Have you noticed that some things never change when it comes to the “Ignorati”?
This is one of my favorite pieces of manure from the Right….Obama is a socialist…or is it Marxist….or ……..what it is is total fabrication from loonies that would not know a socialist if one walked up and bit them in the ass.
Months after Obama has left office the dog whistle idiots on the Right are still going on about Obama as some sort of “socialist”…..I understand why they do it…..it is because they will not bring themselves to admit that their man in the White House is incompetent fool….so they are still stuck on Obama and anyone that will not agree with them as some sort of “socialist” conspiracy….FYI….do not compare Trump to a fascist or they, the Right, will go batcrap crazy for only they can make shit up about a president past of present.
But let’s look at Obama being a socialist.
The easy answer to the question is NO….but that is not good enough for the chin wagers on the Right…..so let’s look deeper…..
Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States, is not a socialist. While varying theories and approaches exist among socialists, all of them advocate for some form of social or state ownership over the means of production. Obama proposes none of this
While Obama has argued for enhanced and even structural regulation of certain industries, including health care, this in no way suggests a move toward all-out socialism. In contrast, Obama received widespread support from Wall Street interests during campaigning and, as of 2014, continues to receive only muted approval of his policy decisions from self-identified American socialists.
The term “socialist,” as applied to Mr. Obama, may have become a fear word or pejorative deployed by some conservatives convinced of its ability to shock the public and create ideological rifts among the electorate, according to CNBC. This, the same source suggests, possibly results from the weakening shock value of words such as “liberal” in American political discourse. While Mr. Obama may support some socialist-inspired policies when applied to social justice issues and public protections, a broad coalition of American statesmen and women have supported similar policies for generations, both Republican and Democrat. Some such policies have become essential features of America’s capitalist democracy, policies such as government regulation of food and workplace safety, social security, Medicaid and Medicare, along with publicly supplied protections for veterans and their families.
With all that said…..cut it anyway you slow mental midgets like…the answer is still….NO!
BTW….being black does NOT make a socialist either….contrary to popular belief.
Comments
“Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness,” Alinsky Jr. wrote to the Globe. “It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of
my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
“I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.” http://canadafreepress.com/article/saul-alinskys-son-obama-learned-his-lesson-well
Richard Poe puts it, "Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties." He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of "infiltration" advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935: "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy's camp."
https://www.scribd.com/document/39121898/Saul-Alinsky-CPUSA-Communist-Party-USA-and-Obama-Hillary
Anyone who believes that Alinsky was a communist or socialist is a fucking idiot. He was a deep state capitalist.
They just follow teams and they believe what the very rich people want them to believe, no matter how irrational or absurd.
And when you point out their irrational beliefs they yell "No that's not capitalism that;s crony capitalism" and it's all the fault of socialists apparently.
These people are idiots.
Which hasn't and won't change with the current occupant. Or the next one were it possible for man to survive that long.
Mai pen rai - It doesn't matter.
Global thermonuclear war is inevitable. Kick back, relax, grab an adult beverage, a lovely and enjoy what time you have left. All this gnashing of teeth is an utter waste of energy.
Exactly. Straight and to the point.
Socialism is a massive subject. There are as many schools and variants as there are any other ideology or movement or inclination, maybe more than any other. The last presidential election saw the most successful socialist candidacy in U.S. history but there was precious little much "socialism" in Sanders' democratic socialism. In the U.S., the word is arguably the most abused in political discourse--rightists use it as their catch-all label for literally anything and anyone they don't like. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore--there's nothing remotely "socialist" about any of them but they've all worn the label. There isn't really a significant socialist movement to act as counter to that.
A perfect example of that complete ignorance IST was describing. Marx, of course, described a socialist revolution wherein the workers overthrew the class of masters and instituted a socialist--as in, stateless--society. What Sutrina is describing is utterly alien to this (and, in fact, more properly describes the situation under capitalism).
Sutrina is so confused, he's putting Saul Alinsky, an anti-Communist, in the camp of Stalin and Georgi Dimitrov. Dimitrov was the guy Hitler blamed for the Reischtag fire. He didn't take too kindly to that--his quote about infiltrating orgs was made a few years later and it isn't some master plan about how to conquer the world, it's about how to create a united front between Commies and non-Commies in order to bring down fascism. Dimitrov later died mysteriously, probably poisoned at Stalin's order. But let's throw all this in a big stew and pretend as if it means something, eh?
So, one could conclude that Obama's economic policies - and every other president's before him - were socialist, in some respects, in that they attempted to regulate and control capitalism, in order to promote for the common welfare (one of the mandates enshrined in our Constitution for our government) of all citizens.
the U.S. is not truly capitalist, it is somewhat socialist in that the government regulates the economy to benefit business whereby costs are socialized and profits remain private.
There, fixed it.
Marx discussed Socialism and Communism end goals and the mind set of the people and leader as the same. Just read Fabian Socialist goals. Marx separated Socialism and Communism when he talked about the process of achieving the goal.
Riddle and Georg N. R., did you not go back to the sources of the two articles I sighted? Those authors said Saul Alinsky is a Marxist. Alinsky follows the Fabian Socialist approach of small steps from within the government. But he also supported violence which is part of the Communist approach as a means of creating a condition for making the changes to government that are in opposition to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
William H., actually the end goal of all varieties of socialism is the same. The variation come in the tactics to achieve the end goal. Social Democrats want to create the appearance of a democracy but either the legislature is a rubber stamp or the real power resides in the Bureaucracy.
Then do tell us what you imagine that goal to be.
Or they were saving capitalism from itself. Left unregulated and contained capital will eat its host and invite revolution from those it starves and preys upon.
John G. Fabian socialism tactic is to work within the government to achieve a Marxist state. So what do you think governing by executive orders and choosing which laws to enforce. Also below:
Using the IRS to prevent Tea Party from getting non-for-profit status. Giving guns to the drug runners "fast an Furious" and defying congress investigation and slow walking to the point of not delivering request for information.
Thousand of regulations that are actually laws without public representation. Taking over student loans.
Government control of banks and healthcare. Note Prof Gruber stated the bill was written to hid the truth from the public. Obama lying about what the bill does. Democratic Congress voting on the ACA bill before they and the public knew what was in it.
Unmasking political opponents and changing the rules while in the process of leaving office to spread the information to a lot of people.
Let the ambassador get murdered. (Mark Levin logically concluded that Obama when to bed and said not to be disturbed)
Support the Islamic Brotherhood and then ISIS take over of countries in the middle east. Arab Spring is actual Islamic Brotherhood spring.
Shall I go on
What do you think is the end goal of socialism?
Since Teddy Roosevelt the country have been in effect following the path to socialism by using Fabian Socialist approach and the Saul Alinsky tactic recently. The 16th amendment, graduated income tax is directly out of the planks of Marx Communism. The 17th amendment ended federalism where the state legislatures have a voice in the federal government. The founders understood the problem of popular votes determining policy. You see unalien Rights are not up to popular vote. History prior and after the formation of this country have shown the problem of the mob or a mob of voters. Venezuela going from a democratic very rich, the richest per capita to starvation in the streets. And the present dictator putting the gold of the country in his pocket. The reason for the second amendment is clearly seen in Venezuela where in 2012 guns were taken from the people. Today the thugs of the government party (a very small fraction of the population) have been armed against the unarmed citizens, 90% of the population.
FDR in 1940 adopted the choice of the Emperors of Rome used to control the mob, welfare. In 1943 he presented the second bill of rights. That mirror more of the planks of Marx then the theologians of the enlightenment and Judeo-Christianity. Black have bought into FDR and flip to voting for Democrats. Wage controls resulted in the end of the free market in health care. Company health care paid for everyday health care for employees. The chose for the employees. As Adam Smith said, nothing good come from someone else trading for a group because special interest are alway served.
LBJ with the enforcement of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment increased welfare and introduce government single payer health care for two segments of society outside employee heath care. Include the VA I would guess that 90% of the Citizens had someone else trading for their heath care, The public have no idea the cost of the services they receive. Bush added drugs.
Obama's ACA controlled the policies themselves and had the goal of reaching 100% of the citizens. The would complete this promise of the Second Bill of Rights. Most of the rights would be fulfilled.
Your understanding of politics and economics is superficial to say the least.
And either you are an outrageous liar or you believe some outrageous liars without question.
Either way, you are a ranting, slobbering nut job.
That's not oversimplification, it's a misrepresentation. On both counts. Capitalism is constructed within and entirely dependent upon a powerful, intrusive state. "Non-interference by government" has nothing to do with it. At the same time, communism has nothing to do with complete government control of the economy; communism is, in fact, a stateless society. The Bolshevist dictatorships everyone calls "communism" are outside all of that. They're just tyrannies established by opportunists.
Democratic socialism/social democracy is a sort of hybrid of liberalism and socialism that is mostly liberalism. It's pretty much what you describe here:
"socialism is where the government allows capitalism while regulating it to allow for private profit making but not to the extent that it is detrimental to the society as a whole."
This is the major manifestation of socialism in the world, despite it bearing the label rather dubiously in my view. It's really just regulated capitalism, and capitalism is regulated in this way everywhere--that's how it survives. Some commentators and even some economists use the phrase "mixed economy" to describe this state of affairs and again, that never made much sense to me.
No, I definitely didn't. Your assertion was that Marx's goal was a government ruled by an elite. In the real world, Marx's endgame was an entirely stateless society. Some dictatorship run by an elite who exploited everyone else was what he was seeking to overturn.
"Marx discussed Socialism and Communism end goals and the mind set of the people and leader as the same. Just read Fabian Socialist goals."
The Fabians were democratic socialists, not revolutionary socialists, and Marx had already been dead for a few years before the precursor to the Society was founded. It was only toward the end of Marx's life that liberal democracy had sufficiently advanced to even make such a movement possible. He greeted this development with approval but he never lived to see most of it.
"Riddle and Georg N. R., did you not go back to the sources of the two articles I sighted? Those authors said Saul Alinsky is a Marxist."
Your author said Alinsky was a member of the Communist party, which is a lie. If you'd bothered to read it yourself, you'd have seen Alinsky quoted as saying radicals dream of a world "where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful," which would also refute your earlier contention about commies' end-game being "creating a government run by a ruling class." Except Alinsky was anti-Communist.
"The 17th amendment ended federalism where the state legislatures have a voice in the federal government."
The appointment of senators by state legislators was a miserable failure that reformers had been trying to correct since the JQ Adams administration. The U.S. Senate was originally envisioned as a mirror of the House of Lords, full of wise, Enlightenment-era aristocrats. In practice, it became a depository for grafters and the recipients of political favors back home. Deadlocks meant that seats went unfilled for extended periods, sometimes for years. Reform efforts were introduced for decades but were always beaten back by--you guessed it--the senate. By 1910, 31 of the then-46 states had passed resolutions calling for reform; 33 of those states had adopted direct elections--non-binding but the state legislatures rubber-stamped their results. It was this action by the states that finally prompted reform, as the new senators sent up by this process got behind the idea. State legislatures weren't robbed of their voice--they were responsible for the abandonment of that previous failed system.
"History prior and after the formation of this country have shown the problem of the mob or a mob of voters."
Now, you're sounding like every damn dictator in the world. In a political context, democracy is self-determination; if you don't believe in it, you don't believe in freedom at all and are, in fact, its enemy. How one goes about democracy is another matter. The U.S. was once a pioneer and innovator in liberal democracy, the most popular form. It has since been eclipsed.
You sir are an outrageous liar. You did not answer the question. You've obfuscated and Gish galloped.
About those lies Just read the title of the article Riddle where he say communist party because the are members of it CPUSA is Communist party of the United States. target="_blank">https://www.scribd.com/document/39121898/Saul-Alinsky-CPUSA-Communist-Party-USA-and-Obama-Hillary
One way to put down the truth is to call it a lie. I would bet that is in Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals.
"Not at any time. I've never joined any organization—not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as "that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right." If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide."
Even if--like yourself--someone knew nothing at all of Alinsky, that (from a 1972 Playboy interview) can be found with a split-second Google search.
Did Obama favor a government with MORE Power/Money?
While ALL of you answer that ... then move to the question:
Does a "Socialist" favor a (Centralized) Government with MORE Power, or does a "Socialist" favor limited Regulations and the Ability of Cities or Rural Areas to act Independently (choosing where to spend money based on local interests)?
Just answer the fucking question.
You tell me Obama did not like going through the legislature but preferred using regulations from agencies. Agencies are under the executive branch control, Obama. He increased the size and spending of government. Can only use the 2008 problems as an excuse for a few years, 2010 or 2011. He did not participate even in the writing of his signature legislation when the Democrats controlled congress in his first two years.
Obama ignored the laws he did not want to enforce yet pledged to up hold the Constitution. Obama made presidential decrees, executive orders, you know phone and pen.
Obama entered the White House with debts, leaves rich.
"Obama was a CIA trained Uncle Tom from the ruling class." such trash is not a question. I guess I do not need to answer any questions about Obama, "He does matter because he was part of the psy-op apparatus that weaved the tale that is fucking the world as we speak."
So we should include you in this statement, "The mental midgets that post on this site have no idea of what socialism or capitalism actually are. "
"you point out their irrational beliefs they yell "No that's not capitalism that;s crony capitalism" and it's all the fault of socialists apparently." Crony capitalist want government to make them rich. They could care less about socialism. They want to have their wealth passed down to future generations.
Seem that you are prepared, "I'm not prepared to be that cynical yet."
I have no ideal what they see as the end goal because all I see is the end results USSR, Argentina, and Venezuela or Cuba, China, North Korea, etc., Sutrina William H., actually the end goal of all varieties of socialism is the same Then do tell us what you imagine that goal to be."
Answered this above in a long statement, "So, one could conclude that Obama's economic policies - and every other president's before him - were socialist, in some respects, in that they attempted to regulate and control capitalism, in order to promote for the common welfare"
"One way to put down the truth is to call it a lie.
Just answer the fucking question." So if I missed any of your questions please re-state them and also give me the date and time of the original asking.
He is decidedly not a socialist.
Obama killed off Medicare for all and passed a corporatist bill that gave Wall St massive profits from health care.
He is decidedly NOT a socialist.
Obama continued and expanded the wars against ordinary people in the MENA for US corporate aims.
He is absolutely not a socialist.
I could go on for hundreds of instances of Obama's NOT socialism.
But I think you're a fucking moron that won't understand anyway.
Obama may want to kill Medicare but ACA did not do that.
Obama made the banks to big to fail and killed of the small banks. Less banks to control with regulations.
Obama is a Marxist and Marx used Socialism and Communism interchangeably unless he was talking about actually setting up a state.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_associates/FrankMarshallDavis.htm
http://spectator.org/34799_dreams-frank-marshall-davis/
Who are Fabian Socialists? | Glenn Beck
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/46361/
Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist - Forbes http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_...
So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the little guy.
As Obama said, “the smallest” businesses will be exempt from fines for not “doing the right thing” in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.
It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.
The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-voting preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand “accountability” and a “voice” for the taxpayers?
https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html
Webster's defines Capitalism as "an economic sysyem... [of]...private or corporate ownership of capital goods... [in] a free market" which is defined as a "system...not controlled by a government."
It defines Communism as "a totalitarian system of government...that controls state-owned means of production."
It defines Socialism as "a stage... [between] capitalism and communism..." where the economy is subject to social control (regulation).
So I guess my simple definitions above weren't so oversimplified nor misrepresented as you say.
And since a true capitalist state could only operate under an unregulated fee market, there isn't a single nation (to my knowledge) that exists in that form. And with the exceptions of pure Marxists nations (North Korea, perhaps?), it follows that to a lesser or greater extent every nation on earth is socialist (democratic-socialist, as you stated).
I know it shocks many Americans to be told they live in a (to whatever degree) socialist country, but to say it isn't is to be in denial.
Capitalism is as Adam Smith stated, an individual who "intends only his own gain" is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. and Milton Fiedman, both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit. Obviously if lawlessness exist strictly voluntary will not exist.
About regulations and the government or for that matter a very large corporation that is by far a dominant trader in a market. They skew the strictly voluntary by setting their side of a trade and knowing the other side will not find another trader. Adam Smith says this about the resulting trades, I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. ... "an individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is "led by an invisible hand to promote" private interest." Society interest are frequently not promoted.
Nice company you keep, fascist.
You can say that again.
The guy that drowned card check is some sort of socialist.
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
And it defines the latter as "an economy operating by free competition." Your comment about a "system...not controlled by a government" doesn't appear in it at all and is, in fact, no part of it. Capitalism is, as I said before, entirely dependent upon a powerful, intrusive state. It couldn't develop in the absence of that and wouldn't last five minutes without it. Talk of "not controlled by a government" is an entirely ideological assertion, a product of pro-capital-C-Capitalist ideologies that developed in the aftermath of capitalism itself.
In general, capitalism is marked by three things: private ownership of the means of production, exchange of goods and services for profit in a market economy and wage labor. There are also state capitalist systems in which the state acts as a capitalist or the capitalist. This is what exists in the Communist regimes (I tend to call them "Bolshevist regimes" because it's less confusing).
The Webster definitions of both "socialism" and "communism" are quite a bit more complicated than you portrayed there. The idea of socialism as some sort of intermediate stage is Lenin's and he has no more authority to speak definitively in this matter than some random fellow on the street. The idea that "communism" is the sort of monstrous super-state that grew up in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc. was Stalin's and is as anti-Marxist as it gets.
All kinds of history and ideology comes into these words too. Dictionaries aren't noted for their political sophistication. It's best to just learn as much as you can and look for what makes sense.
"And since a true capitalist state could only operate under an unregulated fee market, there isn't a single nation (to my knowledge) that exists in that form."
Again, that's an ideological claim; what you're describing doesn't exist anywhere in the real world because the claim itself has no connection to the real world. It's a product of post-capitalist "Capitalist" ideologies.