Communist Leader, on Moving the US to Socialism

Tedium alert, but you should endure watching this to see how the opposition thinks.

In this 33-minute video, Communist Party USA Chair Sam Webb presents “Foundations of Marxist methodology: How to make change and win millions to socialism in the American political, social and economic framework.”

Recorded during a 2011 seminar in Los Angeles on Marxism, this “video is an excellent tool for CPUSA and YCL members, friends and collectives to discuss and deepen understanding of Marxist methodology.”

Pretty mundane presentation style, but Sam Webb makes it very clear that the party continues to see Barack Obama and the Democrats as allies on the road to socialism.

Share:

Author: Admin

Related Articles

10 thoughts on “Communist Leader, on Moving the US to Socialism

  1. It still amazes me that 75-80% of the public still does not fully realize that Obama is an agent of these Marxists. All the evidence is out there but as long as the MSM covers it, most people are just too dumb and/or lazy to find out for themselves.

    We are sunk in the long run as even the Republicans are on the most part progressive these days. My latest post on my blog explains my reasoning. Neverthless, we must not go down without a fight.

    1. You say: “…most people are just too dumb and/or lazy to find out for themselves…” (referencing what you term is “all the evidence [that] is out there…”

      OK, I’ll take the hook: what is the evidence? Is it backed by verifiable, named references who will testify; supporting what they claim? Does it have credible sources [not media pundits, partisan hopefuls, or self-proclaimed sooth-Sayers & would-be Prophets Seeking Fortune]? Is it empirically sound and logical; or is it the incendiary ranting of those with ulterior motives who prey on emotionally vulnerable citizens who they know they can ramp into a lather — and use to swell the ranks of a carefully constructed angry mob bent on finding some collective sh*t to kick?

      Just curious.

      1. The evidence?

        Lets try the following FACTS:

        • Born to Marxist parents and grand parents.
        • Mentored by a Marxist in Hawaii (Frank Marshall)
        • By his own admission in his books, hung around Marxists and radicals in college
        • His close associations with likes of Dohrn, Rev. Wright, and other Marxists
        • His Chicago public radio uttering about “redistributive justice”
        • His endorsements by the new Socialist Party, DSA, and CPUSA (all with proof)
        • His appointments of Marxists like Van Jones, Berwick, and about a dozen others as President
        • His actions and policies while in office (Eos, policy statements)

        That is just a start and ALL FACTS even a blind mouse like you cannot deny.

        1. You’ve given me some data. You’ve not provided enough detail for me to determine whether the data you gave me is fact or opinion as of yet. What are your sources for the things you’ve listed? For example: when you say “Marxist” this or “Marxist” that, in reference to Obama relatives and associates, do you have sworn proof available testifying to “the facts” that the people you claim to be Marxist are indeed of their own admission Marxists? Or are you labeling them as such yourself? IF the latter is the case, then defining them as Marxist isn’t so much factual as it is opinion, i.e., your take on who or what they were.

          You know that book Sol Alinsky wrote in the ’70’s? “Rules For Radicals?” It’s available on Amazon…right alongside a sequel: “Rules for Republican Radicals.” The latter text in this case is consumer-rated w/five stars on the Amazon web site, and the author of this work plainly states that it takes all of the premises Alinsky used in the “Rules for Radicals,” text and makes them all Republican Radical rules. from a, well…conservative (?) perspective.

          I guess that’s kind of an oxymoron when you look at it. I mean: is there such a thing as a “Radical Conservative?” as this ‘rules for republican radicals’ sequel text seems promote conservatives to do: become radical, that is.

          The text’s audience seems to agree, based on the five star ratings this book gets. So now that leads me to ask: Is imitation truly the highest form of flattery? Or, is it a case of: If you can’t beat them join them?

          Comments? And really, if you’ve got empirical evidence that these people are admittedly of their own accord who you claim they are (Marxist) I’d love to research this on my own. Thanks

          1. All of what I provided are facts as you can easily find out. None are opinions. I’d be willing to bet you a thousand bucks on any of them. You do not need sworn statements to know that someone is a Marxist or anything else if you follow their activities. Did Marx or Gramsci have to declare they were Marxists? Of course not.

            Regarding Rules for Radicals, if the opposition does not use some of the same tactics (the 14 rules), they will be devoured since media will (and is) cover it up for the left all day long. Now, that does NOT speak to what each side wants to accomplish. Left wants a collectivist society while the opposition wants a meritocracy. It really boils down to that. Pure and simple.

            Want evidence. Research Key Wiki as well as this site and you will find plenty.

            Good luck.

    1. The author of this article [source: http://www.pittsreport.com/2012/02/news-the-only-friends-little-hitler-has-left-are-in-latin-america/%5D
      states:

      “…in spite of economic, geographic, historic and political differences. All three presidents were elected with an absolute majority of votes and hold majorities in congress which facilitates change and reforms. Their parties have become mass movements supporting them.”

      Now take the above and apply our system of governing…as taken from its pure Constitutional origins…and tell me what this is saying about ‘those’ three presidents and voting and majorities and congresses and facilitating change and reform through said processes that can’t be said of our historical political form of governing in equal measure. The author states ‘absolute majority,’ not unanimous. A ‘majority.’ So? That’s how our Republic works. ‘…congress which facilitates change and reforms.’ So? Isn’t that the function of a congress? Well, should be, but ours hasn’t been able to facilitate a change in so much as the dust particles collected during any previous congress’ session.

      Directions: In all things, read carefully. Meaning: Read. Each. Word. Do not allow your mind to play games with you as you read what the author has written. Leave your emotions at the door. If you want to read emotional stuff, go buy a novel. Do not read for effect. Read. For. Content. Refrain from reading INTO the words that which is not there. Critical analysis in all things is rudimentary or unfavorable results may occur. In other words: don’t be gullible. Make sense? If not, here’s a quarter; go buy a clue.

Leave a Reply to American Patriot Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.