Democrats, socialists, and communists – birds of a feather?

Dem’s new agenda hauntingly similar to communism

From:,  by: Aaron Klein,  on: May 17, 2015,  see the article HERE.


New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio

Last week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio unveiled a 13-point national “Progressive Agenda” that is being touted as the liberal “Contract with America.”

The aim is for the “Progressive Agenda” to become the basis for the Democratic Party’s main economic policies, including those of its 2016 presidential candidate.

De Blasio has compared his plan to the “Contract with America,” a document released by the Republican Party during the 1994 congressional election and drawn up by future House Speaker Newt Gingrich to serve as the GOP policy agenda.

Now WND documents that most of the 13 points in de Blasio’s “Progressive Agenda” can also be found in the manifestos and literature of the Communist Party USA and the Socialist Party USA.

The full progressive plan, entitled, “The Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality,” can be found on the agenda’s new website.

Here is a comparison of the Agenda’s plan with literature from the manifestos and writings of the Community Party USA, or CPUSA, and the Socialist Party USA, or SPUSA.

  • Progressive Agenda: “Raise the federal minimum wage, so that it reaches $15/hour, while indexing it to inflation.”

SPUSA: “We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.”

CPUSA: Calls for “struggles for peace, equality for the racially and nationally oppressed, equality for women job creation programs, increased minimum wage. … Even with ultra-right control of the Federal government, peoples legislative victories, such as increasing the minimum wage, can be won on an issue-by-issue basis locally, statewide, and even nationally.”

  • Progressive Agenda: “Reform the National Labor Relations Act, to enhance workers’ right to organize and rebuild the middle class.”

SPUSA: “The Socialist Party stands for the right of all workers to organize, for worker control of industry through the democratic organization of the workplace.”

CPUSA: “One of the most crucial ways of increasing the strength and unity of the working class as a whole is organizing the unorganized. Working-class unity depends on uniting all the diverse sectors of the multiracial, multinational working class in the U.S. … Speeding up the organization of unorganized workers is one of the most important challenges to labor and all progressive forces.”

  • Progressive Agenda:“Pass comprehensive immigration reform to grow the economy and protect against exploitation of low-wage workers.”

SPUSA:“We defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people. We oppose the imposition of any fees on those receiving amnesty. We call for full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months.”

CPUSA: Declares the “struggle for immigrant rights is a key component of the struggle for working class unity in our country today.”

  • Progressive Agenda: Pass national paid sick leave. Pass national paid family leave.

CPUSA: In October 2014, hails that “women are fighting back to defend their jobs and their families against candidates who want to destroy women’s reproductive rights, health care, family leave and paid sick days. Women’s voices and votes can make the difference in this election in the U.S. Senate and House, for Governors and State Legislatures, and in the movement going forward for full equality.”

  • Progressive Agenda:“Make Pre-K, after-school programs and childcare universal.”

SPUSA:“We support public child care starting from infancy, and public education starting at age three, with caregivers and teachers of young children receiving training, wages, and benefits comparable to that of teachers at every other level of the educational system.”

  • Progressive Agenda:“Earned Income Tax Credit.” “Implement the ‘Buffett Rule’ so millionaires pay their fair share.”

SPUSA:“We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax. …”

CPUSA:“No taxes for workers and low and middle income people; progressive taxation of the wealthy and private corporations. …”

Dems hail ‘beginning of revolution’

De Blasio criticized Obama as “too conservative” to assert a progressive economic vision and “too afraid to take the bold kind of action that President Roosevelt took” during the Great Depression, reported the liberal news network.

Speaking at the “Progressive Agenda” launch event outside the Capitol building last Tuesday, de Blasio said “something is changing in America.”

“It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference,” he said. “We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”

The Hill quoted Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., saying de Blasio’s plan “could be the beginning of a revolution.”

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., commented the mayor’s plan represents “the meat on the bones of a progressive agenda.”

Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., said, “The cavalry has arrived.”

The Hill reported that at the event, some Democrats pushed back against rumors de Blasio was attempting to use the plan to nudge presidential candidate Hillary Clinton further to the left.

“There’s gossip in Washington that this is about trying to move a certain candidate in a certain direction,” said former Democratic Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. “If you look at that candidate’s record, you’ll find that she’s embraced a lot of this already.”

Last week’s de Blasio event was reportedly attended not only by politicians but also by union leaders and MSNBC host Al Sharpton.

The Atlantic reported the coalition supporting de Blasio’s plan includes Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party. Cantor also was a founder of the socialist-oriented New Party.

De Blasio once served as executive director of the New York branch of the New Party.

WND previously exposed that President Obama himself was listed in New Party literature as a member.

Soros economist behind Dem’s new ‘Contract with America’

As WND reported last week, a plan drawn up by a George Soros-funded professor seeking to “rewrite” the rules of the U.S. economy forms the foundation of de Blasio’s new progressive agenda.

De Blasio’s “Progressive Agenda” was informed by a 112-page policy report at the liberal Roosevelt Institute titled “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy,” reported MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald.

That 112-page plan was crafted by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who previously conducted teach-ins at Occupy Wall Street.

Indeed, prior to last Tuesday’s launch of the “Progressive Agenda,” de Blasio attended an economic forum at the Roosevelt Institute co-hosted by Stiglitz, where he heaped praised on the economist’s “rewriting” plan.

Besides accepting funding from Soros, Stiglitz has engaged in numerous projects with the controversial billionaire and sits on the boards of Soros’ organizations, including one openly seeking to remake the world’s economy.

Stiglitz is a leading proponent of more government regulation of the economy.

He previously chaired the Commission on Global Financial Issues of Socialists International, the world’s largest socialist organization.

Stiglitz, the brains behind de Blasio’s new plan, has been an economic adviser to Obama, but he also criticized the president’s bank-rescue plan. Stiglitz said whoever designed that plan is “either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent.”

Stiglitz won his Nobel for research on what became the theory of information asymmetry, which argues for more government intervention in failing economies than the traditional “market failure” school had previously advocated.

He has stated that “the real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government.”

“Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance will differ from time to time and place to place,” he has said.

Gavin Wright, chairman of Stanford’s economics department, summarized Stiglitz’s work.

“Broadly speaking, Joe’s theoretical work has had to do with the shortcomings and imperfections of market economy, not from the standpoint of a thorough-going rejection of the market economy but from the perspective that holds out hope for improvement through government regulation or use of the tax system,” Wright said.

Government, business as ‘partners’

Stiglitz was a member of President Bill Clinton’s administration, serving both in Clinton’s cabinet and as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Stiglitz’s most important contribution during his time in the Clinton administration was helping to define a new economic philosophy called a “third way,” which called for business and government to join hands as “partners,” while recognizing government intervention could not always correct the limitations of markets.

“Third Way” is an ideology first promoted as an alternative to free markets by Mikhail Gorbachev after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The “Third Way” of governing would be neither capitalist nor communist, but something in between.

In his 1998 “State of the Union” address, President Clinton outlined the “Third Way”: “We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer. My fellow Americans, we have found a Third Way.”

The “Third Way” calls for business and government to join hands as “partners.”

Discover the Networks criticized the theory: “In short, Big Business would own the economy (as under capitalism), while Big Government would run it (as under socialism). Corporations would be persuaded to comply with government directives through subsidies, tax breaks, customized legislation, and other special privileges.”

Soros himself has been a vocal proponent of the “Third Way” economic policy.

Stiglitz, meanwhile, also became involved in “global warming” issues, including serving on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, helping to draft a new law for toxic wastes and serving on the boards of numerous environmental groups, such as the Alliance for Climate Protection.

‘No longer one superpower’

Stiglitz is a prolific speaker. On Sept. 17, 2010, he gave a speech to the Swiss and Global Asset Management group in which his Power Point presentation, available online, stated the U.S. is mired in Japanese-style malaise because of “greater inequality” and “weaker social protection.”

Stiglitz said the U.S. was failing to come to “terms with its standing in the New Global Order.”

His presentation called for a “New Global Economic Order” in which the world is “no longer dominated by one ‘superpower,’” although he predicted China’s income per capita will remain much below that of the U.S.

Soros’ economic partner, Bretton Woods

Stiglitz is deeply tied to Soros. Stiglitz serves on the international advisory board of Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

The economist is the co-founder and president of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, a globalist group which is funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Along with numerous other Open Society Institute leaders, Stiglitz is a member of the Collegium International, a globalist group that proclaims in its official declaration “the Earth, home of humanity, constitutes a whole denoted by interdependence.”

Perhaps most significantly, Stignitz sits on the board of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, or INET, an organization literally seeking to reorganize the entire global economic system.

George Soros is INET’s founding sponsor, with the billionaire having provided a reported $25 million over five years to support INET activities.

In April 2011, Stiglitz spoke at INET’s annual meeting, which took place in the mountains of Bretton Woods, New Hampshire.

The gathering was held at Mount Washington Hotel, famous for hosting the original Bretton Woods economic agreements drafted in 1944. The initial conference’s goal was to rebuild a post-World War II international monetary system. The April gathering had a similar stated goal – a global economic restructuring.

A Business Insider report on the event related, “George Soros has brought together a crack team of the world’s top economists and financial thinkers.”

“Its aim,” continued the business newspaper, “is to remake the world’s economy as they see fit.”

More than two-thirds of the speakers at the 2011 conference had direct ties to Soros.

The keynote speaker at the Bretton Woods conference was Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, a board member of INET who is tied to both Soros and Stiglitz.

Sachs is engineer of a “shock treatment” economic doctrine that he has applied to other countries, most notably Bolivia and Poland. In both countries, critics charge, Sach’s doctrine led to economic failure.

In 2009, Sachs narrated an audio book titled “George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz – America: How They See Us.”

Stiglitz, meanwhile, has other ties to Soros. When he chaired the U.N.’s Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System, the commission included Soros-tied economists, such as Robert Johnson, former chief economist of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee who previously was the managing director at Soros Fund Management. Johnson also is on the board of the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for America’s Future.


The thing that I find most interesting about the comparison between the democrats (calling themselves “progressives’), and the socialists and communists, is that the democrats are becoming more brazen about their goals. They used to try concealing their true motives and hiding behind publically acceptable descriptions. Now they’re no longer even trying to disguise their agenda and the fact that it parallels the goals of the Socialist Party USA and the Communist Party USA doesn’t seem to bother them. I guess they believe that the American public is ready for the big “reveal.” Their “coming out” as it were, when they confess their true goals.

And just as we all expected, our nemesis George Soros is the prime mover behind many of these agenda items.

He’s the Grinch who is trying to steal America.



Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Democrats, socialists, and communists – birds of a feather?

  1. Hardnox says:

    Excellent piece Garnet. Take a bow. Wherever one looks there is Soreholes.

    The left is simply the left… communists, progressives, socialists, marxists, whatever. Calling them liberal is simply wrong. The word liberal is exclusive. Many on the right, Limbaugh for example, uses the term regularly to describe the left. It’s just wrong. They are all devoted leftists and the Democratic party has been hijacked by them.

    The right needs to call them out. Sadly the young lemmings don’t understand that communism, marxism, socialism are bad. They have been indoctrinated to think those political philosophies are about “fairness” and who would be against fairness? That would be akin to being anti-rainbow or some such twaddle.

    The rhetoric coming from the left is kicking into a higher gear. They know that if they lose in 2016 their plans will get derailed. These next months will be dangerous for America.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Great point Nox, the young adults only now preparing to vote for the first or second time don’t understand the difference between the anti-American left, the RINOs that have been representing the right in the last few elections, and real conservatives. I think that if someone (Ted Cruz) can explain in simple words and inside of the brief attention span of the young what conservatism is, many of them will vote R.

  2. Buck says:

    Communists and socialists ARE birds of a feather. Democrats are, in the words of Lenin, “Useful idiots.”
    Communists and socialists have a common goal of total control over the populace. The only difference between the two is the strategy for attaining control. The communists believe only through violent revolution and total elimination of the upper and ruling class can their goal be achieved. Socialists believe the same goals can be achieved through indoctrination, which now starts in kindergarten and extends through however many years of formal education a person is exposed to.
    Democrats are a very stupid breed of folk. They buy into totally unworkable social experiments and when the experiments don’t work they want to pass a law sayi8ng it has to work. They believe in all the utopian bullshit put forth by the communists and socialists and carry the socialist/communist’s water willingly, not knowing they, themselves will be the first liquidated when the socialists/communists obtain power.
    You will not find a Democrat who is a socialist or a communist but you will find socialists and communists who are Democrats. Whether de Blasio is a communist or not is hard to tell. But, in the words of an old Bircher, “If he walks like a duck; and he talks like a duck; and is continually seen in the company of ducks; then I must assume he is a duck.”

    • Garnet92 says:

      Good comment Buck. Personally, I don’t care whether someone is a socialist or a communist. If they’re either, they’re anti-capitalistic and anti-American and that’s enough for me to target them for derision.

  3. Buck says:

    Oh, yeah. And legislation. Socialists believe in indoctrination AND legislation to achieve their goal…
    Brain fart in progress.

  4. vonMesser says:

    Not just birds of a feather – birds of the same nest.

  5. I.R. Wayright says:

    It amazes me that the commies think they can roll right over the rest of us when they are such a minority. Wait until we decide it is open season on them.

    • vonMesser says:

      IR – it doesn’t amaze me that they think as a minority they can roll over the rest of us. What amazes me is the fact that we let them roll over us and don’t do a damn thing about it.

    • Garnet92 says:

      The problem is that too many of us have been sleeping through the past decade or two – not paying attention and not fighting back. They haven’t “beaten” us, we’ve practically surrendered. Good comment I.R.

  6. Uriel says:

    Great— commies on the left, commies on the right, radical illegals swarming the middle. So glad I am old geez.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Me too Uriel. I’m almost relieved that I won’t be around to see how bad things will get over the next 10-20 years unless we pull our collective heads our of our collective asses and fix our broken political system.

  7. Clyde says:

    Talk about a rock and a hard place. This agenda will be pursued WITH help from the republicans. Shit, we ALREADY are seeing it, in the personage of McConnell, and Boehner, and those who will NOT stand up AGAINST it. All those lives of our soldiers WASTED fighting communism, when the dupes who came after them rolled over and voted FOR it. Beam me up.

    • Garnet92 says:

      So true Clyde, I wonder what we as a nation did that was so heinous that God sent McConnell and Boehner to inflict pain and suffering onto the land. Could He not have sent plague or locusts instead?

  8. CW says:

    I agree with you that Democrats/Progressives have become very emboldened in recent years; but while they are shockingly open about their goals to move this country towards communism, the language they use still attempts to give them cover. They talk about, “…remak[ing] the world’s economy,” ”… theory of information asymmetry,…” ”… “rewrite[ing]” the rules of the U.S. economy…” ”… finding the right balance between the market and government;” “Third Way” economic policy;” and “New Global Economic Order.” All of those professorial terms are nice ways of talking about THEFT. Transferring wealth and power is what communism, socialism and progressivism are all about, but they’ll never come right out and say that. As long as they keep couching their schemes in phrases like “rewrite[ing]” the rules of the U.S. economy…,” they revolution is bloodless.

  9. JenZ says:

    Interesting piece! If only more people would pay attention to the important overlap between these ideologies.

    I’d never heard of the “third way” in this political context before. I’m familiar with the use of the phrase by English Catholics like GK Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc in the early 20th century with regard to Distributism – This explain why a friend of mine who is politically very well-read always construes Distributist ideology as socialist. I don’t think that Distributism and Socialism are actually overlapping, but Belloc’s (or was it Chesterton’s) reference to Distributism as a “third way” confuse the issue.