Socialism and the Obama administration [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Socialism and the Obama administration

BoogyMan

10-03-2010, 09:20 PM

Noir

10-03-2010, 09:57 PM

Plenty of socialists will support Obama, given he is both mainstream and reasonably left. However, he is certainly not socialist in the true sense of the word.

SassyLady

10-03-2010, 10:04 PM

Plenty of socialists will support Obama, given he is both mainstream and reasonably left. However, he is certainly not socialist in the true sense of the word.

Why do you say this Noir? What criteria are you using to judge that he isn't a socialist?

Noir

10-03-2010, 10:14 PM

Why do you say this Noir? What criteria are you using to judge that he isn't a socialist?

We he is certainly not as leftwing as the leader of our countries opposition, Ed Milliband, and even Eds plans are not so much Socialist as a Capitalist who believes in big government, I believe obamas the same.

SassyLady

10-03-2010, 10:24 PM

We he is certainly not as leftwing as the leader of our countries opposition, Ed Milliband, and even Eds plans are not so much Socialist as a Capitalist who believes in big government, I believe obamas the same.

Noir ... this really isn't evidence to support your assertion that Obama is NOT a socialist. Give me some examples that prove he isn't predominantly a socialist (other than the fact that your leader might be MORE socialist).

Agnapostate

10-04-2010, 12:57 AM

So your hypothesis, BoogyMan, is that the DNC must have invited the Socialist Alternative to come and hold a banner that condemned them as a "Wall St. Party"? Or perhaps, they simply felt that they could reach a somewhat leftist crowd without concrete collaboration and shared ideological aims with DNC organizers? That hasn't occurred to you? See, I'm not a rightist like you, and I'm not a "breathless liberal." I actually am a socialist, a real socialist, unlike the things you falsely apply the label to. I resist those applications because I know that when this administration invariably fails, as all supporters of capitalism do, you and people like you will blame it on "socialism."

Obama's liberal democratic capitalism is based in sustainment of the private ownership of the means of production, which is quite at odds with socialism, which requires the workers' ownership of the means of production. What's ironic, as I always point out, is that economic rightism would probably be more facilitative of socialism because it would cause instability in the capitalist economy. Ergo, the vast majority of socialists generally oppose and even outright despise the Obama administration and their policies:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-anaylsis-obamai-t136665/index.html?t=136665

"http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet

This guy has devoted more time than most other socialists to debunking and exposing the Obama phenomenon as the bourgeois sham it is. Read through some of his articles; I imagine you'll find some good stuff there."

"Obama claims that he can bring 'change' from the presidential office, which is a lie."

"http://tnjn.com/2009/sep/28/op-ed-ob...cies-are-a-fa/

As for my analysis, I would say he's a bourgeois sonofabitch who won't bring much change at all."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-obama-not-t128791/index.html?p=1666434

"Wow. Obama was even dumber than I first realized. He's a giant hoax. How did the nation fall for the idea of Obama and totally missed what he was really saying the whole time?"

"Well, like Hitler, he played as the coming-savior of the Working Class. He was messiah-like to those of the Working Class, & even more towards those still suffering within the projects. So, he merely was a wolf in a Shepards clothing."

"Well I am on here a lot. But I would've pegged Obama as the black Clinton. Neo-liberal, New Democrat, DLC stooge posing as a progressive."

"This is all a dog and pony show for the Democrats. They were never serious about true health care reform much less a single payer health system."

"The average butt-dumb American conservative does not even know what socialism is, let alone anything at all about political science, nor where on the map Russia is located. Right wing talking heads have conjured this socialist boogey-man, in part, because they (A) do not understand socialism, and (B) they, being racist, cannot use the N word so they substitute the S word, when talking about Obama. As proof of this, consider some of the protest signs seen at the so-called 'teabag' rallies: they look quite racist to me."

Before anyone asks, this is kind of old & not updated to more information that leads into the facts that I'm giving in this. I made this to start a logical reasoning against the capitalist-supporters who began claiming that Obama is a socialist. So if there's anyone that would like to give out more information, then it would be appreciated. Let's get started.

For all my Socialists out there, & for all those that are awake to the fact that Obama is not a Socialist, let's prove to these people that Obama, the Corporatist Messiah, is clearly not a Socialist like us!

Obama gives taxpayer trillions to private capitalists while millions remain unemployed. NOT SOCIALIST

He's making citizens pay taxes for private capitalist banks & industries throughout america. NOT SOCIALIST

Now, there is two ways to deal with the federal reserve, either destroy it or nationalize it, which will make the elitists out of touch through their plans in the usage of the FR. BUT, Obama refuses to even nationalize it, & keeps it as it is. NOT SOCIALIST

Here's a quote made by Obama, "People don't resent the rich. They want to be rich, and that's good." Clearly not socialistic. Socialists believe in no rich & no poor. For everyone to be equal. NOT SOCIALIST

Obama doesn't want a government central planning for the infrastructure, & is keeping the same corrupted corporatism that is runned by elitist capitalists. NOT SOCIALIST

He supports for taxpayers to fund religious charter schools & religious social services, which clearly violates the intent of separation of religion & government clause in the constitution. NOT SOCIALIST

Obama had made the comment that he supports free market capitalism. NOT SOCIALIST

Obama is supporting a healthcare system where he would turn over authority back to private insurance companies with some public healthcare to create competition between each other. NOT SOCIALIST

Obama has announced that he will be increasing the military in Afghanistan, Pakistan, & keep thousands of troops to stay in Iraq. NOT SOCIALIST

Obama took in $700 million total in funding through his campaign. NOT SOCIALIST

Obama is wanting to privatize NASA, which is one of the most successful nationalized program in our country. NOT SOCIALIST

Obama also appointed former Senator Judd Gregg, who is a social security privatizer, in charge of the Commerce Department. NOT SOCIALIST

Obama is allowing the advancements of the privatization of police force. NOT SOCIALIST

Obama had appointed Arne Duncan, a school-privatizer/militarizer, to be his Education Secretary. NOT SOCIALIST

It is apparent now that President Obama does not care what is being funded or developed, despite it's huge cost for it to happen. For example, NM Rothschild, an investment bank, is planning to raise £100 billion by privatizing the motorway network. NOT SOCIALIST

This is just half of what all obama does that is clearly not socialistic. It's amazing how you see him as a socialist, whether you hate it or not, but clearly he is a capitalist & is promoting capitalism while the media white washes socialism. Allowing the american people to promote the very thing Obama wants you to promote. CAPITALISM

I'd also like to add two videos made on the Glenn Beck program on Fox News. One will show you that even the Socialists say that OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALIST!

And another video here where, finally, Glenn Beck admits that America is not heading to Socialism, which is what we want, but instead is heading to Fascism!

Now since Glenn Beck has been known to lie a lot recently, I don't think just his opinion will prove a point here. So I decided to give out this article where the top trends researcher, Gerald Celente, explains how we're heading towards Fascism & not Socialism.

I'd also like to bring up two well known Socialists, giving the reason how they both have clearly stated that Obama is NOT a Socialist. The first person is Socialist Candidate Gloria LaRiva. And the 2nd person is another Socialist Candidate, Brian Moore.

Of course, experience has taught me that this will simply all be ignored. Oh, well. I feel that the occasional person I'm able to reach makes it worthwhile.

BoogyMan

10-04-2010, 12:06 PM

Noir

10-04-2010, 12:54 PM

Noir ... this really isn't evidence to support your assertion that Obama is NOT a socialist. Give me some examples that prove he isn't predominantly a socialist (other than the fact that your leader might be MORE socialist).

And you have evidence that he wants to abolish Capitalism?
I guess it's all ends up as playing with words, but I think he understand the capitalist system too well to want to abolish it, but rather use is to create a large state system.

Kathianne

10-04-2010, 01:39 PM

Noir

10-04-2010, 02:03 PM

What is a large state system if not socialism?

Because a large state Capitalist economy and a Socialist economy are totally different both in the theoretical and practical sense.

Kathianne

10-04-2010, 02:22 PM

Because a large state Capitalist economy and a Socialist economy are totally different both in the theoretical and practical sense.

Please, explain your understanding of what you are claiming.

BoogyMan

10-04-2010, 05:53 PM

Because a large state Capitalist economy and a Socialist economy are totally different both in the theoretical and practical sense.

Interesting......you refuse to consider the incrementalism we are currently experiencing.

This is the kind of thought process that so efficiently boils the frog.

Noir

10-04-2010, 06:07 PM

Please, explain your understanding of what you are claiming.

A Big State Calitalist believes that business should be under private ownership, however they should pay high taxes to support the state in areas like education, healthcare, social housing etc.

Whereas a Socialist would want the abolishon of private ownership altogether, replacing it with workers co-operatives and so on (though ofcourse there are many different types of socialist, but I'm talking in generalities)

Do you think Obama wants to abolish the Capitalist economic model and replace it with a socialist one?

bullypulpit

10-04-2010, 06:58 PM

I keep hearing breathless liberals claim there is no socialism in league with the modern DNC and how those concerned about socialism are just not smart enough to know what socialism really is.

It seem the One Nation rally brought ot the non-existent socialists to proudly annouce their existence and support of the Obama agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw7n9Qagu8&feature=player_embedded#!

Given that the policies of Eisenhower and Nixon would be considered somewhere to the left of Mao by the ideologues currently dictating GOP policy, it's no wonder the mouth-breathers think Obama is a raging socialist. :laugh2:

KarlMarx

10-04-2010, 07:04 PM

A Big State Calitalist believes that business should be under private ownership, however they should pay high taxes to support the state in areas like education, healthcare, social housing etc.

Whereas a Socialist would want the abolishon of private ownership altogether, replacing it with workers co-operatives and so on (though ofcourse there are many different types of socialist, but I'm talking in generalities)

Do you think Obama wants to abolish the Capitalist economic model and replace it with a socialist one?

I think that if Santa Claus could give Obama anything he wanted, then he'd wish for an abolition of capitalism altogether.

However, Obama knows that the American public would not stand for it... so he is trying the incremental approach... he is for wealth redistribution and has said so using those words.

Taking over GM, the student loan program, and the health care system were pretty big steps and bold ones. The courts will be deciding the constitutionality of Obamacare shortly... my guess is that it won't stand any close legal scrutiny....

Agnapostate

10-04-2010, 07:05 PM

LOL, my crystal ball is working pretty well as these are the typical responses that I was expecting. Primarily that Mr. Obama cannot be a socialist because rhetorically they can then say "I can show you someone who is MORE of a socialist."

The democrats welcome these individuals, support their views, uphold their beliefs, yet run from their identity.

You forgot to compose a counterargument. So try this again: The Democrats welcomed the individuals that attacked them as a "Wall St. Party"? Socialism requires the workers' ownership and management of the means of production. As put in my American Heritage Dictionary, socialism is, "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." According to a consensus definition achieved on Wikipedia, "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." The fact of the matter is that nothing of the sort has been implemented. There are no signs that anything of the sort is being implemented, as this would require collectivization and enactment of management by workers' cooperatives and communal management of resources instead of a subsidization so that the presently existing corporate oligarchies can maintain their control. What's incredible is that the proposal bearing even the slightest relationship to "socialism" is a bill that would distribute stock ownership of GM and Chrysler among the general population advocated by Republican Senators Lamar Alexander, Jon Kyl, Robert Bennett, and Judd Gregg.

What is a large state system if not socialism?

Capitalism. Capitalism requires the state. I most often mention Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=847649&show=abstract) to illustrate this. As noted by the abstract:

This paper argues that the government possesses certain unique features that allow it to restrict competition, and provide stable and reliable conditions under which firms organize, compete, cooperate and exchange. The coordinating perspective is employed to re-examine the arguments for industrial policies regarding private investment decisions, market competition, diffusion of technologies and tariff protection on infant industries. This paper concludes that dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination policies explains the rapid economic growths in post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrializing economies.

This section is also extremely on-point:

[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organization, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrializing economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).

And it is a scalar issue. At the highest levels of government involvement in the social democratic capitalism of Scandinavia, economic efficiency is also at its highest, with the positive association holding as the two factors simultaneously decline in the Rhine capitalism of other parts of Europe to the liberal democratic capitalism of Britain to the liberal democratic capitalism of the U.S. to the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism prevalent under the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, which rejected Keynesian dominance in macroeconomics to accept the prescriptions of neoclassicals, with Thatcher in particular being the right-winger and an enthusiastic Hayek fan.

Interesting......you refuse to consider the incrementalism we are currently experiencing.

This is the kind of thought process that so efficiently boils the frog.

Feel free to list any country in the world that has undergone gradual transition from a capitalist to a socialist economy orchestrated by a political administration elected on the premise of maintaining capitalism. There are numerous self-identified socialist politicians in power in various countries that have done little to nothing in enacting a socialist economy. This is even true of Venezuela, governed by Hugo Chavez and the PSUV. After Chavez has been in power for twelve years, committing himself more and more to socialism after each successful election of him or his party, there is still no socialism, though at least there's reduced poverty and a network of cooperatives that did not previously exist.

When the positive association between government and capitalism is recognized, it's also possible to recognize various state programs that your kind decry as "socialism" as fundamentally supportive of capitalism. The welfare state, for example, maintains the physical efficiency of the working class in the context of the capitalist economy. The same is true of universal health care, even though a more rightist version of Obama's desired proposal (i.e. sans a single-payer "public option"), and stability measures and policies such as Keynesian demand management and strategic trade protectionism have aided the capitalist economy immensely.

KarlMarx

10-04-2010, 07:09 PM

Given that the policies of Eisenhower and Nixon would be considered somewhere to the left of Mao by the ideologues currently dictating GOP policy, it's no wonder the mouth-breathers think Obama is a raging socialist. :laugh2:
Bully, do you make these statements to get a rise out of people or just to convince them to just ignore you more than they already do?

SassyLady

10-04-2010, 09:53 PM

And you have evidence that he wants to abolish Capitalism?
I guess it's all ends up as playing with words, but I think he understand the capitalist system too well to want to abolish it, but rather use is to create a large state system.

I did not make a statement that he wanted to abolish capitalism. I do believe that he will destroy capitalism on his way to creating a socialistic nation.

He's using the Overton Window concept.

Agnapostate

10-04-2010, 10:21 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/10/04/state/n082427D30.DTL&type=politics

Modesto police are looking into whether vandalism at the Stanislaus County Democratic Campaign Headquarters over the weekend was politically motivated.

Party leaders say vandals threw rocks through five of 11 windows on the building and spray-painted "RAAN" on the wall. Regional director Gary Robbins told KXTV that the initials stand for "Reds and Anarchists."

Police say the attack happened sometime between late Friday and early Sunday. The windows displayed signs for Democratic campaigns, including that of Sen. Barbara Boxer.

No nearby buildings were damaged, and no arrests have been made.

Volunteers spent Sunday cleaning up the mess, putting off their campaign work with just four weeks left before the election.

http://www.redanarchist.org/

Must be another campaign tactic. :laugh:

Kathianne

10-05-2010, 09:45 AM

Kathianne

10-05-2010, 10:01 AM

Just reading a bit and came across this article, it's the uncertainty that this administration creates:

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/quietest_jobs_killing_machine_xAlRo2nRYjtYKaWKAwe7 fN

O's quietest jobs-killing machine
By JAMES INHOFE
Last Updated: 12:23 AM, October 5, 2010
Posted: 10:03 PM, October 4, 2010
One insidious force keeping unemployment high is regulatory uncertainty: Companies that could hire (or re-hire), don't -- because they're worried about what new restrictions will be coming down from Washington.

Congress bears much of the blame -- especially for the new "financial reform" law, which leaves so many details to be filled in later. But a major contributor to businesses' worries is the Obama Environmental Protection Agency, which is issuing a daily barrage of rules and regulations threatening jobs in American industry.

So concludes "EPA's Anti-Industrial Policy: Threatening Jobs and America's Manufacturing Base" -- a new report from the minority staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (on which I serve as ranking member).

The report focuses on four of the EPA's most egregiously anti-business proposals and explains how they threaten American jobs and global competitiveness...

Agnapostate

10-05-2010, 10:36 AM

I believe that in not focusing on the fact that regulatory policies tend to reduce labor and consumer militancy because problematic aspects of capitalism are somewhat reduced, you ignore the fact that their actual consequence is preservation of the current economic paradigm.

bullypulpit

10-06-2010, 04:19 AM

Bully, do you make these statements to get a rise out of people or just to convince them to just ignore you more than they already do?

What...Facts disturb you Red? Do they threaten to throw your already unbalanced cart clean off its tracks? :laugh2: