Is Obama a Marxist?

[Timminz]

You're lucky. The last time I hotlinked an image from a site where the host had set up a hotlinking prevention method, I ended up with a 24-hour ban.

[BigBallinStalin]

[Dukasaur]

In order to answer this question, I'll assume "Marxist" means "one who wishes to implement the means and seeks the ends as described in the Communist Manifesto."



(A) The following is a list of demands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#II._Proletarians_and_Communists

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.

You don't need to believe and/or want to implement 100% of these ideas to be defined as "Marxist". If you want about 70% of this stuff that would be enough.

No, not really. That's why when Lenin deviated from 100% Marxism, they called it Leninist-Marxism (or Marxist-Leninism). When Stalin deviated from that, it was called Stalinism.

According to your criteria, you would have to call all of the above "Marxism," but you'd be incapable of distinguishing those different political economies, so you inadvertently render useless the meaning of "Marxism."

In fairness, a similar problem arises with any term that has been used to mean more than one thing over the years. Try comparing small-l liberal with Large-L Liberal with classical liberal with "liberal application of cayenne to the stew."

But after the smoke clears, the core distinction between the views of Marx and Lenin was that Marx saw communism as an inevitability -- something that would proceed from capitalism as certainly as teenage pregnancy proceeds from outdoor concerts. Lenin, on the other hand, believed it had to be manipulated into being. Really, anyone who actually engages in political activity to bring about communism is not a pure Marxist. A pure Marxist will sit in the library and wait for things to take their natural course.

That being said, an impure, many-hyphenated, flavour-enhanced Marxist is still a Marxist.

[BigBallinStalin]

In order to answer this question, I'll assume "Marxist" means "one who wishes to implement the means and seeks the ends as described in the Communist Manifesto."



(A) The following is a list of demands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#II._Proletarians_and_Communists

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.

You don't need to believe and/or want to implement 100% of these ideas to be defined as "Marxist". If you want about 70% of this stuff that would be enough.

No, not really. That's why when Lenin deviated from 100% Marxism, they called it Leninist-Marxism (or Marxist-Leninism). When Stalin deviated from that, it was called Stalinism.

According to your criteria, you would have to call all of the above "Marxism," but you'd be incapable of distinguishing those different political economies, so you inadvertently render useless the meaning of "Marxism."

In fairness, a similar problem arises with any term that has been used to mean more than one thing over the years. Try comparing small-l liberal with Large-L Liberal with classical liberal with "liberal application of cayenne to the stew."

But after the smoke clears, the core distinction between the views of Marx and Lenin was that Marx saw communism as an inevitability -- something that would proceed from capitalism as certainly as teenage pregnancy proceeds from outdoor concerts. Lenin, on the other hand, believed it had to be manipulated into being. Really, anyone who actually engages in political activity to bring about communism is not a pure Marxist. A pure Marxist will sit in the library and wait for things to take their natural course.

That being said, an impure, many-hyphenated, flavour-enhanced Marxist is still a Marxist.

The underlined fails to include more distinctions between Marx and Lenin. In order for your position to be correct, Lenin would have to fulfill this criteria. According to a conversation I had with BvP, who studied Russian history, he was asserting that the Soviet Union under Lenin was much more free market orientated than I thought (thus is much less Marxist than those criteria).


Anyway, is this where you lead yourself to the conclusion that Obama is a Marxist?

Or is this where you agree with me after coming up with your own example of my "deviations from 100% Marxism" position?


What is to be done?

[Baron Von PWN]

That wasn't quite what I was going for BBS.

The idea I was trying to get across was that Soviet Russia under stalin could not be used to describe socialism as a political system. Mainly because there is a variety of political systems which are socialist. Stalinism being a rather extreme example.

It might be helpfull to think of a family tree of political ideologies.

Socialism branches off libralism,
off of socialism then branches a variety of political ideologies, democratic socialism, anarchy and marxism-communism. off of marxism you get still more branches.

To say Lennin wasn't a marxist would be silly. He clearly was, but he brought his own ideas to the table which led to an evolution away from what Marx had outlined.

So you might say Marxism is related to liberalism and technically correct as Marxism stems from liberal political. In the same way you could say English is related to Arabic and be technically correct because both languages come from the Indo-European language family.

[Dukasaur]

In fairness, a similar problem arises with any term that has been used to mean more than one thing over the years. Try comparing small-l liberal with Large-L Liberal with classical liberal with "liberal application of cayenne to the stew."

But after the smoke clears, the core distinction between the views of Marx and Lenin was that Marx saw communism as an inevitability -- something that would proceed from capitalism as certainly as teenage pregnancy proceeds from outdoor concerts. Lenin, on the other hand, believed it had to be manipulated into being. Really, anyone who actually engages in political activity to bring about communism is not a pure Marxist. A pure Marxist will sit in the library and wait for things to take their natural course.

That being said, an impure, many-hyphenated, flavour-enhanced Marxist is still a Marxist.

The underlined fails to include more distinctions between Marx and Lenin. In order for your position to be correct, Lenin would have to fulfill this criteria. According to a conversation I had with BvP, who studied Russian history, he was asserting that the Soviet Union under Lenin was much more free market orientated than I thought (thus is much less Marxist than those criteria).

Well, that's highly debatable. The N.E.P. was not really a desire to move towards a market economy; it was more of an admission of reality that the Communist party was facing too steep a learning curve in trying to regulate the whole economy at once, and so was willing to temporarily back off some sectors while completing its enslavement of others.

Merchants who became wealthy under the N.E.P. were soon "discovered" to be secret enemies of the working class and brought to "justice".

Anyway, is this where you lead yourself to the conclusion that Obama is a Marxist?

I don't actually think he is a Marxist at present. I'm sure he flirted with the idea during his younger years, as most people do at some point. I know of very few people, even people who are now very right wing, who didn't have some brief fling with Marxism at some point in their youth. His present behaviour, however, seems to indicate that he is quite comfortable with being a flunkie of the corporate elites, so whatever Marxist ideals he once held are probably just a poignant memory.

Or is this where you agree with me after coming up with your own example of my "deviations from 100% Marxism" position?

What is to be done?

I agree with you more than I disagree. I wasn't addressing the core of this thread at all, just making a tangential observation that you're not being fair to Scotty in introducing the difference between "pure" and "hyphenated" Marxism as a way to rebut his point.

[BigBallinStalin]

So here's where I was coming from in regard to PS and his claims:

1. In order to accurately label someone a Marxist, then they must meet my criteria, which entails being a Marxist in practice by following the Marxist goals.

2. PS could at least have argued that Obama met 10/whatever of the Marxist criteria, thus concluding that Obama is.. 90% Marxist? (or some hyphenated Marxist, as you say. Perhaps an Obamian Marxist, as it were!)

3. There's much back and forth, and then viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176862&start=150#p3883778
(PS seems to be calling him a Socialist of some sort, which isn't quite being a Marxist. And up to that point after much back-and-forth, it becomes clear that "Marxist" means "whatever PS wants it to mean.")


So, I agree with the importance and validity of your pure v. partial argument, but still most people can agree with good reasons that Obama is not a Marxist, but with some people like PhatScotty, we gotta wrangle him by the horns with the Marxist Criteria, pin him down, and see if that makes him any clearer. (and it did. Apparently, PS fits the Poll #1 description).

[BigBallinStalin]

I understand a lot of this stuff did not happen during his presidency, but that is not my standard of how to judge someone. If that is how you do it, fine, but if you ask me, this guy was born to be a Socialist, raised to be a Socialist, it continued into his college career, into his faith (Social Christianity, Social Justice). He talks the talk, and if he is re-elected he will walk the walk. It's hard to pin him down during his time as a Senator, because he voted "present" 97% of the time and his college records have been physically sealed (is there a reason for this? what is the reason?). I do not believe Obama just set down his Socialism that he was raised with and sought out into adulthood. No way. This guy is a Saul Alinsky Socialist, all the way. I mean, "Professor "Obama taught Alinsky in Chicago.

The standard is what he actually does.

The real fact here is that you consider ANYONE who doesn't embrace an extremely radical near far right agenda (in some areas you are far right, in others merely "conservative") to be "socialist" or "extremely liberal".

And that is even WITHOUT even considering why you seem to consider "socialism" about equivalent to "blood sacrificing Satanist".

Phatscotty - kettle
Player - pot
In this post, Player calls Phatscotty black.

Not even close, unless you are painting yourself there.

I always back up what I say with evidence. Just because I disagree with you on many cases doesn't mean I distort and judge by titles. Saying "I support Obama, but only because he is better than the alternatives" is a long stretch from "Obama is a socialist..derp"

I'ma gonna paint all three of ya black.

[BigBallinStalin]

That wasn't quite what I was going for BBS.

The idea I was trying to get across was that Soviet Russia under stalin could not be used to describe socialism as a political system. Mainly because there is a variety of political systems which are socialist. Stalinism being a rather extreme example.

It might be helpfull to think of a family tree of political ideologies.

Socialism branches off libralism,
off of socialism then branches a variety of political ideologies, democratic socialism, anarchy and marxism-communism. off of marxism you get still more branches.

To say Lennin wasn't a marxist would be silly. He clearly was, but he brought his own ideas to the table which led to an evolution away from what Marx had outlined.

So you might say Marxism is related to liberalism and technically correct as Marxism stems from liberal political. In the same way you could say English is related to Arabic and be technically correct because both languages come from the Indo-European language family.

I'm saying that Lenin isn't 100% Marxist, thus the label "Marxist-Leninist" or "what have you." Remember how you were mentioning how Lenin has a relatively more free market policy--compared to Stalinism? If that's true, then how does Lenin fit the Marxist criteria?

Sure, Lenin was strongly influenced by Marxism, but how much in practice could he be considered Marxist?
For example, would you agree with the following:

"between the views of Marx and Lenin was that Marx saw communism as an inevitability -- something that would proceed from capitalism as certainly as teenage pregnancy proceeds from outdoor concerts. Lenin, on the other hand, believed it had to be manipulated into being."


From my understanding of Lenin, he wasn't sincerely interested in the kind of Communism which Marx ultimately envisioned (i.e. the eventual stateless society). Lenin, in practice, was about production, consolidating his hold on the people, and using the state to increase economic well-being, so... how Marxist is that? (It doesn't seem Marxist to me, given the criteria of Marx's pure theory).



Then regardless, (going back to the main point), how does this relate to Obama?
(I'd think you say, Obama is not Marxist. Influenced? Sure, but... so what, amirite? Plenty of central planners and bureaucrats probably love many ideas of Marx, but that doesn't make them Marxist..., right?)

So you might say Marxism is related to liberalism and technically correct as Marxism stems from liberal political. In the same way you could say English is related to Arabic and be technically correct because both languages come from the Indo-European language family.

Yeah, sure, it's related, but not in many ways, so... what's your point here?

[Phatscotty]

I ain't goin nowhere!

Paul Krugman: PrimeTime Communist

Obama's favorite Economist! Just a coincidence though

[Phatscotty]

In fairness, a similar problem arises with any term that has been used to mean more than one thing over the years. Try comparing small-l liberal with Large-L Liberal with classical liberal with "liberal application of cayenne to the stew."

But after the smoke clears, the core distinction between the views of Marx and Lenin was that Marx saw communism as an inevitability -- something that would proceed from capitalism as certainly as teenage pregnancy proceeds from outdoor concerts. Lenin, on the other hand, believed it had to be manipulated into being. Really, anyone who actually engages in political activity to bring about communism is not a pure Marxist. A pure Marxist will sit in the library and wait for things to take their natural course.

That being said, an impure, many-hyphenated, flavour-enhanced Marxist is still a Marxist.

The underlined fails to include more distinctions between Marx and Lenin. In order for your position to be correct, Lenin would have to fulfill this criteria. According to a conversation I had with BvP, who studied Russian history, he was asserting that the Soviet Union under Lenin was much more free market orientated than I thought (thus is much less Marxist than those criteria).

Well, that's highly debatable. The N.E.P. was not really a desire to move towards a market economy; it was more of an admission of reality that the Communist party was facing too steep a learning curve in trying to regulate the whole economy at once, and so was willing to temporarily back off some sectors while completing its enslavement of others.

Merchants who became wealthy under the N.E.P. were soon "discovered" to be secret enemies of the working class and brought to "justice".

Anyway, is this where you lead yourself to the conclusion that Obama is a Marxist?

I don't actually think he is a Marxist at present. I'm sure he flirted with the idea during his younger years, as most people do at some point. I know of very few people, even people who are now very right wing, who didn't have some brief fling with Marxism at some point in their youth. His present behaviour, however, seems to indicate that he is quite comfortable with being a flunkie of the corporate elites, so whatever Marxist ideals he once held are probably just a poignant memory.

Or is this where you agree with me after coming up with your own example of my "deviations from 100% Marxism" position?

What is to be done?

I agree with you more than I disagree. I wasn't addressing the core of this thread at all, just making a tangential observation that you're not being fair to Scotty in introducing the difference between "pure" and "hyphenated" Marxism as a way to rebut his point.

Thanks for pointing that out. But for full disclosure, I am on Stalinistic probation, so he is being a little harder on the beaver than usual, but hey, at least it isn't Marxististicic probation!

[Phatscotty]

This one is about how Obama is NOT a Communist?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, cartoons.

[saxitoxin]

If someone hangs out with a Marxist (such as a professor), they are a Marxist.

BUT what happens if someone not only hangs out with a Marxist, but hugs said Marxist?

Is Chris Christie a Marxist?



"This candy will be redistributed!"

[BigBallinStalin]

His tie is photoshopped.

[Woodruff]

I understand a lot of this stuff did not happen during his presidency, but that is not my standard of how to judge someone.

Of course not. Your only standard is SOCIALISM!!!!! That's all you ever needed.

My God...just your sentence there repels logic.

[Woodruff]

I understand a lot of this stuff did not happen during his presidency, but that is not my standard of how to judge someone. If that is how you do it, fine, but if you ask me, this guy was born to be a Socialist, raised to be a Socialist, it continued into his college career, into his faith (Social Christianity, Social Justice). He talks the talk, and if he is re-elected he will walk the walk. It's hard to pin him down during his time as a Senator, because he voted "present" 97% of the time and his college records have been physically sealed (is there a reason for this? what is the reason?). I do not believe Obama just set down his Socialism that he was raised with and sought out into adulthood. No way. This guy is a Saul Alinsky Socialist, all the way. I mean, "Professor "Obama taught Alinsky in Chicago.

The standard is what he actually does.

The real fact here is that you consider ANYONE who doesn't embrace an extremely radical near far right agenda (in some areas you are far right, in others merely "conservative") to be "socialist" or "extremely liberal".

And that is even WITHOUT even considering why you seem to consider "socialism" about equivalent to "blood sacrificing Satanist".

Phatscotty - kettle
Player - pot
In this post, Player calls Phatscotty black.

Not even close, unless you are painting yourself there.

I always back up what I say with evidence.

Uh...I'm gonna go with "no" on that one. Though you do at least usually try to present a more cogent argument than a video someone else made.

[Woodruff]

So you're a Marxist? Who knew?

[Phatscotty]

Poll Results: Obama is somewhat Marxist or more 23 to not a Marxist 14

I win again. It's always 2 to 1 or better (poll on racism is better than 4 outta 5 )

The trick remains to be aware of what is happening while it is happening. When you wait for years for the information to come to you, to be "okayed" by the media, you are always going to be way too late, and look foolish the entire time, like in that one thread about how Obama sold Coke and snorted massive lines and went on to work for the CIA as a "consultant", yet many people still are not aware and would even lash out that it's an unfair attack and lies, when it's the absolute truth

[chang50]

Obama is not remotely a Marxist,by international standards he is a moderate conservative..

[Phatscotty]

Obama is not remotely a Marxist,by international standards he is a moderate conservative..

because we know everything about him....he's the most open president Ever!

So, who is on the other end of Obama's specially encrypted blackberry?

[Iliad]

Obama is not remotely a Marxist,by international standards he is a moderate conservative..

because we know everything about him....he's the most open president Ever!

So, who is on the other end of Obama's specially encrypted blackberry?

Obv Muhammad. And Chomsky. And Stalin. His blackberry is so well encrypted it can reach past the veil of death or ridiculous right wing conspiracies.

[BigBallinStalin]

Obama is not remotely a Marxist,by international standards he is a moderate conservative..

because we know everything about him....he's the most open president Ever!

So, who is on the other end of Obama's specially encrypted blackberry?

Obv Muhammad. And Chomsky. And Stalin. His blackberry is so well encrypted it can reach past the veil of death or ridiculous right wing conspiracies.

I just got confirmation from my specially encrypted blackberry that Stalin has had conversations with Obama on public policy. Stalin sounded very happy about it.

[Phatscotty]

Obama is not remotely a Marxist,by international standards he is a moderate conservative..

because we know everything about him....he's the most open president Ever!

So, who is on the other end of Obama's specially encrypted blackberry?

Obv Muhammad. And Chomsky. And Stalin. His blackberry is so well encrypted it can reach past the veil of death or ridiculous right wing conspiracies.

I just got confirmation from my specially encrypted blackberry that Stalin has had conversations with Obama on public policy. Stalin sounded very happy about it.

indeed...

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin sure has changed over the years.