Obama is not a Socalist, Marxist, or Communist ! !

I hear a lot that "Obama is a socialist" or "Obama is a Marxist."

Let me clear a few things up for you. *I* am a Socialist. *I* am a Marxist. And Obama is no Socialist, and no Marxist.

He is a right-wing leader of a fascist, right-wing nation: Amerikkka. As far as I am concerned he's no different than Nixon or Bush, and thus much closer to Hitler on the right than Marx on the left. Come on people: He is the leader of the largest capitalist machine in world history.


It's funny, people call leftists deluded. But in actual fact, not a single real Socialist or Marxist ANYWHERE on planet earth believes Obama is one of their own. Not one. Who is really deluded?

I mean, if you neandertals on the right want to believe "Obama is a commie," by all means go ahead. You guys already believe so many messed up things, another can't really hurt at this point. And when my enemies believe incorrect things, it gives me an advantage. But in truth, you are barking up the wrong tree. Wrong forest, even. Heck, wrong biome. And as a real leftie, frankly, its just embarrasing to be associated in any way at all with such a pathetic failure of a corporate lackey.

OK, rant over.

isnt america a sad place?

anything that can have a label will have a label. yaaaaaaay american media.

also keep in mind that communism/marxism/socialism, whatever you want to call it is only actually worth a damn and works when its done correctly. until someone come in power that follows the tenants of communism and so forth correctly, its just as bad as capitalism/false democracy

reply to post by Leftist


The Daily Show agrees with you, www.thedailyshow.com... as they interviewed 2 separate communist asking the question, "Is Obama a socialist?"

Their answer was no too.

Originally posted by XelNaga
isnt america a sad place?

anything that can have a label will have a label. yaaaaaaay american media.

also keep in mind that communism/marxism/socialism, whatever you want to call it is only actually worth a damn and works when its done correctly. until someone come in power that follows the tenants of communism and so forth correctly, its just as bad as capitalism/false democracy

edit on 27-3-2012 by XelNaga because: (no reason given)

Socialism will never succeed, because people are inherently corrupt.

Democracy will never succeed, because people are inherently too stupid to make informed decisions.

Democratic Republics will never succeed, because all of the above.


Unfortunately, its a pick-your-poison in how you want to be ruled. I don't think its a flaw in America or USSR, or Latvia, or wherever. The flaw is in humanity itself, and that can't be remedied anytime soon. Me personally, I don't believe Obama is a Socialist/Communist...but he's not done me a whole hell of a lot of good, so I'm not too happy with him, or our current elected officials. On behalf of all Americans, accept my apology for mis-labeling our President.

reply to post by Leftist


Thank you Leftist. This thread needed to be aired.
So badly.

reply to post by Leftist


Charlatan seems to sum him up nicely.

reply to post by loam


Yeah, more or less.

The US president is a pretty pathetic position when you get right down to it. Trying to run 21st-century late capitalism using 18th-century early capitalist methodology. The upshot is that the president must try to please everyone. The result? A puddle 2 inches deep and thousands of miles long.

There really is no point in getting mad at Obama as an individual, though. Its just the nature of the Capitalist system. Whoever was in that position would be a farce.

reply to post by Leftist

Originally posted by Leftist
Its just the nature of the Capitalist system.

Nonsense.

It appears you confuse Capitalism with fraud.

The one does not require the production of the other.

Thank god he is not a full on commie.

Just out of curiousity, who does the OP hold up as a shining example of all that is communist? I for one would much rather choose my villian of the day at elections. I find it rediculous that anyone could be so naive as to think that removing peoples rights to elect the type of government of their choice is a good thing. As you so sure that the government knows better than you? Do you need a "Big Brother" to look after you?

No, i for one want as little government intrusion in my life as possible. I would love to change many things about out system today here in Canada, but to shift to communism would be at the bottom of the list. The lobby group i am a part of has made very important gains lately, tangible things that would not be possible under your system. Balanced budgets here we come!

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Leftist

 

Originally posted by Leftist
Its just the nature of the Capitalist system.

Nonsense.

It appears you confuse Capitalism with fraud.

The one does not require the production of the other.

And at the same time, she must assume said fraud and corruption is missing under communism. What a laugh.

Originally posted by nightbringr
Thank god he is not a full on commie.

Just out of curiousity, who does the OP hold up as a shining example of all that is communist?

Marx, Lenin, Mao.

But none of those are running this time, so those seeking a true left candidate will have to go with Stewart Alexander, the socialist candidate. Although personally I consider him not far-left enough.

I am not going to vote. Because I don't believe in this system, and I believe that however well-intentioned, the system is right-wing so there is no point in hoping this individual or that individual will achieve anything. The entire system needs to be dismantled. The problem is the system itself, not whoever happens to be in office.
.

I find it rediculous that anyone could be so naive as to think that removing peoples rights to elect the type of government of their choice is a good thing.

Read and learn:
Dictatorship of the Proletariat

President Obama is not a Socialist, of course. Is he a lot like Bush or Reagan? I would argue the he is. This is of course coming from a virulent Reactionary. But this comes down to whether or not we want to argue over politico-philosophical subgroupings or not. Is Vladimir Lenin a Marxist? Quite obvious; but what kind of Marxist was he? Was Lenin a dialectical Marxist, humanist, Libertarian, Analytical, or a breakoff; Social democrat, Democratic Socialist, Eco-Socialist, or something else entirely? At this point Lenin’s philosophy has formed the basis of its own Marxist field; Marxism – Leninism.

My point in emphasizing the above is that if we are going to play around in the sandbox of subgroupings and sub-subgroupings the results may be overly complicated or tedious. It is best to accept first the two formal groupings; Right and Left. At that point then decide where one falls. However this also relies upon a mutual understanding of the philosophical premises of each proposed philosophical group. Is ‘Right necessarily capitalist?’ for instance, which is a very important question when inquiring into this field of thought.

Suppose Right does not constitute Capitalism, or Capitalism can overlap into certain elements of Rightist thought. We also must work with Distributism, Corporatism, Social Market Economy, and other economic programs which can be categorized as Rightist. From that point we must find the most crucial element of political thought – its philosophy. Do the adherents subscribe predominantly to materialism, positivism, Thomism, Aristotleanism, or what? These are all critical points often overlooked when attempting to determine a political philosophy/ideology and in so doing, pigeonhole a person or group of persons.

Assuming we lay the proper basis of Left – Right, we may further break it down into subgroupings then sub-subgroupings and from that point attempt to logically determine where a person fits. Often time’s political leaders have amassed so many different, often conflicting, positions that sub-subgrouping becomes impossible which leaves us with subgrouping; President Obama is one of these people.

I for one consider President Obama to be a Radical Liberal, used in both a derogatory and objectively descriptive sense. Liberal for the fact that I use it as a blanket term for the Left, Radical for the sense that he is Left of the Conservative Liberals who boast of their genuine Conservative credentials yet fail to comprehend true Conservatism. Radical (more left than Conservative) – Liberal (more left than Right); that is President Obama. Now if we are engaging in sub-subgrouping such as “is he a Socialist, Communist, Anarchist, Green, etc…” then I believe his policies are too wide for such specific description.

Obama is nothing but a puppet, a paid actor,somebody to blame. Elections are fake. I know im preaching to the choir. But its so obvious, i mean come on.

Originally posted by Leftist

Originally posted by nightbringr
Thank god he is not a full on commie.

Just out of curiousity, who does the OP hold up as a shining example of all that is communist?

Marx, Lenin, Mao.

Marx and Lenin, yeah i supose they may have had good intentions even if their methodology was obviously flawed. Mao though? Seriously? The man behind the Chinese cultural revolution, singlehandedly destroying thousands of years of Chinese history. The man who used violence and terror to seize privately owned lands and businesses in order to nationalize? Mastermind behind the violent, oppressive failed "Great Leap Forward"? Sickening that you would hold this man up as an example of anything but violent oppression and destruction of the worlds second most ancient culture.

Originally posted by nightbringr
. Mao though? Seriously? The man behind the Chinese cultural revolution, singlehandedly destroying thousands of years of Chinese history. The man who used violence and terror to seize privately owned lands and businesses in order to nationalize? Mastermind behind the violent, oppressive failed "Great Leap Forward"? Sickening that you would hold this man up as an example of anything but violent oppression and destruction of the worlds second most ancient culture.

edit on 28-3-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

Mao was -- and is -- an inspiration for people in the developing world struggling against oppression and imperialism. He provided a methodology of guerilla war uniquely suited to the third world as well as asymmetrical struggle in general. Mao's form of communism is one of the most enduring and robust: It is telling that the most active communists today are Maoists in places like Colombia, India, and Nepal.

Mao more than ever!

Originally posted by loam
Nonsense.

It appears you confuse Capitalism with fraud.

The one does not require the production of the other.

Capitalism is fraud. It has defrauded working people for over 200 years.

The system exploits the working class, because the workers are required to produce more than they are paid for in order for the capitalist to make money. We are then required to pay profit on the goods we purchase. Profit for someone else is made from our labour, and our consumption.

Originally posted by nightbringr
And at the same time, she must assume said fraud and corruption is missing under communism. What a laugh.

It depends of what you're calling communism. If you're thinking of any country that claimed the name communist then that is not a good comparison because those countries are not communist. Don't be fooled by propaganda.

In true communism there is no state or government, they become obsolete once the system of production is raised to the point of meeting everyone's needs. The state and government are simply in place to protect capital, and capitalists interests.

Communism is ultimately anarchist. All left wingers want the same thing, free association. Only the methods to get there differ.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

And no, you can't say this doesn't work in practice because it has, the Spanish revolution...

flag.blackened.net...

reply to post by ANOK


Thanks for this.

And all your other posts.

You rock.

Originally posted by Leftist
Mao was -- and is -- an inspiration for people in the developing world struggling against oppression and imperialism.

This man has done things you would rage at if it was the US government who commited them. He singlehandedly killed millions of Chinese though his failed "Great Leap Forward". He destroyed thousands of years world of Chinese culture during the cultural revolution. The US couldnt dream of his level of brutality on their own people, yet you hold the US as an example of all that is wrong, and Mao as a shining example of good? Are you serious? You probably think Stalin starving Ukranians was a good thing.

Face it, your blinded by your hate of all that is democratic and capitalist. Yes, there are problems with these ideologies, but communism is not the answer. I cannot see one good example of communism working in the world today.

Originally posted by Leftist
He provided a methodology of guerilla war uniquely suited to the third world as well as asymmetrical struggle in general. Mao's form of communism is one of the most enduring and robust: It is telling that the most active communists today are Maoists in places like Colombia, India, and Nepal.

I certainly hope India does not fall to such forces. It is an example of democratic muticulturalism in its finest. Easily the most colorful, diverse country in the world, both culturally and politically, and it functions. Their economy is growing stronger each day.

And yes, i am aware of Chinas growing economic and financial might, as well as their imperialistic aspirations as can be witnessed in Africa. They are no different than the USA. To me, economic issues come second to human rights and the right to determine my own future. I will fight tooth and nail to preserve my right to vote my particular villian of the term.

Originally posted by ANOK
It depends of what you're calling communism. If you're thinking of any country that claimed the name communist then that is not a good comparison because those countries are not communist. Don't be fooled by propaganda.

If its a spade, i call it a spade.

Originally posted by ANOK
In true communism there is no state or government, they become obsolete once the system of production is raised to the point of meeting everyone's needs. The state and government are simply in place to protect capital, and capitalists interests.

Funny, this article would disagree with that statement.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ANOK
Communism is ultimately anarchist. All left wingers want the same thing, free association. Only the methods to get there differ.

I dont want anarchy either. I want extremely limited interference in my life from the government. All i want them to do is tax to provide infrastructure, basic education, police our streets and form a military to protect our borders. Otherwise the government can stay the hell out of my life and my business.

Originally posted by ANOK
And no, you can't say this doesn't work in practice because it has, the Spanish revolution...

So according to you, the only working form of communism ever was the brief period of the Spanish revolution before Franco took over? Thats it? Doesnt seem to be very popular then is it? Roughly half of the people of Spain did not want the system and joined with Franco to take over.