There is no fundamental difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. Their principles are identical. They are both capitalist parties and both stand for the capitalist system, and such differences as there are between them involve no principle but are the outgrowth of the conflicting interests of large and small capitalists.
Eugene V. Debs
Tag: Socialist Party of America
06-10-2024 Reading update: Trotsky the Traitor
I just finished reading ‘Trotsky the Traitor’ and ‘Why I Resigned From the Trotsky Defense Committee’ by Mauritz A. Hallgren. While reading ‘Trotsky the Traitor’, I was reminded of what happens when so-called ‘pro-democracy’ activists are being investigated in their home countries, for treason, yet the corporate media sings their praises. Interestingly, Wikipedia states that the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky was a front organization.
Related:
[2016] Q&A with Spider Web: The Birth of American Anticommunism author Nick Fischer
Nick Fischer is Adjunct Research Fellow of the School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies at Monash University, Melbourne. He answered some questions about his book Spider Web: The Birth of American Anticommunism.
Q&A with Spider Web author Nick Fischer (archived)
Francis Fukuyama and Michael McFaul are salivating over the Wagner Group mutiny!
Francis Fukuyama, who hasn’t seen a regime change op that he hasn’t liked, and Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia, are salivating over the Wagner Group mutiny!
Did Wagner Group Take Over Military Headquarters? What We Know

Interesting that McFaul mentioned Tilley and Trotsky.
Related:
The Neocons are not new. They have tried to influence U.S. foreign policy since the 1930’s. They are not conservative. If conservatism means maintaining the status quo, then the Neocons, who advocate broad changes, are just the opposite. Furthermore, if the early pioneers of neoconservatism are those who eventually sought global stability through use of American power and promotion of its values, then the pioneers of neoconservatiam were radical leftists The more prominent devotees were followers of Leon Trotsky:
Prigozhin a Tool of the CIA/SBU or Too Big for his Britches?!
Peace Train: Silencing contrarian voices
In the U.S., we proudly point to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights that was adopted in 1791.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Peace Train: Silencing contrarian voices
Related:
Speaker at DSA panel: “War creates the possibility for a push of socialists ideas” + “Democratic Socialism” in the Service of U.S. Imperialism
At a recent panel event hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) chapter for the state of Maine, Vladyslav Starodubstev, a leader of the Ukrainian pseudo-left Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement), put forward the chilling perspective that “the war creates the possibility for a push of socialist ideas in Ukraine.” The panelists and DSA moderators stated their agreement with the speaker and demanded the US government deploy more tanks, missiles, and howitzers to wage war against Russia, regardless of the risk of nuclear holocaust.
Speaker at DSA panel: “War creates the possibility for a push of socialists ideas”
Related:
“Democratic Socialism” in the Service of U.S. Imperialism:
In “The Real Heritage of Harrington’s DSA,” we show where the reformist “democratic socialism” of 2018 came from, and what it actually stands for. Today’s Democratic Socialists of America hails the “tradition” of Michael Harrington and Norman Thomas, long-time leaders of the Socialist Party (SP) that gave rise to what is now the DSA. In that article (see p. x), we explain that this tradition has often, and accurately, been described as “State Department socialism.” Those unfamiliar with the left may think the term is a polemical excess or empty epithet. Not at all. In fact, intimate ties to the Department of State are only the beginning of the intertwining of the official social democrats with the agencies of U.S. imperialism. Activists who want to devote themselves to genuine socialism need to know what’s what. So here’s the story
Revival of Class Politics in the U.S.…Will It Be Socialism or Fascism?
Revival of Class Politics in the U.S.…Will It Be Socialism or Fascism? by Finian Cunningham
America direly needs a unified socialist voice that connects the various movements like Black Lives Matter, Climate Extinction, the Feminist Movement, #MeToo and #Timesup, Labor rights, transsexual rights, socialist and communist parties and the movement to transform capitalist business and all other forms of organizations into cooperatives. They need a movement and a party that is against all arbitrary divisions between people. The movement and party should be an umbrella organization. The handle and stem represent class justice. The spokes and their multicolored fabric are all of the movements that are needed to create class, race, gender, and sexual justice for all.
[2012] It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
Posted more for my own reference, as I still see people quoting “fire in a crowded theater” while advocating for censorship.
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis mine).
Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.