Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
By Any Definition, Barack Obama is a Socialist
Share: 
by BMCWrites | April 1, 2009 at 11:15 am
459 views | 0 Recommendations | 14 comments
Many Americans find it difficult to place their trust in President Barack Obama. Why? Because, by any definition*, he is a socialist intent upon forcing socialism on the people of the United States. Don't believe it? Then consider three definitions of "socialism," courtesy of Merriam-Webster.
Definition #1: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
In line with the definition above, we've seen President Obama's federal government seize partial ownership of automakers, banks and other financial institutions and insurance companies, to name a few.
According to Bill Gross at Pensions & Investments Online, government ownership and control of vital financial and manufacturing institutions will politely be described as “industrial based” policy and “burden sharing,” but we should have no doubt that we will move significantly away from the free market model that has dominated capitalistic countries for the past 25 years.
Definition #2: A system of society or group living in which there is no private property a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Per the second definition, we've seen AIG employees have their legal employment contracts essentially nullified and have their legal bonuses seized via bully tactics implemented by President Obama, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and others in Congress.
In a Daily Press article today, economist Walter Williams writes that he is "all too afraid that a historian, a hundred years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government but it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs — arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite."
Definition #3: A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
The third definition brings to mind not-too-distant images of a presidential nominee advocating the redistribution of Americans' wealth. As recently as this morning, an Associated Press headline tried and convicted President Obama for breaking the promise he made to not raise taxes on poor people. See PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke for details. Welcome to the "Land of Hope and Change."
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (14)
at 11:36 on April 1st, 2009
People need to stop throwing the word socialism around without understanding how it came to be as a theory, how it has evolved (like all theories) and what it really means to be socialist. Let me state right now that I do not consider myself a socialist person but I also know that socialism is not an ideology born of evil intent.
There is nothing wrong with attempting to move human ideology beyond the self serving "me first" attitudes so prevalent in Western culture today. Whether you agree with it or not socialist theory comes from a place of wanting to do right by the whole of humanity as opposed to furthering the comfort of an elite few at the expense of all the rest.
This more humane society is something that we have been moving toward long before capitalism v. socialism was the political debate of the day. See the prologue to "The Great Depression Ahead" by Harry Dent for a nice description of how human culture has naturally evolved to think more of the whole and less of the individual. I also recommend looking at "The Origin of Financial Crisises" by George Cooper to see how capitalism has become corrupted to the point of failure.
This article is one of my favourites when it comes to explaining the socialist ideal. It was written in 1949 by a man you may have heard of, Albert Einstein. The article is very long but I urge you to give it a read. In it Einstein writes;
Source: monthlyreview.org
at 14:56 on April 1st, 2009
Tina -- It wasn't a stretch to find the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's three definitions of "socialism" and find examples of how the Obama Administration is performing in line with those definitions. So I'll just keep "throwing the word 'socialism' around."
at 16:02 on April 1st, 2009
Cultural bias does play a role in definitions.
at 07:19 on April 28th, 2009
Sorry Tina, you are the smartest fool out around.
I like your reference to Einstein, and you may be able to see what's wrong with socialism if you think it through.
Try to think about how the masses of people will behave if we are in a socialist society. Do you think people would "do what's right", "do what's amazing", or "do what's necessary" or "do what's easy" ? Capitalism set's every American's goal on "do what's amazing" and our rewards are great. You want to turn everybody into a slug, who sits around watching PBS (I was going to say Jerry Springer, but he'll be gone too)
It's admirable for you to think the best of people on an individual basis, but it's bullshit for you to do this on the whole.
I honestly do think that you are smart, but you just need to think this through.
at 07:20 on April 28th, 2009
Sorry Tina, you are the smartest fool out around.
I like your reference to Einstein, and you may be able to see what's wrong with socialism if you think it through.
Try to think about how the masses of people will behave if we are in a socialist society. Do you think people would "do what's right", "do what's amazing", or "do what's necessary" or "do what's easy" ? Capitalism set's every American's goal on "do what's amazing" and our rewards are great. You want to turn everybody into a slug, who sits around watching PBS (I was going to say Jerry Springer, but he'll be gone too)
It's admirable for you to think the best of people on an individual basis, but it's bullshit for you to do this on the whole.
I honestly do think that you are smart, but you just need to think this through.
at 13:19 on April 1st, 2009
Banks and automakers got a LOAN
Do you know what a LOAN is?
Why is it that Conservatives/ Republicans are so unable to resist the urge to pin alarmist labels on Democrats?
at 14:57 on April 1st, 2009
Take off those rose-colored glasses, 'tuber. They're blinding you!
at 12:15 on April 1st, 2009
This is the same "author" that equated Obama and Mugabe as both African leaders intent on ravaging their country.
Now he has the socialistic label out too
Just ignnore him - he doesn't warrant any intention...just pity
at 13:18 on April 1st, 2009
lol
at 14:58 on April 1st, 2009
please!? -- Can't even afford to get a "free" NowPublic account? Oh, I get it: you're waiting for one to be given to you.
at 15:35 on April 1st, 2009
George Orwell's contention was that it is a sure sign of trouble when things can no longer be called by their right names and described in plain, forthright speech.
Christopher Lasch
http://my.nowpublic.com/world/obama-i-am-no-socialist
Roy C
Esta, socialist oriented teachers and professors have gone out of their way to make believe that so-called "scientific socialism" would have been good if only Trotsky had taken over instead of Stalin!
Live in Berkeley and learn. The left lies about this, just as there are Holocaust Deniers on the right.
Why can't you agree that if the government own the presses and controls the media and the army and the police and the universities, that is has absolute power and that with absolute power comes absolute corruption?
That is why socialist societies break down. They are parasitic at the top, worse than our form of capitalism. They have no accountabilty, no opposition, no Freedom of Speech.
Even in Italy, if a comedian makes too many jokes about certain politicians, he finds he cannot work anymore. And worse happens.
The Italian gov't owns banks, three TV stations, car companies, subidizes the press, which would die without the gov't money, and the state has a way to suppress dissent.
Roy C
at 15:50 on March 9th, 2009
Bad side of socialism: Marxist-Leninist socialist governments killed about a hundred million people, Esta. And Cuba has no real civil rights. Gay rights is a big issue here at NowPublic, but Castro has been far more repressive of gays than the US has.
Good side of socialism: democratic socialism: the Germans actually have a better economic system than we have, but, strictly speaking, it is not totally socialist. It has socialist elements, but still manages to have a trade surplus, something we never do.
They actually have a med system I would like.
But Wall Street is in a panic and they are afraid that they will have to pay for bailouts by ceding control .
Sorry, but if you need our money, we get to control your business.
So, the clamoring about "socialism" is designed to prevent the real excesses of bad government socialism to some small extent, while also fighting off the good side of a democratic socialism that would take away their power on Wall Street.
at 17:48 on April 13th, 2009
Perhaps if socialism didn't carry such a negative connotation in American culture, calling Obama a socialist would have little to no effect. In the European Union many countries that we would consider democratic have nationalized parts, if not all, of their economy.
Also, in response to the article you have hyperlinked "Promises Promises: Obama Tax Pledge Up In Smoke", Obama did not intentionally raise the taxes of the poor. Having the poor be effected was an externality and I apologize if the prices of your cigarettes went up.
at 07:11 on April 28th, 2009
Your name fits you well, Waffles.
at 07:21 on April 28th, 2009
Sorry Tina, you are the smartest fool out around.
I like your reference to Einstein, and you may be able to see what's wrong with socialism if you think it through.
Try to think about how the masses of people will behave if we are in a socialist society. Do you think people would "do what's right", "do what's amazing", or "do what's necessary" or "do what's easy" ? Capitalism set's every American's goal on "do what's amazing" and our rewards are great. You want to turn everybody into a slug, who sits around watching PBS (I was going to say Jerry Springer, but he'll be gone too)
It's admirable for you to think the best of people on an individual basis, but it's bullshit for you to do this on the whole.
I honestly do think that you are smart, but you just need to think this through.