"There had been many things I had not really understood. I had regarded the Communist Party as a poor man’s party, and thought the presence of certain men of wealth within it accidental. I now saw this was no accident. I regarded the Party as a monolithic organization with the leadership in the National Committee and the National Board. Now I saw this was only a facade placed there by the movement to create the illusion of the poor man’s party; it was in reality a device to control the “common man” they so raucously championed."
by:
Dr. Bella Dodd
(1904-1969) head of the New York State Teachers Union , member of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) in the 1930s and 1940s, later a vocal anti-communist
Source:
School of Darkness, Chapter 16 (1954)
http://genus.cogia.net/chap16.php
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Substitute the Democratic Party and the DNC, and the quote is still accurate.
 -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 4
  •  
    Right on Archer and I am beginning to wonder about Karl Rove and the "Establishment Republicans."
     -- cal, lewisville, tx     
  • 3
  •  
    Communism is an opiate of the masses, especially as the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land enforces the dogma through its many seminaries (government schools).
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 3
  •  
     -- Ronw13, OR      
    Stupid comment, considering the mans intelligence... It was obviously snide get-back....
     -- Robert, Somewhere in the US     
  • 3
  •  
    Robert, Dr. Bella Dodd was a woman, lawyer, and teacher -- becoming head of the New York State Teachers Union. Read her bio, she was an organizer for the CPUSA from 1932-48, and sat on the CPUSA's National Council from 1944-48.

    Again, your ad hominem remark does not address the content. You do understand that calling something stupid and the speaker unintelligent without any explanation to back it up is the very definition of snidely remarks, right?

    Her comments absolutely ring true, with plenty of evidence to back it up. So help me out here, are communists 'liberal' just as you have said the founders were 'liberal'? I know you don't believe in labels, I am just trying to understand your use of them.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
    Communism is Pharisaism, clad in shoddy, secular, garb.
     -- Patrick Henry, Red Hill     
  • 1
  •  
    Archer, thanks for the correction. OK, let me explain as succinctly as possible why I said what I said. But before I do that here is another opinion: I think Scheherazade S. Rehman some’s it up quite well:

    “Communism, you recall, is an economic and political ideological system in which everyone is considered equal. Its ultimate goal is to create a classless and stateless society. A simple explanation of how communism works is as follows: There are no individual property rights and all citizens collectively own the land. The resources derived from the land are centralized. The government then makes sure that the profits from the resources are equally distributed amongst all its citizens, as everyone is considered equal. Thus, there is an equal distribution of wealth by the state no matter how hard or little you work because the "means of production" are publicly owned. The primary goal of communism is to prevent the dark negative side effects of capitalism – income inequality, etc. Ironically, the largest communist country now has a government with more billionaires than any other. For example, it is not very surprising that the Chinese parliament has 83 billionaires (comparatively the U.S. Congress has not a single billionaire). it sounds to me like all Chinese are equal but some are more equal than others”

    Isn’t that similar to Capitalism without the statist economy? Of course, there is corruption in China as well as America. Though corruption in China is thriving due to the move towards capitalism. More to come....
     -- Robert, Somewhere in the US     
  •  
    Karl Marx lived during a period of great disparity between the rich and the poor and his manifesto reflects the time he lived in. Similar to other revolts in Europe. Such as the Magna Carte, Cromwell, and the French Revolution, and even the revolution of 1776, etc., etc. As Alia Hoyt said:

    “Marx’s main idea was simple: Free the lower class from poverty and give the poor a fighting chance. How he believed it should be accomplished, however, was another story.”

    His heart was in the right place… This disparity, that caused the above revolutions, is happening in America yet again. Land should belong to everyone, a mans labor should be his own reward and not the reward of those who manipulate their trades for their own greed. Oil belongs to the people as does the earth it came from. Health care should be available to all people. It's time for America to change as nothing will, doing the same thing... Capitalism, though it has a space in the economics of the people, will, in it's present form, send society into a deep black hole.
     -- Robert, Somewhere in the US     
  •  
    A primary difference between the original foundation of the States united was to be individual sovereign liberty at natural law with secular administrations (inclusive of a free market / not capitalism - though one of the fundamental foundations of capitalism is a government free - free market) vs. the ever imposing collective security and welfare state as implemented through religious reasoning (an - all are equal before the law measured by inalienable right and liberty vs. a religious collective equality of materialism). A down fall of the once land of the free and home of the brave has been the entirety of the narrative - always being couched in a morality of religious banter instead of the absolute of natural law. Marx did a good job of changing the meaning of capitalism and making it the moral enemy of a religious collective (the whole opiate of the masses, hate those that have more than you, steal such - and spread it around).
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    Robert, thanks for the explanation. The reason there are still wealthy classes in China and Russia is because your ideal of communism is fundamentally flawed -- it has never been fully realized because it still requires management and regulation from a council or ruling junta. So much power cannot be trusted in so few hands -- they inevitably funnel wealth and power to themselves. Show me a communist revolution and I will show you hundreds of millions dead -- and they aren't the rich, they are the poor souls who starved mostly because they were dependent upon the state for survival, their property and farms ravaged. Pick one, there are dozens to choose from. This is the history of communism, there is no other. There never was a time when communism was the good old days.

    What you are calling capitalism is actually international communism with the world's central banks as the aristocracy -- the common people don't really know who the Czar is, but there are only a handful of people in the world who control the wealth of nations through manipulation of currencies -- this is a central plank of communism. Central fiat banking is NOT capitalism, it is communism with the banks as the czars!! China and Russia do not follow real communism, you say, but are capitalists, but I assert that this IS communism as all the planks of communism are observed. Orwell's take on "some are more equal than others" was not a critique of capitalism but of the lie of communism. Sheesh, how have you twisted this well-known analogy to its polar opposite.

    A republican form of government is not centralized but naturally distributed among the people and the communities they voluntarily form/join. Their organization is predicated upon the natural born rights of humankind to life, liberty, and yes, their property. Those county 'republics' form a State. Those sovereign state republics form a confederacy, and that confederated republic deals with other nations and confederacies. There is no centralized management of the affairs of the people -- they are free to pursue their happiness as long as they respect the same rights in everyone else. Please remember that Christians and homosexuals were persecuted by communists/fascists, why would you ever let some council regulate you? Or do you see yourself as on the council?

    Your ideal of communism would be great if everyone joined their commune willingly, as a free choice for this way of life. Monks and nuns have been doing this for eons, India has ashrams, even America has communes. But the life of a renunciate is not for everyone, and certainly if the law imposes it, it is oppression. The primary flaw of communism is the absence of any recognition that you are free to choose your own way -- there is no liberty or individualism with communism and its variants -- the state/government is supreme. You would hate it, Robert!
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
  •  
    E, Just so you don't think I have left the fray - a note to say I will be back on Friday with my reply.
     -- Robert, Somewhere in the US     
  •  
    Robert, with regards to 'ownership' of land and resources, I too am troubled about the obvious risk of all the land being owned by a few who ultimately rent it back to us or keep us off it altogether. I understand that Ted Turner owns 3 Rhode Island's worth of property, a lot of it closed off to development. What happens if by accident or design all the property is owned/controlled by wealthy/powerful people? In England, all the land is owned by the Crown, it is not for sale. The Crown grants title to territory with conditions attached. Revenues are to be generated from these lands either by production or taxation. But what the King can grant, he can also take away.

    Native American tribes competed for territory as well, although they did not claim to 'own' the land -- all the world being a gift from the Creator. People had a responsibility to live in harmony with the land and its resources. Great attention was paid to the watersheds of their territory as these are ecosystems of their own.

    Who shall lay claim to the rain, lakes and rivers? Who shall get to make their homes here or there, and who says? Will there ever be agreement between all? This is the age old issue before humankind, it has never been truly resolved. 'Yours, Mine, Theirs, Ours' -- these concepts are what define a culture and a people. The freedom to choose one's own way is the only respectable and honorable way. Still working on it! ;-)
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2018 Liberty-Tree.ca