Self Described Socialists Say Obama is No Socialist (or even Liberal)

[clb09]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/


Some of the socialist agenda is already part of American life, according to Wharton and others.

Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits -- all reflect socialistic values, says Van Gosse, an associate professor of history at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who has researched socialist movements in the United States and Latin America.

The widely accepted notions of public education and Pell Grants for college students are socialistic in origin, Gosse says. They fit well with the socialistic premise that government should provide basic security from the cradle to the grave to all of its citizens, he says.

"We assert that education should not be left up to the private market -- where those who can pay, get it and those who can't, don't get it," Gosse says. "It's a common good and in that sense it is a socialistic institution even if the U.S. remains a capitalist nation."

[MN Patriot]

Well, that solves that issue. Obama, and the rest of the Democrats as well, are 100% committed CAPITALISTS! Dog eat dog! Maximize profits! Caveat emptor! Let the free market run its course guided by the invisible hand! :rolleyes:

[BuddyRey]

He's much more of a Fascist than a Socialist.

[clb09]

He's much more of a Fascist than a Socialist.

http://www.bingo-paypal.co.uk/articles/images/paypal_bingo.jpg

[jkr]

diss-association...wrks 4 me

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

The problem I have with this is it looks like more of the same old tricks from socialists, trying to separate themselves from unpopular figures. Basically, Marxists and other radical lefties have a long history of claiming that anything and anyone who didn't produce a utopia is not really a socialist. This is why they say Stalin and Lenin were not socialists, and how there has never been a true socialist nation. Don't fall for their dishonest apologies that seek to cover up the crimes and criminals of socialism's awful past.

[BuddyRey]

The problem I have with this is it looks like more of the same old tricks from socialists, trying to separate themselves from unpopular figures. Basically, Marxists and other radical lefties have a long history of claiming that anything and anyone who didn't produce a utopia is not really a socialist. This is why they say Stalin and Lenin were not socialists, and how there has never been a true socialist nation. Don't fall for their dishonest apologies that seek to cover up the crimes and criminals of socialism's awful past.

Thing is, they say the same thing about our side of the economic argument - that people like George W. Bush or Allen Greenspan are "reckless laissez-faire capitalists" and that by calling ourselves "libertarians", we're just dishonestly trying to disassociate ourselves from them.

In fact, a reasonable case can be made that Lenin and Stalin weren't real socialists, but state socialists; just as GWB and Greenspan are state capitalists.

[awake]

Pop quiz; there is an industry in dire financial crisis at risk of bankruptcy, massive layoffs and reorganization. What would Obama do?

A) let the market liquidate the mistakes or

B) bailout and nationalize the industry?

In light of his past history...I would argue B.

Socialism is the view that the state ownership of the means of production is a better system than private ownership. Obama has shown that 'B 'is his preferable option in this regard.

[ChaosControl]

He's much more of a Fascist than a Socialist.

Correct.

A socialist might actually care about people, just be misguided in their desire to use force to have their way. Fascists are just complete scum though.

[awake]

Facisisim simply did not have an organized plan, Mussolini simply favored state controls as they presented the opportunity to be applied - usually crisis'.

Obama may be more Fascist than socialist but it really doesn't matter, the bus he is driving has the same destination, he is simply making it up as he goes.

The scary part is that he may just be representing the mass will of the people who are driving people like him into power.

[Imperial]

You guys are being hyperbolic if you call Obama a fascist. True, there are many things wrong with our country. But the degree of fascism in the US is nothing compared to the degree in say Nazi Germany or Mussollini Italy.

Now, it would be accurate to say the United States is corporatist. After all, fascist states are corporatist, but corporatist states are not necessarily fascist.

[awake]

It is a matter of degree depending on the level and frequency of compounding crises. The crises has just begun so it does look mild in comparison. Give it some time to ripen, it will.

[awake]

"Thus, oddly enough, after the liberal statesman who introduced the policy of
spending, perfected the techniques of corruption, and committed
the nation to the institution of militarism, came the liberal statesman
who infected Italy with the virus of imperialism. For imperialism
flows as logically from militarism as militarism from spending.
Practical Italian politicians perceived that they could not induce
their tax^burdened people to support large armies and navies—
whatever the real purpose—without persuading them that they
stood in need of these costly weapons. They could not do this without
providing the people with an adequate arsenal of fears. If the
country had no natural enemy to be cultivated, then an enemy had
to be invented. There is no answer to the proposition that a nation
must be strong enough to repel the ambitions of powerful and
greedy neighbors. Hence the powerful and greedy neighbors become a national economic necessity. Then in good time defense calls for
the seizure of some neighbor's territory or of some remote strategic
island or the rectification of frontiers for military purposes. The
raw materials of war must be accumulated and these perhaps are
found in the hands of weaker small peoples with whom quarrels are
quickly brewed. National pride, the dignity of the race, patriotism
—all these well-known and well-exploited emotions are played on.
And of course, as the apprehensions of the people grow, the army
grows with them, and so, too, the unbalanced budget—acclaimed
by the most energetic conservative enemies of big budgets.
These policies, of course, could not be developed in Italy without
the aid of the purple people, the inflammable spirits who love adventure
and the dangerous life, who swell to ecstasy when the war
drums roll but whose zeal for high emprise would be unavailing if
harder and more cynical motives did not inspire the realists in
power." John T. Flynn - As We Go Marching.

[awake]

"THERE REMAINS the final ingredient—the totalitarian state.
Surely that cannot come here! Let us see.
We have seen that already we have introduced:
1. The institution of planned consumption or the spending borrowing
government.
2. The planned economy.
3. Militarism as an economic institution, and
4. Imperialism as the handmaiden of our militarism.
But what of the totalitarian state? Can it be that America will
ever complete that job? It may be, I hear the critic say, that we
have embraced four of the elements of the fascist state but we will
not have fascism or national socialism until we add the fifth—the
totalitarian political idea. Between a democratic state seeking to plan
and manage its economic life and supporting it by means of national
debt, even though it becomes militaristic and imperialist, and the
fascist state managing these things through a dictatorship there is a
world of difference.
Let us say at once that there is at least a difference—even though
it be not a world of difference—between an autarchial public-debtsupported
militaristic state managed by a democratic parliament and
one managed by a dictator. But let us also admit frankly that the
two are perfectly alike in all but that. Let us say to ourselves frankly
that we have now adopted four of the factors of the five which
make fascism. This may be called the prologue to fascism. Having
adopted these four I now lay down the proposition that we must
adopt the fifth or abandon the other four. And this I assert because
it is impossible to operate a public-debt-supported autarchy save by
means of a totalitarian government. The system of planning calls for
interferences and intrusions into the private affairs of business organizations
and of private citizens. It implies of necessity the multiplication
of rules and regulations upon an oppressive scale. It involves
endless improvisation of these regulations and the administration of
them by vast bureaucratic organizations. All this must be on a scale
that will inflict so many irritations and annoyances and oppressions
that men will not submit to them save in the presence of overwhelming
and ruthless force. No democratic society will submit to them.
Only the dictator with the last ounce of coercion in his hands and
the willingness to use it can extort compliance." - As We Go Marching

[erowe1]

Ron Paul also says that Obama is no socialist.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/3303-ron-paul-obama-is-another-corporatist-not-a-socialist

[ChaosControl]

You guys are being hyperbolic if you call Obama a fascist. True, there are many things wrong with our country. But the degree of fascism in the US is nothing compared to the degree in say Nazi Germany or Mussollini Italy.

Now, it would be accurate to say the United States is corporatist. After all, fascist states are corporatist, but corporatist states are not necessarily fascist.

It may not be to the same extreme, but its the same kind of category.

[Brett]

Of course a socialist doesn't think he's good enough.

Much like an anarchist would critique a minarchist for supporting such a large invasive government.

The extremists of extremes will never be pleased, even if it's far away from mainstream.

My favorite quote from that article to show the neocons:


This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.
If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don't look to Obama.
"To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."

[RileyE104]

The "Socialists" I know are really pissed off at Obama for not giving them the Public Option.

To me, they just seem lost in the world of politics, but at least they agreed with me when I asked them if they were Social-Libertarians.