Obama as a Marxist

[Toro]

People who think Obama is a Marxist wouldn't know Marxism if Marxism came up and bit them on the ass.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's what Marxists always say. After all, Marxism is largely about making something which is deadly to freedom, human rights and progression palatable to the masses.

They do that by lying to them....about what Marxism is, about what it stands for, and about what the ultimate goal of the people who want to be in charge really is....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Remember during the campaign.........an earmark of marxism....propaganda control...

Obama’s Marxism steps out of the shadows and into the public realm

While American politicians were trying to perfume the $700-billion Wall Street bailout with the smell of roses, and while average Americans were worrying about their future, something even more disturbing was in the works this weekend.

Marxism stepped out of the shadows to make its first bold public outing in St. Louis, Missouri.

Prosecutors and sheriffs from across Missouri have teamed up with something called the Barack Obama Truth Squad, announced KMOV’s News 4, at 6 p.m.

“The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign,” News 4 reported.

“They want to remind voters that Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for those making less than $250,000 a year,” said KMOV reporter John Mills.

The Barack Obama Truth Squad is an initiative based on pure unadulterated Marxism, a Marxism where the end justifies the means. Through the Marxist dialectic, Marxists are taught to lie and to accuse their detractors of lying.

Let it be remembered that on Saturday, Sept. 27, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama became the only truth.

Check out the words of St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch (here), who says …”whether it is directly attributed to the campaign or to one of the soft money operations, if they’re not going to tell the truth, someone should step in and say `That’s not the truth, this is the truth’.”

Strangely enough News 4 did not include Gov. Matt Blunt’s charge that Obama’s campaign was making an “abusive use of Missouri law enforcement” in their televised coverage of the Barack Obama Truth Squad.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Clare McCaskill have attached the stench of police state to the Obama-Biden campaign,” Blunt said in an official statement released Saturday.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights.

Obama’s Marxism steps out of the shadows and into the public realm

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Someone did reply. And made her point swimmingly.

No, she didn't. Her point was irrelevant and off-topic. But since you're the economics expert, here's your question about Marxian economics: When it comes to two specific forms of crisis, underconsumption crisis and profit squeeze crisis, which occurs when the capitalist class is too strong and which occurs when they are too weak?

And marxism is going to save the day in such situations? Ha. Never has so far...

Free market capitalism will sort out problems on its own....underconsumption will lead to a company's demise as profits decline...that is the natural order of things....when there is a profit squeeze competitors will step in to even the playing field...

Can you advise me of one business the government has taken over and has been successful at?

 

[Toro]

That's what Marxists always say. After all, Marxism is largely about making something which is deadly to freedom, human rights and progression palatable to the masses.

They do that by lying to them....about what Marxism is, about what it stands for, and about what the ultimate goal of the people who want to be in charge really is....

The Ku Klux Klan says that we should cut social spending.

Republicans also say we should cut social spending.

Ergo, Republicans are racists like the Ku Klux Klan.

That's the logic being used by people who say Obama is a Marxist.

Agna is right.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That's what Marxists always say. After all, Marxism is largely about making something which is deadly to freedom, human rights and progression palatable to the masses.

They do that by lying to them....about what Marxism is, about what it stands for, and about what the ultimate goal of the people who want to be in charge really is....

The Ku Klux Klan says that we should cut social spending.

Republicans also say we should cut social spending.

Ergo, Republicans are racists like the Ku Klux Klan.

That's the logic being used by people who say Obama is a Marxist.

Agna is right.

Fool.

 

[Toro]

That's what Marxists always say. After all, Marxism is largely about making something which is deadly to freedom, human rights and progression palatable to the masses.

They do that by lying to them....about what Marxism is, about what it stands for, and about what the ultimate goal of the people who want to be in charge really is....

The Ku Klux Klan says that we should cut social spending.

Republicans also say we should cut social spending.

Ergo, Republicans are racists like the Ku Klux Klan.

That's the logic being used by people who say Obama is a Marxist.

Agna is right.

I'm a Fool.

Fixed it for you.

 

[007]

We Are All Socialists Now​

In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

 

[AllieBaba]

That's what Marxists always say. After all, Marxism is largely about making something which is deadly to freedom, human rights and progression palatable to the masses.

They do that by lying to them....about what Marxism is, about what it stands for, and about what the ultimate goal of the people who want to be in charge really is....

The Ku Klux Klan says that we should cut social spending.

Republicans also say we should cut social spending.

Ergo, Republicans are racists like the Ku Klux Klan.

That's the logic being used by people who say Obama is a Marxist.

Agna is right.

No, it's not.

 

[Sinatra]

But wait, we have proof...

 

[Munin]

We Are All Socialists Now​

In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.

We Are All Socialists Now | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com

Europe isn't socialist: it is capitalist, socialist, ...: a combination of those but nothing like the extreme marxist theories of the SU (that is communism). Why do you think the Europeans always rejected the Soviet Union, even during the time of the communists and before that Europe was anti-marxist.

Socialism in Europe is really far from the original marxist ideas, communism (the ideology that is most based upon Karl Marx ideas) is hated by all Europeans.

You really got a very wrong picture of Europe, you seem to forget that the US uses European Ideals (ideals like freedom, equality (between man and woman, ... ), democracy, capitalism, ... all have their origin in Europe)

 

[Sinatra]

Well Obama does like to socialize...

 

[Munin]

Well Obama does like to socialize...

I wonder when he is going to "meet" that guy.

But again you got things mixed up (if that was part of the joke). You confuse Nazi socialism (noting to do with marxism, it is more nationalism with its own ideology) with communism (based upon marxism).

Nazis hated marxism, they jailed/killed/tortured socialists (people who are believers of the light version of marxism: for example they did not want a complete government controlled society) & communists (extreme believers in marxism). That Nazi socialism is an anti-marxist ideology.

 

[AllieBaba]

A despot is a despot, regardless of his alleged "politics".

Nazism gave Hitler the opportunity to exploit and murder people.
Communism gave that opportunity to Stalin, Pol Pot, Chavez, et al.

Fortunately, a democratic republic is a little harder to just take over...so long as we protect our consistution and our rights via the constitution.

But Obama will take that on next.

 

[Article 15]

All I know is he is a dumb ass. Most marxists are dumb asses. Therefore, he's a marxist dumbass. Anyone who follows ant farm mentality is a dumb ass. People are indivuals by nature. Marxism is collectivist, much like an ant farm. If ant farm doesn't work as a metaphore than how about "beehive"?

No matter what, far leftists are borderline mental retards with the ability to convey their thoughts and that's it.

Wow, you've pretty much just validated for me every negative assumption I make about posters who sling around the term "marxist" (or socialist for that matter). Thanks!!!

Take a bow, man!

Perhaps you'd prefer to dispute Newsweek?

Do they provide a more persuasive argument than: Marxists are dumb, Obama is dumb ... therefor Obama is a Marxist?

 

[Sinatra]

Well Obama does like to socialize...

I wonder when he is going to "meet" that guy.

But again you got things mixed up (if that was part of the joke). You confuse Nazi socialism (noting to do with marxism, it is more nationalism with its own ideology) with communism (based upon marxism).

Nazis hated marxism, they jailed/killed/tortured socialists (people who are believers of the light version of marxism: for example they did not want a complete government controlled society) & communists (extreme believers in marxism). That Nazi socialism is an anti-marxist ideology.

It would appear you fail to see the forest for the trees.

Be careful, lest you fall into the category of Robert the misinformed - a poor chap who has now been relegated to the deepest depths of irrelevancy.

Your need for heightened posting skills does bring out the teacher in me though...

 

[Agnapostate]

This is a little off topic, but not by much. On paper, communism is suppose to be the perfect form of government. But with the intangilbles, such as human nature, it has shown to be a big failure....I just don't see Marxist, or any other form of socialism to fair much better than communism because of the intangibles.
On paper, capitialism is suppose to be the weakest form of government, yet with those same intangibles, it has been proven to be the strongest form of government. Why would this be? If this is known, why would anyone want to defend a Marxist, or any other type of socialism, or communism government with a straight face.
Now don't beat me up on my ignorance, but it is an honest question

I conceptualize it as precisely the opposite. Capitalism is intended to function as a free, fair system which efficiently allocates resources through a free market of voluntary consumers. If capitalism existed in the real world in the same way that it did in the textbook, I'd be the greatest advocate of laissez-faire competition around. But I've recognized that such conceptions of capitalism are utopian, and that we need to adopt a more efficient economic model that has the effect of maximizing both productivity and humane consequences. I tend to agree with Kolakowski that many varieties of Marxism, and certainly Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and those variants, have the consequence of ending in authoritarian tyranny, as was predicted by Bakunin so many years ago in Statism and Anarchy. Anarchists envisioned the calamity that would befall centrally planned Russian state capitalism years before the Russian Revolution. As Bakunin stated, "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself."

But my purpose here isn't to defend Marxism, or even other forms of socialism. It's to challenge the assertion that Obama is a Marxist or any type of socialist.

Perhaps you'd prefer to dispute Newsweek?

As I said in the other thread, Newsweek's definition of "socialism" is itself inaccurate. Social democracy is not a form of socialism inasmuch as there is no collectivization of the means of production, let alone Marxism.

How about class warfare for instance? This marxist idea has manifested itself both through racism and economic comparisons.

Class conflict? Merely commenting on the issues of class and race divisions is wholly insufficient for adopting a Marxist position regarding class conflict, especially considering the extreme radicalism of the majority of Marxists regarding class conflict compared to Obama.

How about health issues addressed in the "stimulus" package? This is basically a sneak approach to establish socialized health care.

Socialized health care is a public good provision that is neither Marxist nor socialist, inasmuch as it does not satisfy the condition of collective ownership and control of the means of production.

Much of what Obama does will not be head-on marxism. After all, he must fool the people who adore him...like you for instance. However, his many leftist friends and underlings will take us toward those marxist ideals one step at a time. Socialism is here and growing stronger by the minute.

Me? You think I support or "adore" Obama? No, I condemned him long ago as a useless Svengali who has more time for talk than action. Nor would I support him if he were a Marxist, inasmuch as I am not a Marxist, nor will I lend much support to any candidate running for hierarchical state positions inasmuch as I oppose the existence of the state.

As to your other quotes, Sam Webb is indeed the head of the CPUSA, but is an aberration among the Marxist-Leninist movement in his support of Obama and other Democratic candidates, which he views as a "lesser of two evils" approach. Noam Chomsky is much the same except for the fact that he is an anarchist, not a Marxist.

That's what Marxists always say. After all, Marxism is largely about making something which is deadly to freedom, human rights and progression palatable to the masses.

They do that by lying to them....about what Marxism is, about what it stands for, and about what the ultimate goal of the people who want to be in charge really is....

From what I've seen in this thread, you evidently know little of Marxism, other variants of socialism, or political economy in general.

And marxism is going to save the day in such situations? Ha. Never has so far...

Free market capitalism will sort out problems on its own....underconsumption will lead to a company's demise as profits decline...that is the natural order of things....when there is a profit squeeze competitors will step in to even the playing field...

Can you advise me of one business the government has taken over and has been successful at?

I am not a Marxist, hence, why would I advocate Marxism? Nor do I support centralized government, so why would I support government operation of businesses? You have not answered my question in regards to crisis theory; you have merely made a claim that relies on a utopian understanding of capitalism and political economy.

Europe isn't socialist: it is capitalist, socialist, ...: a combination of those but nothing like the extreme marxist theories of the SU (that is communism). Why do you think the Europeans always rejected the Soviet Union, even during the time of the communists and before that Europe was anti-marxist.

Socialism in Europe is really far from the original marxist ideas, communism (the ideology that is most based upon Karl Marx ideas) is hated by all Europeans.

You really got a very wrong picture of Europe, you seem to forget that the US uses European Ideals (ideals like freedom, equality (between man and woman, ... ), democracy, capitalism, ... all have their origin in Europe)

The Soviet Union was not a socialist or communist nation, but a state capitalist one. Socialism necessitates the collective ownership and control of the means of production, and collectivization existed in name only in the Soviet Union. But in reality, the Bolsheviks became the new ruling class. Moreover, Europe is indeed social democratic rather than socialist, but there can be no viable "mixture" of capitalism and socialism, and those who favor one often don't appreciate the radical economic restructuring that socialism demands.

 

[Sinatra]

This is a little off topic, but not by much. On paper, communism is suppose to be the perfect form of government. But with the intangilbles, such as human nature, it has shown to be a big failure....I just don't see Marxist, or any other form of socialism to fair much better than communism because of the intangibles.
On paper, capitialism is suppose to be the weakest form of government, yet with those same intangibles, it has been proven to be the strongest form of government. Why would this be? If this is known, why would anyone want to defend a Marxist, or any other type of socialism, or communism government with a straight face.
Now don't beat me up on my ignorance, but it is an honest question

I conceptualize it as precisely the opposite. Capitalism is intended to function as a free, fair system which efficiently allocates resources through a free market of voluntary consumers. If capitalism existed in the real world in the same way that it did in the textbook, I'd be the greatest advocate of laissez-faire competition around. But I've recognized that such conceptions of capitalism are utopian, and that we need to adopt a more efficient economic model that has the effect of maximizing both productivity and humane consequences. I tend to agree with Kolakowski that many varieties of Marxism, and certainly Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and those variants, have the consequence of ending in authoritarian tyranny, as was predicted by Bakunin so many years ago in Statism and Anarchy. Anarchists envisioned the calamity that would befall centrally planned Russian state capitalism years before the Russian Revolution. As Bakunin stated, "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself."

But my purpose here isn't to defend Marxism, or even other forms of socialism. It's to challenge the assertion that Obama is a Marxist or any type of socialist.

Perhaps you'd prefer to dispute Newsweek?

As I said in the other thread, Newsweek's definition of "socialism" is itself inaccurate. Social democracy is not a form of socialism inasmuch as there is no collectivization of the means of production, let alone Marxism.



Class conflict? Merely commenting on the issues of class and race divisions is wholly insufficient for adopting a Marxist position regarding class conflict, especially considering the extreme radicalism of the majority of Marxists regarding class conflict compared to Obama.



Socialized health care is a public good provision that is neither Marxist nor socialist, inasmuch as it does not satisfy the condition of collective ownership and control of the means of production.



Me? You think I support or "adore" Obama? No, I condemned him long ago as a useless Svengali who has more time for talk than action. Nor would I support him if he were a Marxist, inasmuch as I am not a Marxist, nor will I lend much support to any candidate running for hierarchical state positions inasmuch as I oppose the existence of the state.

As to your other quotes, Sam Webb is indeed the head of the CPUSA, but is an aberration among the Marxist-Leninist movement in his support of Obama and other Democratic candidates, which he views as a "lesser of two evils" approach. Noam Chomsky is much the same except for the fact that he is an anarchist, not a Marxist.



From what I've seen in this thread, you evidently know little of Marxism, other variants of socialism, or political economy in general.

And marxism is going to save the day in such situations? Ha. Never has so far...

Free market capitalism will sort out problems on its own....underconsumption will lead to a company's demise as profits decline...that is the natural order of things....when there is a profit squeeze competitors will step in to even the playing field...

Can you advise me of one business the government has taken over and has been successful at?

I am not a Marxist, hence, why would I advocate Marxism? Nor do I support centralized government, so why would I support government operation of businesses? You have not answered my question in regards to crisis theory; you have merely made a claim that relies on a utopian understanding of capitalism and political economy.

Europe isn't socialist: it is capitalist, socialist, ...: a combination of those but nothing like the extreme marxist theories of the SU (that is communism). Why do you think the Europeans always rejected the Soviet Union, even during the time of the communists and before that Europe was anti-marxist.

Socialism in Europe is really far from the original marxist ideas, communism (the ideology that is most based upon Karl Marx ideas) is hated by all Europeans.

You really got a very wrong picture of Europe, you seem to forget that the US uses European Ideals (ideals like freedom, equality (between man and woman, ... ), democracy, capitalism, ... all have their origin in Europe)

The Soviet Union was not a socialist or communist nation, but a state capitalist one. Socialism necessitates the collective ownership and control of the means of production, and collectivization existed in name only in the Soviet Union. But in reality, the Bolsheviks became the new ruling class. Moreover, Europe is indeed social democratic rather than socialist, but there can be no viable "mixture" of capitalism and socialism, and those who favor one often don't appreciate the radical economic restructuring that socialism demands.

 

[Agnapostate]

A despot is a despot, regardless of his alleged "politics".

Nazism gave Hitler the opportunity to exploit and murder people.
Communism gave that opportunity to Stalin, Pol Pot, Chavez, et al.

Fortunately, a democratic republic is a little harder to just take over...so long as we protect our consistution and our rights via the constitution.

But Obama will take that on next.

Fallacious nonsense. I have already instructed you as to the state capitalism of individuals such as Stalin, and the fact that their "communism" is inappropriately referred to by misinformed anti-socialists. But really, reference to Chavez as a "despot"? The man was democratically elected by the Venezuelan citizenry, survived a recall effort (incidentally, no recall mechanism exists in the United States, the alleged leader of the free and democratic world, despite the fact that most observers believe that George Bush would not have survived a recall in his last days), and you have the audacity to call him a "despot"?

 

[Sinatra]

]

Fallacious nonsense.
____

HEY! Keep it family friendly in here!