Barack Obama the Socialist?

[Registration]

Barack Obama is a socialist.

We were pretty sure this was the case after he made his remarks about how bitter people in small towns cling to religion. As Bill Kristol points out, this is very similar to Karl Marx’ line about religion being the opiate of the masses, if not as eloquent as the original German “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes.” Senator Joe Lieberman reinforced this, observing, “I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.”

Now, we learn that in 1965, when Obama was 4 years old, his dad, writing as “Barak H. Obama” (the Communist-preferred spelling) wrote an essay on “African Socialism and its Applicability to Planning in Kenya” that wasn’t particularly critical of socialism.

Q.E.D.

Now, it’s true that Obama has been quiet about his plans to nationalize all industry, removing it from the hands of the capitalists and moving it under the control of the proletariat. Also, if elected president, he’ll probably not be too eager to see the state wither away, at least for the next eight years. On the other hand, he does have a cult of personality, just like many famous Communists like Mao, Lenin, and Stalin. And some staffers in one of his Texas offices had Che Guevara flags hanging on their walls. It pretty much balances out.

In all seriousness, I think Lieberman’s on the right track, if rather disingenuous in his soft dismissal of the “Marxism” label. Obama’s a liberal Democrat who wants more government regulation of the economy, more redistribution of wealth, more deference to international institutions, more nationalization of medicine, and so forth and so on. Some of his policies — although probably none of his goals — are indeed “far to the left … of mainstream America.” He’s as close to a socialist as it gets in serious contenders for the presidency; but that’s not very close.

He’s part of a long movement that has adopted some of the tools of socialism in an effort to make society better, with decidedly mixed results. The state hasn’t taken over the means of production, but it has created layers of bureaucracy to oversee them. The tax code has more than a smattering of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” And we’ve instituted speech codes and a thought police in our schools and institutions, ostracizing those who dare to speak other than the orthodox Truth.

Again, this is mostly, if not all, well-intentioned. These were all reactions against real injustices, if often over-reactions, that had negative unintended consequences. But Obama’s not talking about cleaning up these messes but rather moving further in that direction.

Ideally, we’d be discussing the policy preferences of the candidates and their likely consequences rather than bandying about silly labels. But that’s not how the game is played.

/discuss.

[RJ]

Win the Nobel Peace Prize, and bomb 3 countrys without congressional approval

[Empire]

Now, we learn that in 1965, when Obama was 4 years old, his dad, writing as “Barak H. Obama” (the Communist-preferred spelling)

I'm sorry what? Communist have their own writing style?

Win the Nobel Peace Prize, and bomb 3 countrys without congressional approval

Yeah always wondered how he got that prize.....

[Drew]

I'm sorry what? Communist have their own writing style?




Yeah always wondered how he got that prize.....

It's the prize for not being George Bush.

[HW$%yh5eh5ea5heheh5]

I think labeling him as a socialist is a bit to far. Every one of our past presidents and future presidents will have to consistently worry about the economy. Each will have their own way of approaching "fixing" the economy (even though the economy can really never be fixed). While I'm not saying his actions are not questionable, defining him as a socialist is way to drastic for what he is doing.

[RJ]

The Obama Administration collected around 900 BILLION dollars in tax money for social programs in 2010 ALONE! That's more money then the Bush Administration spent on the entire Iraq war. President Obama is a socialist, a wealth-redistributing wolf in Democrat's clothing gnawing at America's entrepreneurial spirit. We need to stop Obama's secular-socialism, and vote Ron Paul.

[Parade]

The Obama Administration collected around 900 BILLION dollars in tax money for social programs in 2010 ALONE! That's more money then the Bush Administration spent on the entire Iraq war. President Obama is a socialist, a wealth-redistributing wolf in Democrat's clothing gnawing at America's entrepreneurial spirit. We need to stop Obama's secular-socialism, and vote Ron Paul.

Eh, I'll vote for Michelle Bachman.

[Azathᴏth]

I think what people don't seem to understand but the liberal democratic ideology is very much akin to the ideals present in socialism. Both are big on distributing the wealth which will stop it ultimately ending up in the 1%. This ideology present in liberal democracy can be linked back to the age of enlightenment when most of Europe was controlled by absolute monarchs and that was when liberal democracy was born. Back in those days, the nobles, or whatever constituted the upper class, controlled all the wealth while the working class had none. So one can see where such an ideology would come from.

[Empire]

The problem is "artificial economy"

You collect money from the population, and give it to those who have less than the others.
---------------------------
This is not neccesarily bad, if it benifits the economy in the long run or they provide a service of equal or greater value later to the amount given and such.
-----------------------------------

But what happens is that the government just throws out money to these people, and they never get better. They never become a positive, its just pity money. Same with foreign aid money, half the money given, turns out to be people who come to hate the us for w/e pathetic reason.
-----------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Look, in a perfect world everyone should be given free stuff, live long, and not worry about money.

But this world is far from perfect. The government should be at investing or not spending. This wellfair, this social security......

All these programs fail in the end because they are based on one thing: morals. Your basing economic choices on the morality of it. People WILL die one way or another, thats life. You can't afford to shell out cash just to let some people live a better life. Its getting to the point where people become reliant on stuff that isn't meant to be reliant.

There are limits to what the gov should help out with.