exerting varying amounts of influence on the philosophes. The greatest amount was on Rousseau, whose thought extensively influenced the French Revolution. Many 19th century idealists, disgusted by the ongoing oppression and decadence created by the Industrial Revolution, broke away from society to form short-lived communal utopias. An example was Robert Owen's New Harmony community in Indiana. During the current stage, capitalism, the dominant bourgeoisie (capitalists who controlled the means of production) exploited and oppressed the proletariat (industrial workers). Karl Marx in his work Das Kapital (see Labor theory of value for more) explains in detail how capitalists buy labor from workers, obtaining then the right to sell the productive result of labor at a profit; this, Marx argued, creates class stratification and an unjust, unsustainable distribution of wealth. Marx thought it was only a matter of time before the working classes of the world, realizing their common goals, would unite to overthrow the capitalists and redistribute the wealth. He felt the establishment of communism would be the inevitable outcome of a historical process. Atheism, usually based on Dialectical materialism, has been the official stance of most communist countries. Some of his supporters eventually concluded that a socialist society could be created without revolution and could be brought about through democratic means. This ideology was known as social democracy and became the basis of a number of political parties include the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the British Labour Party. However, according to Lenin, Marx underestimated the power of capitalist imperialism and therefore a revolutionary seizure of the political power on behalf of the proletariat was needed to overthrow the capitalist system towards Communism. The actual difference is the revolutionary character of the process. Communists consider it as a necessary step while social democrats do not. These two currents of Marxism distinguished their ways after the second worker's international. During the rest of the 20th century, according to the communist critics, social democrats did little beyond trying to mitigate the socially harmful effects of capitalism without making any real progress towards a classless society. On the other hand, according to social democrats, the dictatorship of the proletariat was nothing else than dictatorship under the control of a communist party and remains in a state of totalitarian dictatorship, or has transitioned into some form of democracy or capitalism. On some level, both mutual criticisms have been proven correct. Following the lead of China under Deng Xiaoping, Vietnam and Laos have moved away from Soviet-style centralized planning in favor of market socialism. The ruling Communist parties of China, Vietnam, and Laos argue that a planned economy is not synonymous to socialism, thus maintaining their rationale for Communist Party-rule. For the past two decades, China and Vietnam have been sustaining among the highest rates of economic growth in the world. In the early 21st century, some thinkers have seen the prospect of communism emerges from a different direction. The economic and technological development have always been seen by Soviet communist party as the primary prerequisite to building communism, with the neverending striving for more tractors produced, more coal mined and more engineers trained. In the final decade of the Soviet Union existence a number of Soviet scholars have developed theories describing how communism would develop as we gradually turn the nature itself into the means of production. This vision, not unlike the vision of the modern nanotechnology proponents, is slowly coming to fruition. While the majority of Western economists and politicians follow Fukuyama in the belief that capitalism will endure forever, or they simply do not have any theories spanning beyond it, some paint a vision not unlike the one described by Marx. In a particular well-publicised example, Marshall Brain, a renowned web entrepreneur, described in his book Manna (http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm) a world, built with the help of robotics technology, that fits the classic definition of communism perfectly. Shy of the word "communism" itself because of its negative connotations in the United States, some authors today actually describe how it will be built in the 21st century. Historians and political analysts still argue about whether aspects of many 20th century "socialist countries", such as single-party rule or the human rights violations by Soviet apparatuses such as the KGB, Stasi (East Germany), or NKVD, were direct, unavoidable results of flaws in Marxist-Leninist theory or were caused by unrelated historical incidents; the argument is unresolved and faces reinterpretation with each new political conflict. However regimes of this nature have been totalitarian, featuring absence or repression of free press, church, and independent labor unions, and have often committed human rights abuses, opponents of Communism see it as a dangerous ideology, similar in effect to fascism. Marxists dispute this usage, reserving the term communism only for the final evolutionary stage of society (see socialism). In Marxism, communism refers to an ideal stateless, propertyless, and classless society with no oppression or exploitation and general abundance and freedom. This society would run in accord with the principle: To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. A common exemplification of the concept is "if a successful architect is single, he only needs one loaf of bread a day, and if a member of the proletariat has seven children with his wife, they need nine loaves of bread a day; neither have to pay for the bread at the baker's, and they both ask for exactly as much bread as they need -- the same applies for any other property, such as the apartment or the car". Because such a circumstance has never occurred, the Marxist ideal of communism is often viewed as an unrealistic goal, although at present many proponents of nanotechnologies argue that such society of abundance is technologically feasible (see also Paradise-engineering). Many nations in the 20th century were run by such Communist Parties, who identified themselves as true communists implementing socialism, and declared to govern themselves according to Marxist principles. See Soviet Empire for the list of them. According to the 1996 third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, communism is written with a lowercase "c" except when it refers to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party, in which case it is written as "Communism" with an uppercase "C". Links Theses on Feuerbach This content from Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Copyright 2003-2005 PoliticsDefined.com All Rights Reserved. Send all questions, comments, and suggestions to admin@politicsdefined.com You have said, I believe it was you, that for some the Cold War has never ended. ha ha ha! That's right, you Commies wish we would just put on knee pads for the central planning unit of the world proletariat like you do and quit slowing 'the agenda' down! The biggest mistake America made was allying with Commies in Europe and Asia as well as Israel and Russia, among other places for at least a century, maybe much much more. Not to mention, McCarthy was right and the alger hiss's and their banksters should have all been exiled to whatever Communist hell hole they chose and if found back in this country they should have been executed. _______
The question is, is he a Marxist or ? What flavor of Communist is he? Pure Fascist-Communist?
You throw the burden of proof on me, after you accuse Obama of being "overtly communist". That's rich.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Commie ping
Well, as I said, it's my opinion. You can try to put your problem back on me if you want to. When you get a minute, perhaps you can make the case to vote FOR Obama.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Ari, I'm sitting here with the Communist Manifesto in one hand and Obama's political record in the other and I'm having a hard time distinguishing one from the other. Maybe you can help?
No one said he was perfect.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Have you two met yet? You should hang out together. Commie ping I voted for Libertarian Harry Browne in ''96, for Buchanan in 2000. The only candidate I've donated to so far this campaign is Ron Paul. I've posted most of the threads here about Bob Barr's prospective run for the presidency. If I'm a Communist in your mind, there aren't many people who aren't Communists.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Think that means the FBI was right to consider King a Communist?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Yes, you are a Communist whose time has arrived and you've jumped all over one in this election. You must love these 3 choices, at least you can't go wrong and you'll get more wars. Way to go.
If virtually everybody is a Communist (which follows if somebody as right-wing as I am is a Communist,) is there anything wrong with being a Communist?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Probably about half are. Another 20-30% are Socialists on their way. Yes, it seems like about 1/3rd to 1/4th of Americans versus the world. Those are the hard numbers I see from current voting trends.
Perish the thought that you guys might be wrong. Didn't some Germans think along those lines a while back?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
No Commies, No Fascists. No NeoCommies, No NEOCONS. You and DrStrange can go service yourselves.
For someone who claims not to be a neocon, you seem strangely to suffer from the same obsession they do about Iran.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
So, you're an ISLAMOcommie. Thank you for clarifying that.
Yup, that's just like the neocons' blatherings about Islamofascism. You ARE a neocon.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
you were obviously anti-establishment. how in the heck did you make the leap from that ideology to now enthusiastically supporting a democrat?
How have all these people here made their leap towards supporting confrontation (if not war) with Iran and the whole Bush/Cheney/McCain neocon foreign policy? That, in case you haven't noticed, is what I am most opposed to.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Here _______ repeats the same gloating he did on the other thread, and here it is part of a group attack.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
And just how should Commies in America be treated? With RESPECT? LOL!!
all these people? name names please. That, in case you haven't noticed, is what I am most opposed to i have noticed. as am i and as are most (if not all) the people who are debating with you about obama. we're in agreement on that. NONE of us wants more war. where we differ is that you believe that with democrat obama, we won't get more war. we believe we will as he, like the rest of the establishment politicians, is merely a puppet of those who are engineering the wars and globalism.
Bingo, and nicely put. The only reason I'm rooting for Obama at all is because I deeply DESPISE Hillary NAFTA GATT IRAQ Clinton. She's a bald-faced liar, a corporate whore, and really I cannot even think of her too much without wanting to puke my guts out. At least I can actually think of Obama and not feel like someone kicked me in the gut. But do I have any high hopes or expectations for Obama should he win? Oh please. At best, at the VERY best, he may help average people just a little tiny bit, sort of like a careful executioner who is slowly drowning a torture victim who carefully, precisely allows the victim to get the occasional desperate gasp of air so that he can prolong their suffering as long as possible. With Obama, we may be allowed to get a few desperate gasps of air before being forced under the water yet again by our Trilateralist / CFR / Masonic / internationalist bankers / corporate masters.
Hidden wiretaps turned up no Communist Party ties
Ancient teeth and modern human origins: An expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples, Journal of Human Evolution Volume 45, Issue 2, August 2003, Pages 113-144
#2. To: Tauzero, Peppa (#1)
#3. To: aristeides (#2)
Ancient teeth and modern human origins: An expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples, Journal of Human Evolution Volume 45, Issue 2, August 2003, Pages 113-144
#4. To: aristeides (#2)
Now we have posters here calling Obama "overtly communist".
#5. To: robin (#0)
drunken gathering in which King told an off-color joke about the recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy
I've already said too much.
#6. To: Peppa (#4)
#7. To: aristeides (#6)
If anybody bears a burden of proof, I think it's somebody who calls a major contender for the presidency "overtly communist".
#8. To: aristeides (#2)
(Edited)
Communism
During the 20th century, communism, or communism theory is often used to describe revolutionary philosophies based on Marxism. These include Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism, in contrast to social democracy. Often "Communism" is used as a synonym for the system practiced in the Soviet Union under Stalin and his successors as well as in Soviet satellite states under various Communist parties. In this case the "C" is capitalised.
Marxists believe that just as society has transformed from feudalism to capitalism, it will transform into socialism and eventually communism. However the method by which this transformation occurs distinguishes communists from other socialists including those that believe in Marxism, in that communists believe that this will be accomplished by revolutionary means.
Many western intellectuals have advocated ideas conceivably similar to communism. In his 4th century BC work The Republic, the Greek philosopher Plato proposed the communal ownership of property by an intellectual ruling class, to put the welfare of the state above personal desire and moderate the greed of the producing classes.
The ideas of Marx and Engels
The ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, epitomized by their Communist Manifesto, transformed communism into a revolutionary movement. Marx and Engels claimed Communism did not have to occur in isolated communities, but could emerge globally. According to the Manifesto, all history can be explained in terms of class struggles. In each society, a small ruling class owned or controlled the means of production; the rest, who constituted the vast majority of people, owned and controlled very little.
Leninism versus Social Democracy
According to Marx, the laws of class struggle would force capitalism to evolve socialism and then eventually to communism. However, in the early twentieth century, it seemed that capitalist society was as strong as ever, and the revolution which Marx predicted was nowhere to be seen. How to interpret this fact lead to a split among Marx's followers.
The future of communism
The world's five remaining Communist states are the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and Laos. The experiences of these five states have starkly diverged since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. On one hand, Cuba and North Korea were hit hard by the collapse of Soviet and Eastern bloc economic assistance, trade, and military support. On the other hand, the world's three other remaining Communist states, all in East Asia, were far less dependent on Soviet subsidies (and in China's case, not at all, given the Sino-Soviet Split) at the time of the collapse of the Soviet bloc.
Language and the word communist
Much confusion (often seemingly deliberate) surrounds the words communism and socialism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) described itself as socialist (as the name implies). There are also political parties which call themselves communist. These parties have a goal of eventually realizing a communist society. So the word communist applies to three things: individuals who are members of communist parties or who desire a communist society in the future, political parties which have a goal of reaching communism, and a theoretical future society where there is no government, only communism.
Principles of Communism
The Communist Manifesto
The Civil War in France
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Reform or Revolution?
What is to be Done?
The Communist Party USA Homepage
The Communist Party Canada Homepage
The Communist Party UK Homepage
Politics Defined is a source for political terminology analysis and definitions
#9. To: aristeides (#6)
If anybody bears a burden of proof, I think it's somebody who calls a major contender for the presidency "overtly communist".
#10. To: Peppa (#7)
I'd say this is your opportunity to start bringing a case FOR Obama.
#11. To: aristeides, DrStrange (#10)
Have you two met yet? You should hang out together.
#12. To: aristeides (#10)
You throw the burden of proof on me, after you accuse Obama of being "overtly communist". That's rich.
#13. To: aristeides (#10)
You throw the burden of proof on me, after you accuse Obama of being "overtly communist". That's rich.
#14. To: MUDDOG (#5)
#15. To: _______ (#11)
#16. To: MUDDOG (#5)
Holy mackerel, Kingfish!
#17. To: aristeides (#15)
#18. To: _______ (#17)
#19. To: aristeides (#18)
#20. To: _______ (#19)
Yes, it seems like about 1/3rd to 1/4th of Americans versus the world.
#21. To: aristeides (#20)
#22. To: _______ (#21)
#23. To: aristeides (#22)
#24. To: _______ (#23)
(Edited)
So, you're an ISLAMOcommie.
#25. To: aristeides (#24)
Dance, monkey, dance!
#26. To: aristeides (#15)
I voted for Libertarian Harry Browne in ''96, for Buchanan in 2000. The only candidate I've donated to so far this campaign is Ron Paul.
#27. To: christine (#26)
#28. To: Cristine, _______ (#25)
#29. To: aristeides (#28)
#30. To: aristeides (#27)
How have all these people here made their leap towards supporting confrontation (if not war) with Iran and the whole Bush/Cheney/McCain neocon foreign policy?
#31. To: christine (#30)
NONE of us wants more war. where we differ is that you believe that with democrat obama, we won't get more war. we believe we will as he, like the rest of the establishment politicians, is merely a puppet of those who are engineering the wars and globalism.
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#32. To: Elliott Jackalope (#31)
since we're going to get one of the three, my preference would also be obama if only for his ability to orate. but i'll not ever vote for him or any of the selected candidates because that would simply be an endorsement of the fraud.
#33. To: _______ (#29)
Why shouldn't you treat Commies with respect? (Not that I concede that I am one.) You defend the Zionists' war crimes in the Middle East and apparently share their view that Iranians are subhuman. What are Communists doing at the moment that is remotely as bad as what the Zionists are doing?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#34. To: christine (#32)
But in the meantime you permit (I would say foster) an atmosphere where persons who say anything favorable about Obama are subjected to vicious personal attacks. (I am not the only one who feels increasingly uncomfortable here because of that atmosphere.)
since we're going to get one of the three, my preference would also be obama if only for his ability to orate.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#35. To: aristeides (#34)
ari, permit. yes. foster? that's not fair. i have a hands off approach to moderating. i let people post their own comments and fight it out (if you will) with each other. i seldom get involved in disagreements among individuals here and try very hard not to take sides. my opinions are my own and i assure you that there is no concerted effort on my part to foster an atmosphere of discord. personally, i'm uncomfortable with it. i liked it better when we, for the most part, were unified. in my opinion, this all began with Ron Paul's departure.
But in the meantime you permit (I would say foster)
#36. To: christine, _______ (#35)
You complained to me when you disagreed with me. Have you ever complained to, e.g., _____, when he made a far more offensive post than I ever have?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#37. To: aristeides (#36)
i don't understand. can you clarify what you mean? i don't think i have ever complained to you about the content of your posts or personally attacked you for your opinions.
#38. To: _______ (#29) (Edited)
With RESPECT?" Yes, with respect. If you believe in the Constitution and respect the Bill of Rights, then someone's prerogative to support the mindset of political thinkers such as Marx or Engels is respected. Opposed vigorously perhaps, but not blocked from political activities or gotten rid of. That is the sort of thing the neocons do in their ends justifies the means way of doing things. I had a friend years ago who is dead now who belonged to the Revolutionary Communist Party. His cell of RCPers were wondrous to behold; everything they touched turned to ruin. And that happened by virtue of their own lack of merit and maturity politically. I would read the Revolutionary Worker newspaper he would put at my door, but only because it was so shrill and dogmatic I would laugh myself silly at much of their mindset and lack of common sense on many things. This guy was a friend and neighbor regardless of his political beliefs. And his group and organization still to this day continually shoots themselves in the foot and will always be marginalized because they do not know how to figure out how not to be stooges for chairman Bob Avakian, who is more a cult leader then a political messiah. Always oppose their political agenda, but don't ever make the mistake of not respecting their political rights to their efficacy. To not do that would be buying into the neocon sort of manner of doing things and I do not recommend that.
"And just how should Commies in America be treated?
Obama for president 2008
#39. To: aristeides (#34)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
#40. To: ghostdogtxn (#39)
Communists support censorship. Libertarians do not. (just kidding...sort of)
They're here because everyone is welcome here, and it's not an arbitrary censorship zone like El Pee. You gotta take the good with the bad. You revealed a little too much with that "permit" part of your statement. We're not in the business of telling christine what not to permit, quite the contrary.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest