What do you believe... Obama = Socialist?

[DiaryOfAMadArabWoman]

here's my two cents of the "Obama = Socialist" debate...


In my eyes, I don't believe Obama is a socialist, as much as a statist. I believe that he wants control over free market and the laissez-faire policy America has held for so long, but not because he wants power... I believe he prefers this "statist" policy because of the simple fact that he wants to "help" people.
I think it's a personal reason of his, maybe because he hasn't grown up with the best confidence or living situations..... (as a multi-racial young man in America, he resorted to alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine - Which he describes as his "greatest moral failure.") Therefore, I believe that he thinks if he controls the free market, somehow underdogs will be able to "get jobs" and the nation will somehow be saved. He is sorely mistaken, because if he searched deeper in himself, he would see that the people who can't "get jobs," or at least SUPPORT THEMSELVES, are the one's who just don't want to. Obama broke those standards, so can't he see that others can too? It's not a hard thing to do, you just need to believe in yourself... and I'm not being sappy either.... It's just that you're going to get NOWHERE in life if you procrastinate because you think you are illequipped.

I've been on disability (for my illnesses,) for most of my life, but you don't see me settling down and having kids while on disability. I plan on getting off of Disability sometime in the future, because I want to succeed. I don't want to live off the government, I want to be better than anyone preceeding me.
I am ready to break the standards.


Anyways... Obama needs to wise up. I believe he needs to realize that America is all about making your life, not getting it made for you.

What do you believe? I'm interested in hearing others.
I believe he isn't a Socialist, though. I just believe he is trying to help, but isn't exactly the best man for the job.

 

[spud_meister]

no matter his intentions, he's not socialist in any way, shape or form, that's just partisan hyperbole.

 

[lizzie]

I agree with a few of your points, but to me, he seems like some type of socialist-fascist hybrid, with an ego the size of Texas.

 

[Manc Skipper]

He is a socialist by fevered paranoid Republican nightmare sky is falling standards, but otherwise no. In any way shape or form.

 

[DiaryOfAMadArabWoman]

I agree with a few of your points, but to me, he seems like some type of socialist-fascist hybrid, with an ego the size of Texas.

Yeah, you got that right :lol:

 

[Ockham]

He's certainly a Statist, certainly a liberal progressive. He also basis his confidence on nothing as he's done nothing in his past to provide him such confidence other than his beliefs and reading material. As I've said since the beginning he's wholly unqualified to run this country as his track record for leadership, for managing/passing budgets, for running a state or even a county doesn't exist. So it's really based on ideology/belief - and if we remember how badly Bush was excoriated for basing his moves on "God" and a belief system.... Obama is praised for doing the same thing. So - at the end of the day, Obama is more like Bush every day but just adopting the other side of the political spectrum while using the same tactics.

 

[DiaryOfAMadArabWoman]

He's certainly a Statist, certainly a liberal progressive. He also basis his confidence on nothing as he's done nothing in his past to provide him such confidence other than his beliefs and reading material. As I've said since the beginning he's wholly unqualified to run this country as his track record for leadership, for managing/passing budgets, for running a state or even a county doesn't exist. So it's really based on ideology/belief - and if we remember how badly Bush was excoriated for basing his moves on "God" and a belief system.... Obama is praised for doing the same thing. So - at the end of the day, Obama is more like Bush every day but just adopting the other side of the political spectrum while using the same tactics.

Yes ! He is unqualified. I'm just saying he got out of his sad state of mind that he maintained in his youth, and moved on and was in Senate (whether he deserved that position or not is not related, I'm just saying he managed his low confidence and got a job. So why is he trying to help others who are not willing to manage their inner demons?)
However, just because he's conquered some emotional issues does NOT make him qualified for the role of Commander in Chief.
And... exactly, that is a great point. That he is praised because he is doing the same thing as Bush. And it's odd that his fans are liberals. That confuses me how they would praise him, but the liberals also usually support secularism.
Odd.

And yes, he uses the same tactics. It's really sad. That "HOPE" thing was such B.S. ! Anyone who believes it anymore is incredibly gullible.

 

[Ockham]

There's a reason why people like myself are so jaded with politics and believe no one about anything unless I see it with my own eyes.

 

[Deuce]

I agree with a few of your points, but to me, he seems like some type of socialist-fascist hybrid, with an ego the size of Texas.

*facepalm*
No offense intended, but people who say things like this clearly do not understand what those two words even mean.

 

[lizzie]

Deuce- I understand perfectly what the two words mean.

 

[Cochise]

Who isn't a socialist/statist these days? That's the nature of Washington. There's irony in the accusations coming from conservative/Republican agitators, though, as they're no less socialist/statist. The U.S. federal government is characterized by consensus politics.

 

[DiaryOfAMadArabWoman]

There's a reason why people like myself are so jaded with politics and believe no one about anything unless I see it with my own eyes.

Exactly. I don't believe anything about the politician's life. I just judge them on their political actions.

 

[Deuce]

Deuce- I understand perfectly what the two words mean.

Then you are either using the words incorrectly or basing them on some vague conspiracy theory about what you think the "true intentions" of big scary government is.

 

[Grim17]

Obama, the people he has associated with his entire life, as well as most of those he appointed to his administration, embrace one of the primary, core Marxist/socialist beliefs... The forced redistribution of wealth. What do you think universal health care and Cap & Trade are?

.

 

[pendulum_jaw]

Obama, the people he has associated with his entire life, as well as most of those he appointed to his administration, embrace one of the primary, core Marxist/socialist beliefs... The forced redistribution of wealth

Anyone who doesn't see this just isn't looking.

 

[Deuce]

Obama, the people he has associated with his entire life, as well as most of those he appointed to his administration, embrace one of the primary, core Marxist/socialist beliefs... The forced redistribution of wealth. What do you think universal health care and Cap & Trade are?

.

Really? You can't see any other possible motive? (see signature)

 

[Josie]

Yes, Obama's economic philosophy is socialism. Why are progressives afraid of that word? Call it like it is.

 

[spud_meister]

Obama, the people he has associated with his entire life, as well as most of those he appointed to his administration, embrace one of the primary, core Marxist/socialist beliefs... The forced redistribution of wealth. What do you think universal health care and Cap & Trade are?

.

well, according to your logic, my country (Australia) is extremely socialist, and has been since we federated, bugger, i wish we'd known that earlier so we could've sided with soviet russia in the cold war.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It took a socialist like Margaret Thatcher to stiffen Ronnie Raygun's linguini spine.

 

[lizzie]

Then you are either using the words incorrectly or basing them on some vague conspiracy theory about what you think the "true intentions" of big scary government is.

Here's a link you may (or may not) find of interest. The line that divides socialism and fascism is not as clean and distinct as you may believe.

LUSO: Socialism and Fascism

a couple of excerpts:

In my recent article on Tony Kushner, I suggested that his socialist views were somehow akin to fascism. Predictably enough, the knee-jerk reaction to this statement was the reassertion of an old historical fallacy: the notion that socialism and fascism are somehow opposed to each other, that they have been historical rivals, that there is nothing but difference between the two -- and that I must have been ignorant of this historical fact. I did not, however, make this comparison glibly. Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same.
To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's Fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not. Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism. Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similars can be seen in a common definition of fascism: "A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)" (American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957).
Socialist states have included the USSR(1), Communist China, socialist Sweden, socialist England, Cuba, North Korea, and a handful of lesser regimes in Eastern Europe, East Africa, and Southeast Asia. Once again, there is a prima facie difficulty in determining what factor these various states held in common. After all, some socialist regimes (like Sweden's and England's) were elected democratically. Others, like the USSR's and the PRC's, were the result of popular violent revolutions. Still others were the product of either military coup (Cuba, Ethiopia, Vietnam) or foreign invasion (the Eastern Bloc). The trait common to all of these is provided, once again by the definition of socialism: "a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (American College Dictionary).

In case anyone still doubts the fact that there was no difference in princple between the fascists and the socialists, consider the following revealing quotations from various infamous Nazis and other fascists:
We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.
The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.
We demand profit sharing in big business.
We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.
We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.
In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...
The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.
[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .
(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).
It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual....This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture....The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.
(Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.)
[Fascism stresses] the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, in behalf of society...For Liberalism, the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ulitmate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.
(Alfredo Rocco, "The Political Doctrine of Fascism" (address delivered at Perugia, Aug. 30, 1925); reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, pp. 34-35.)
[T]he higher interests involved in the life of the whole...must set the limits an lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.
(Adolf Hitler at Bueckeburg, op cit pg. 872.)
Unless the political implications of this ethical doctrine of collectivism are not apparent to everyone, the Nazis make them strikingly clear. The Nazis were opposed to authentic private property, and as a result, to capitalism:
"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.
(Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman; National Socialism, prepared by Raymond E. Murphy, et al; quoting Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939))
To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.
(Nazi head of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels; In Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Farrar, 1941), pg. 233.)
Finally,
I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.
(Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186).

I hope by now that it should be obvious that the philosophical difference between the fascists and the socialists was minor, if existent at all. Each of these schools reject the efficacy of reason, affirm the principle of altruism, and uphold some form of collectivism. The inevitable result of these views is the destruction of freedom, which is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany and in Soviet Russia.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I agree with a few of your points, but to me, he seems like some type of socialist-fascist hybrid, with an ego the size of Texas.

What ego? i have seen him be nothing but humble.

Unlike alot of presidents, he wasn't some rich dude who became president, he worked his ass off from nothing. That's gotta be admired.

 

[The Uncola]

Yes, Obama's economic philosophy is socialism. Why are progressives afraid of that word? Call it like it is.

Excuse me? Do you even have the first clue as to what a Socialist actually is? I am a Socialist, (a Democratic Socialist, like Bernie Sanders to be precise) and Barack Obama isn't even close to being one. He is best described as a Corporatist, which is quite clear to anyone who bothers to cut through the bull **** spin and actually looks at his POLICIES and who he has put into critical POSITIONS OF POWER.

"Call it like it is."

You should try some of that yourself. But first, I'd highly recommend you spend some time educating yourself as to the actual meaning of the labels you so casually toss about, as you quite clearly aren't at all versed on their actual meanings.

 

[lizzie]

What ego? i have seen him be nothing but humble.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Josie]

Excuse me? Do you even have the first clue as to what a Socialist actually is? I am a Socialist, (a Democratic Socialist, like Bernie Sanders to be precise) and Barack Obama isn't even close to being one. He is best described as a Corporatist, which is quite clear to anyone who bothers to cut through the bull **** spin and actually looks at his POLICIES and who he has put into critical POSITIONS OF POWER.

"Call it like it is."

You should try some of that yourself. But first, I'd highly recommend you spend some time educating yourself as to the actual meaning of the labels you so casually toss about, as you quite clearly aren't at all versed on their actual meanings.

Cool! A real Socialist! You can educate me, then. How are your philosophies and Obama's different?

 

[Ockham]

You're kidding, right?

Remember who you're talking to... Progressives see everything backwards. Up is down, left is right.... If (for example) Obama eats a live puppy on television, it would be considered an act of cherishing one's pet.