A party platform, according to Wikipedia is:

…also known as a manifesto, is a list of principles which a political party supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party’s candidates voted into office. This often takes from the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics. Individual topics are often called planks of the platform.

The Communist Manifesto (1848) written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is probably the most famous of what could be termed a political party platform. Communism evolved from the concepts of socialism in its purest form. Communism is broken down further into: Marxism Leninism, Trotskyism, council communism, anarchist communism, Christian communism, et cetera.

… However, various offshoots of the Soviet (what critics call the “Stalinist”, and supporters call Marxist-Leninist) and Maoist interpretations of Marxism comprise a particular branch of communism that has the distinction of having been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20^th century.

The views of Karl Marx are interesting and have created discussion in the course of studying political science in the world of colleges and universities; however it isn't include in the curriculum of universities and colleges to be a goal to change the American way of government - just a study in the combined instruction of political science.

Karl Marx was not the first to come up with such a discussion and a contributor to modern communist thought:

Communist thought has also been traced back to the work of 16^th century English writer Thomas More. In his treatise Utopia (1516), More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property, whose rulers administered it through the application of reason. … In 17^th century England, the Diggers, a Puritan religious group known as advocated the abolition of private ownership of land. … Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Enlightenment of the 18^th century, through such thinkers as Jean Jacques Rousseau in France. … In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement of 19^th century Europe. As the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for the misery of the proletariat – a new class of poor, urban factory workers who labored under often-hazardous conditions. [See also History of British Socialism]
Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers. … According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in class society is alienation; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of human freedom. Marx here follows Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of restraints but as actions with content. (McLean and McMillan, 2003) They believed that communism allowed people to do what they want, but also put humans in such conditions and such relations with one another that they would not wish to exploit, or have any need to. … Marx himself wrote about life under communism, giving only the most general indication as to what constituted a communist society. …
In the late 19^th century the terms “socialism” and “communism” were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a “first phase” in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. …
Marxist-Leninism is a version of socialism, with some important modifications, adopted by the Soviet Union under Stalin. It shaped the Soviet Union and influenced Communist Parties worldwide. … However, under Stalin’s leadership, some claimed that evidence emerged that dented faith in the possibility of achieving communism within the framework of the Soviet model. Later, growth declined, and rent-seeking and corruption by state officials increased, which showed true to Marxism, that contradictions exist everywhere.

Socialism and communism are both economic systems that require that goods be owned in the greater community rather than individually private. In American political use of socialism it is in the form of what has been termed “income distribution” – where:
 

Income inequality metrics or income distribution metrics are techniques used by economists to measure the distribution of income among the participants in a particular economy. … Income distribution has always been a central concern of economic theory and economic policy.

The Great Depression brought the ideas of socialism into the American mainstream and was presented in such a way the American public didn’t quite realize it. It was then that the labor unions began its climb and fight to gain control over labor activities of America, with the Democrat Party being the perpetuator of labor/trade unions with the underlying control by organized crime leadership. The purpose that was defined for the formation of such unions in America was

“a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining and improving the conditions of their employment”[I]

However, at about the time of the socialist movement in Europe and the public awareness of the ideology of Karl Marx, unionism that was created in America in the 1930s was an offshoot of the 19^th century unionism. It was time when the Industrial Age had come into full swing and the plight of the worker was grievous and ripe for labor union activity. The concept, of course, in its beginning was to end child labor practices, improve the safety environment of workers and to provide a better wage atmosphere that met the cost of living index (standard of living) with relationship to reduced work hours within a week and other benefits for the working class. Of course because of organized crime elements being involved in its imitation or founding of trade/labor unions in the United States, unions have developed a bad name. If one follows the media’s coverage of union corruption this view has been substantiated. It is quite a shame that this is so prevalent, because the concept of the principles of labor unions, as well as even some aspects of socialism would appear to be a benevolent ideology rather than what it has become – a parasitic tool for those elite who are in charge.

Some business entities, such as Wal-Mart has remained union free – only because it views its employees as associates who are part of the scheme rather than an aristocratic hierarchy with just CEOs and the upper management receiving the benefits of good business and profits. This occurs in the form of profit sharing. The down side of this is that the profit sharing is naturally higher as one climbs the corporate ladder, so the profit margin is squeezed by taking away other opportunities from the common associate, such as increasing the number of part-time employees versus full-time in order to prevent providing benefits.

The major concern with trade/labor unions is their political power or lobbying strength with elected public officials at all levels of government. This makes them no better than the business counterpart of the so-called business aristocracy that created the need for unions in the first place, and in which the Left continues to insist that corporations are evil, despite not balking at taking donations from aforesaid entities. Labor/Trade unions in America have a long history of violence; as well as coercion and intimidation as a means of making employees join their fold or view their policies in the same light as the union boss. While those practices have lessened as we began the 21^st century there is still negative issues to address. The involvement of government in all these phases of the private sector have been encouraged by those who believe that some form of socialism combined with trade/labor unions will improve the fundamental concepts that formed America in the first place. It is true that legislation and newly formed agencies of the government that oversee business practices, food manufacturing and other factors beneficial to the American citizen as a whole have been beneficial to the standards of living in the United States. Unfortunately there are those who cannot envision a line drawn as to how far to go with this vein of ideology, and that pure socialism is not economically viable as well as that union leadership has elements of corruption that transcends the need for which it was established.

Thus, since the days of FDR, we can see the decline of the Democratic political party evolve from the advocacy of the rights of the blue collar worker, with the underlying manifesto of the socialist and communist movement incorporated into their political platform, with the Republican Party coming in at a distant second to this phenomenon. The Clintons, along with their elite counterparts have stained the ideology of liberalism to the point of ludicracy; thus the reason for their new description of themselves – “Progressives”. The word Progressivism can be used in several ways, however, it applies to their continued movement toward the collective and the eventual destruction of individual rights and freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is good, but those who advocate it must realize it also entails that the folks who make those choices are obligated to accept the responsibility of its benefits and drawbacks.

Despite being shown how detrimental “political correctness” is and the concept of the Left’s idea of diversity, that is purely multi-culturalism at its worst; one soon can realize that they are promoting a society under government that believes it is okay to take from the rich to give to the poor[II], despite that Americans are more generous than other citizens of other nations when it comes to charity[III]; the advent of private property being given up for the good of the collective; and other ideologies that are counter to the idea of a democratic republic envisioned by the founders of the United States.

So then we come to the examination of the change in American society, part of the process occurring slowly over the past fifty years and others over a briefer period involving the newest adult generation. Americans have become, in general, apathetic, self-serving, and more concerned with material rather than things that are most important in life. Some of this has been caused by us, “We the People”, while the gist of it has been caused by letting the minority to dictate how we should run our lives and become the instruments of leadership of our country through the voting process.

We live in a fearful time with an atmosphere of seemingly that the world is against Americans no matter what we do – and that concept or perception has a great element of truth in it. But like the primary blame of bad leadership falls on the voters, so to can we blame ourselves (as well as our leadership) for the perception of foreign peoples in their view of us as a people. True, much can be focused upon the fact that the foreign media that is run by leftist counterproductive elements in feeding lies and innuendoes that those people tend to believe, but our own actions have caused this as well. Sometimes our ego that makes us American has been construed as a pompous, spoiled people. Sometimes we look at other cultures with disdain instead of intellectual interest and attempting to understand instead of dispels it. That does not mean we must adopt other cultural attitudes or practices, but at least attempt to be aware of, understand and respect it for what it is. Much of that cultural is historical tradition, just as we have ours.[IV]

J.R. Dieckmann writes in Stop Saying We Can’t[V]:

  I’m tired of hearing “we can’t.” We can’t secure the borders. We can’t deport 12-1/2 million illegal aliens. We can’t find them. We can’t deny them free health care and social services. We can’t count them, If we could, we would find more like 20 million.
We can’t offend Islam. For that matter, we can’t offend anyone. We can’t keep holding war prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. We can’t win the war in Iraq. We can’t attack Iran. We can’t stop Iranians from killing our troops in Iraq. We can’t find Osama bin Laden.
We can’t spy on Islamic radicals living in our country. We can’t pass any meaningful legislation without compromise and dilution of everything in it. We can’t keep national security secrets from Congress, and consequently not from the media, either. We can’t pardon Scooter Libby but then again, we can’t jail Sandy Berger for stealing and destroying classified government documents either.
When will our government tell us something we can do? With this, “we can’t” attitude that we hear continually from Washington and the media, is there anything we can do except collect taxes to pay for all the things we can’t do?

Here a few things we can do that our government might want to consider:

We can build a fence and secure our southern border. We can deny illegal aliens free government services, jobs, and other incentives to break into our country. We can make English the official national language and stop pandering to Spanish language speakers.
We can change the laws to make illegal entry and residency in the US a felony punishable by immediate deportation, with no trial and no jail time at taxpayers’ expense. Individuals in our country illegally can be given a brief hearing in front of a U.S. magistrate to present any evidence of legal status they may have. Failing to do that, they can be transferred to a holding area for the next shipment to the country of their origin. Ninety-nine percent of the time, these days, that country would be Mexico.
On second thought, we should send them all back anyway, and let Mexico deal with the problem.[VI] It would help to discourage the Mexican government from participating in the illegal invasion of America. Once we make illegal entry a felony, local law enforcement would then be compelled to arrest these trespassers instead of granting them sanctuary. It would also make illegals feel less comfortable and secure in the U.S.[VII] Such a strong, forceful policy would then discourage others from breaking in, and compel those already here to leave, never to be granted entry again.[VIII]
We can find illegals. They are easy to find. All we have to do is talk to them. Stiffer immigration laws would require legal immigrants to learn English and to assimilate into American culture. If they can’t respond to questioning in English, then the chances of their being here illegally are pretty good. We don’t need more legislation from Congress to address this problem. We need only to strengthen and enforce existing laws.

We can win in Iraq and in the War on Terror.
All we need is to address the root of the problem honestly[IX]. The problem is Iran. Iranian leadership has threatened to wipe Israel and America off the map. Iran has been training terrorists and has been complicit in fighting and killing American soldiers in Iraq. Iran is behind the violence from Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is at the head of promoting a worldwide Islamic state and imposing Shar-ia law on the rest of the world.
In essence, Iran has already declared war on the U.S.[X] and the Western world. What can we do is justifiably and officially to declare war on Iran and cut the head off the snake. Then we should proceed to wipe the current Iranian leadership and theocracy off the face of the map, along with their nuclear and weapons installations. Their proxy groups would collapse quickly without the funding that they are now receiving from the mullahs.
The only problem is that our Congressional wimps are afraid to fight war with war, and a war declaration would be difficult to get from this Democrat-controlled Congress. These current Democrats would rather see Islamofascists overrun the world than to approve of war as a means of defending our nation and culture. It’s not that we “can’t” do it; it’s that we “won’t” do it.
The other real problem we seem to be having is identifying the “good” Muslims from the “bad’ Muslims. The trouble with Islam is not that it’s an evil religion. The real problem stems from the integration of civil laws within religious laws. Every religion has its religious laws, which – if violated – are punishable by God alone. Islam includes Shar-ia law punishments devised by men according to their harsh interpretation of the Koran[XI]. That is the problem.
Shar-ia law is not compatible with Western law. … It is therefore not possible for a Muslim to adhere both to Western law and to Shar-ia law. This is now becoming evident in Great Britain where Islamists are insisting on imposing Shar-ia law on Britain. An alarming number of radical British Muslim clerics have clearly stated this as their goal.
Islam must change and it’s going to be up to us to force that change or live with the consequences of radical Islam. Muslims must wake up and realize that Shar-ia law is obsolete in today’s modern world. Most American Muslims already made this change long ago but not so in Britain where their Islamist problem is similar to our Mexican problem.
Upon migrating to Britain, Muslims insist on bringing their Islamic culture with them, instead of assimilating into British culture. … Muslims must keep their religion to themselves instead of pushing it on us by insisting upon special accommodations for them.

So what’s the answer?
In both cases the answer is the same; deport the undesirables to the country of their ancestral origin if they refuse to assimilate or abide by our laws. … There is nothing wrong with worshiping Allah if that is what they believe[XII], but there must be only one set of laws that applies to everyone in any country.
It is Shar-ia law – not the Islamic faith – that is causing the unrest between Islam and the West. Written in the 7^th century, the Koran forbids ever changing anything contained within it. That presents a real problem for the 21^st century. It’s going to be up to the Islamic leaders to override these ancient dictates, but so far I don’t see anyone doing that. If they refuse to revise Islam, the only possible path and it’s not confined to individual bombers. Many Western Muslims already realize that.
The truth is that our great country can do anything to which it commits. If we can put a man on the moon and stare down the Soviet Union, we can certainly deal with the problems that are destroying our culture, security, and our country today.
All it takes is the will to solve these problems. Willpower is seriously lacking in our government today.[XIII] We need to look for and elect candidates who are willing to address these problems with real solutions, not just lip service while secretly pandering to the very people and ideals that are destroying our country.[XIV]
The candidate who simply professes partisan rhetoric on minor issues is not the kind of person we want running our country.[XV] We see all too much of this in the current field of candidates, especially on the Left. Who has the courage to address the big issues? Let’s hope that we will find a strong, courageous leader. We need exactly that kind of president to keep America safe and free. We need a “can do” president[XVI] … now. God Bless America.

Two terms of a Democrat president, President Clinton, did not establish peace in the Middle East using the ideology that continued diplomacy was the answer instead of ultimatums when it came to rogue nations and Islamic fascist organized leadership. Frequently you will hear from the Left that America and/or Western civilization created the element of Islamic fascism and continues to fuel the fire; and the only element of truth in that naïve statement is that the attitude of terrorists being criminals (and indeed they are basically) instead of an organized world enemy whose fundamentalism is based on Islamic fascism, thus dealing with them as such. Diplomacy, sanctions, and the wish they would just fade away hasn’t worked. Now, and since the evidence of the 9/11 tragedy, anyone see that the Islamic fascist will just continue to inflame the world with anarchy and chaos as the result of their efforts.

It would be so very nice if we would just “all get along” – but there are those who refuse. How many times has Israel give into Palestinians in an effort to provide them an opportunity to become a sovereign nation of their own” Indeed, Israel has done more to establish some basis of stability than the surrounding Arab nations – all of who denied the Palestinians sanctuary back when Arafat was first established as an Islamic fascist leader.

And in regards to the rhetoric that America’s policies and actions have created Islamic fascism and continues its inflammation, David Limbaugh writes in his article Muddle-headed Politicians and the Terrorist Threat:

Have you seen the latest reports and photographs of Al Qaeda’s brutality and savagery in Iraq? In view of these, how can any reasonable person still maintain our own policies and actions are making them do it? How can so many be blind or indifferent to the ruthlessness, tenacity and implacability of our jihadist enemy? How can they so easily downplay or ignore this global threat as if its existence is purely a product of our perception, which we can wish away with positive thinking, legislate away or make disappear by withdrawing from Iraq? Ending our involvement in Iraq will not end the Iraq war as Democrats glibly imply, or our involvement in the global war. But it will surely increase the violence and death in Iraq and the likelihood of victory for out terrorist enemies. …

Walter E. Williams writes about another issue concerning the danger of our complacent attitude toward the Mexican Invasion in his article, Illegal Immigration:

… Do people, anywhere in the world, have a right to enter the United States irrespective of our laws pertaining to immigration? … If a “yes” answer is given, then why should there be any immigration requirements, such as visas, passports and green cards, for anyone who wishes to visit or reside in our country? Why not abolish the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services?
… If people commit criminal acts, should there be an effort to apprehend and punish them? In general, my answer is yes, with one important exception. … The United States is a nation of immigrants from all over the world. The resulting ethnic mosaic goes a long way toward explaining our greatness as a nation. Immigration has always been a blessing for us, and it still is. But yesteryear’s immigration and today’s differ in several important respects. … Hispanic activists seek to impose their language and culture on the rest of us. At some public schools, they’ve raised the Mexico flag atop the U.S. flag. They’ve announced that they seek to take back parts of the U.S. that were formerly Mexico.

To illustrate the attitude of the media, Michelle Malkin writes in her article, When Peaceniks Attack, Journalists Snooze:

A young Air Force airman is fighting for his life in Camden, N.J. He was shot on Independence Day by a crazed gunman who reportedly had a beef with the military and the U.S. government and “wanted to make a statement” on the Fourth of July. Have you heard about the plight of 22-year-old McGuire Air Force loadmaster Jonathan Schrieken? Probably not.
The shooting got not mention in The New York Times – not even a squib in a back section (though the paper did see fit to put the shooting of 7-year-old girl in Trenton on the front page). Local media outlets have gathered a few news tidbits about the shooter, Matthew Marren, who killed himself after attacking Schrieken outside his Willingboro home. … Schrieken did not know Marren. PhillyBurbs.com reported that a relative said Marren was “angry at the government and wanted to make a statement” on Independence Day. Authorities found two suicide notes … A random act of insanity? Not so fast. There’s more to the story. A reader whose son is the best friend of Senior Airman Schrieken wrote to Charles Johnson of the Little Green Footballs (littlegreenfootballs.com) blog with background details:
“My son’s best friend, Jon, who’s in the Air Force stationed in New Jersey at Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base, was shot by a crazed anti-military white guy on Independence Day and he remains in critical condition. He had been on leave here in Ohio and got back to his home off base and was unpacking stuff from his car when this 22-year-old guy walked up to him and asked him if he lived in the house. When Jon said yes, the guy said ‘not any more’ and shot him point-blank in the chest. He tried to shoot him again, but his gun jammed. Jonathan made it into the house. The guy then shot himself.
“Turns out the guy left a couple of suicide notes stating how much he hated the military and he wanted to go out making a statement, so he chose to make his statement on Independence Day trying to kill a soldier. We are very worried about our Airman … he’s like a son to me. He’s been to Iraq and Afghanistan on our behalf and then gets shot in his own driveway here in the U.S. by an anti-war, anti-American lunatic. This is gut wrenching.”
Now imagine the scenario flipped: What if a soldier had attempted to murder a peace activist over the holidays in order to “make a statement?” The Times would be holding front-page vigil, and Katie Couric’s brow would be furrowed for a week. …
Funny how the Root Causes crowd becomes so incurious about the root causes of crime when the suspects are anti-military nutballs and anti-war protesters. To the extent leftists pay any attention at all this attempted murder, you can expect it to be downplayed as an isolated incident. Never mind the pro-fragging comments made by troop-bashing academic fraudsters like Ward Churchill; the iconic banners that proclaim “We support our troops when they shoot their own officers” and “Don’t impeach Bush … execute him”; the countless acts of vandalism against military recruitment offices nationwide since 9/11; and the burning of soldiers in effigy by hate-filled peaceniks.[XVII] … Harmless rantings? No. Ideas, like the bullet in Jon Schrieken’s chest, have consequences.

[I] Wikipedia – “Trade Union”.

[II] Income distribution policy.

[III] This may be because of the average wealth in America is more than certain other nations, not that Americans are apt to be more charitable as far as a personal trait.

[IV] And why we must protect it. We may admire another culture, but we must not change ours because of it. Culture is also history and traditions are what help continue unification of our people. It doesn’t matter whether a person is a naturalized citizen (immigrant) or whether we are a descendant from an immigrant or Native American – we are a united people under one flag and with the same desire for freedom and liberty.

[V] Note: The “Rosy the Riveter” poster reproduced here was used in WWII as part of the campaign in the war efforts of the civilian populace, particularly where women would take traditional employment in replacement of men who were sent to the war front. Glenn Beck, radio talk-show personality in Atlanta, Georgia, used “Rosy” as an icon to reestablish pride in America and a symbol of the inner strength and fortitude that Americans experienced during the world-crisis period of history. It showed that Americans had a “Can Do” philosophy and a concerted effort in the fight against tyranny and oppression around the world, as well as united support in the form of factory workers, volunteers for the Red Cross, rationing so as to provide the troops what they needed, and the simple idea of a Victory Garden. Icons in the form of posters, like Rosy and Uncle Sam, defined a motivated and patriotic generation that may not ever occur again unless we reform our values and principles in America.

[VI] Like the Mexican government has forced us to deal with their problems and their insistence in brainwashing the Mexican people that part of America belongs to Mexico rightfully.

[VII] Maybe when citizens turn in illegal aliens or those suspected of it, the law enforcement won’t state that it isn’t their job and ignore your report.

[VIII] It is important that the illegal immigrants sent back are never allowed to be in the list of those waiting for immigration status legally – those that are legally trying to become part of America deserve the first chance and those lawbreakers deserve no chance. Sound cold? Time and again scenarios and warnings have been described based upon facts and actual statistics, but there are still those who think that Mexicans can break the law and not wait in line with everyone else because they are “trying to make a better life” and “they take jobs that Americans don’t want.” Hogwash.

[IX] The reason for the Iraq War was invasion: After ceasefire in 1991, UN sanctions, and the continued brutal policies of Saddam Hussein with a record of genocide in the 1980s – he was a rogue national leader that had to go – WMDs or not , he was no worse than Adolf Hitler and a cancer like Iran/Palestine (Khomeini/Arafat) in terms of promoting peace in the Middle East.

[X] And in terms of foreign policy and diplomacy, so has Mexico.

[XI] Qu’ran.

[XII] “Allah” – “God” is supreme over all – not just a select few, and laws of men should be attune with the basic principles/laws set forth in the Ten Commandments (thus the reason why the reproduction of Moses’ tablets inside/outside buildings of justice as a tradition in the United States; even the “Golden Rule” established by Buddha applies: Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, et cetera. In the Supreme Court of Justice we also find the principles of Code of Hammurabi, also an ancient code and part of civilized history, as well as the Magna Carter – traditions and principles of our nation at its founding.

[XIII] And emanating out to the people who stand by the spineless and politically-minded (vs. statesmanship) elected officials.

[XIV] No more secret meeting concerning legislation that is public or will be public law. The people can and must be able to view the progress of the voting progress in Congress on CSPAN.

[XV] Whether that person is sitting in the Oval Office or in an office of the Congress. Voters need to be looking at the individual seeking election or re-election and not his/her political party affiliation.

[XVI] And members of Congress.

[XVII] Sound familiar Vietnam-era Americans?