Is Obama a Socialist? An Answer to Milos Forman
To make this case hardly “cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism,” as Forman claims. The problem is that the social-democratic governments in Europe that Forman claims only favor “government provision of social insurance and health care” have their own serious problems. Most conservatives favor a social safety net, adequate health care, and other common-sense measures. What they do oppose is the limitless welfare state that seemingly never ends in its quest to further extend its grasp, in a manner that produces a whole new set of problems and brings modern economies to a grinding halt.
The problem of the social welfare states in Europe was addressed most succinctly by Josef Joffe in a review of the late Tony Judt’s book Ill Fares the Land, in which Judt argued for real social democracy in the United States. Joffe, editor and publisher of the German newspaper Die Zeit, wrote the following:
The central problem with “Ill Fares the Land” is a classic fallacy of the liberal-left intelligentsia, more in Europe than in the United States. Call it the “Doctor State Syndrome.” The individual is greedy, misguided or blind. The state is the Hegelian embodiment of the right and the good that floats above the fray. But the state does not. It is a party to the conflict over “who gets what, when and how,” to recall Harold Lasswell’s definition of politics. It makes its own pitch for power; it creates privileges, franchises and clienteles. This is why it is so hard to rein in, let alone cut back. The modern welfare state creates a new vested interest with each new entitlement. It corrupts as it does good.
Joffe also points to the failures of the very welfare states in Europe, like Sweden and France, that American left-liberals have extolled for quite some time. The West, according to the social democrats, has succumbed to greed, egotism, and to false free-market prophets like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. “The wages of sin [to the social-democrats],” Joffe puts it, “are the loss of community, trust, equality and social justice. And the true god…is European-style social democracy à la Scandinavia.” But, as he adds,
the market is the best information system known to man: it has millions broadcasting in real time what is offered and what is wanted at what price. This is why capitalism learns from its crises, whereas the Soviet Union just accumulated them until it collapsed.
I don’t expect filmmakers, even one as good as Milos Forman, to understand the degree to which communist ideas have penetrated the ranks of liberal anticommunism, sometimes called “right-wing social democrats” by the anarchist strain of the Left. I showed one example of Stalinoid propaganda here: http://clarespark.com/2012/07/09/hbo-does-gellhorn-in-red/. Another one is here: http://clarespark.com/2012/06/03/connecting-vs-connecting-the-dots/. The only alternative we have to New Left anti-imperialism is Parsonian structural functionalism, a “moderate” ideology that sees “class” as a life-style choice. Conservatives need to know what they are fighting.
Clare, and to add to your excellent post, I offer up some of my relevant commentary on the subject at hand. My blog is chock full of my commentaries, and op-eds, related to the above dangers.
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/01/leftist-dogma-the-same-world-over-freedom-loving-people-beware-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-32-2/
Alinsky garners prominent attention too….read the whole thing.
Clare and Adina you both wrote excellent well thought out posts on your blogs. They are certainly a must read for anyone concerned about this issue and so is the post on my blog. I think the both of you will be not only informed but inspired by my blog post and I urge you and the readers at PJM to check it out.
In these perilous times, all that stands between our country and the slippery slide into socialism are independent blogs that are only focused on exposing on what is really happening and not what they are telling us is happening.
I would provide links to my insights but they are too many to link, simply click my name to be taken to the repository of my vast writings in defense of our great country.
Adina, are you a supporter of Israeli Knessemember Michael Ben-Ari? Do you consider him to be a freedom lover?
Adina, are you a supporter of Israeli Knesset member Michael Ben-Ari? Do you consider him to be a freedom lover?
Baryshnikov too should know better that to tell reporters (in Holland) how he supports Obama and is concerned about income disparity in the US.
Your response does not go far enough, Ron — european-style socialism has roots in (not just ideological but through KGB money and operatives) in Soviet totalitarianism, and the system’s incentives are set up to lead to progressively totalitarian structures.
Baryshnikov never abandoned his nomenklatura outlook.
I keep saying, Obama’s not a socialist. He’s not *smart* enough to be a socialist. Socialists imagine that, if they run *every* aspect of an economy, they can “manage” prosperity. Obama seems to think that prosperity comes from leaving the private sector running (because that’s where the money is, to quote Willie Sutton, another expert in wealth-spreading) but burden it with ever-higher regulatory costs and taxes. He apparently imagines that doing this will have no effect on the economic success of individual companies, and would never chase them out of the country. The more we raise taxes, the more money we get for the Good Things we want to spend the money on.
I’m telling you, he’s not smart enough to be a socialist…
I screwed up that sentence in the middle of the paragraph: “…but burdening it with ever-higher regulatory costs and taxes, will just increase the government’s income indefinitely, in a sort of economic perpetual-motion machine. He apparently…”
There, that’s better. It’s often said that you can’t proof-read your own writing, and I’m a prime example…
You’re leaving out the other half of the myth. Everybody knows there’s only so much money to go around and most of it is being hoarded by The Rich. Once we tap into their vast fortunes, there will be enough to pay for everything we want!
But the money is not yours. It is not community property.
This is what is wrong with our country today, too many people think they should have access to everything people have worked hard for. If I am poor and you’re not, I shouldn’t feel as if I should be more wealthy simply because you are.
Mr. Obama having been raised in foreign lands obviously was never taught the tale of the goose who laid the golden eggs as a boy. Now as a grown up he has to reject the fable as it is in direct conflict with his master plan to bleed the rich who will of course simply continue to go along with his efforts.
Government estimates are always predicated on the approach of change one thing and assume nothing else changes, a single variable calculation, which makes it possible to grasp a dynamic situation. Unfortunately, that ain’t how real life works, ever. When you take more from anyone than they feel is justified they will modify their situation to compensate, moving from taxable revenue streams to sheltered ones. You may get them the first year, but the next it mostly all goes away. But then it’s never really been about revenue anyway. It’s all about “fairness.”
You’re right. He’s hopped right over Socialism straight to Communism. The man is a Marxist through and through – a racist, anti-Zionist, anti-Semite who frequently paraphrases the Communist Manifesto in his speeches. Every single thing that he supports is one of the ten pillars of Communism. He supports Kensyian economics which exists solely to support a Socialistic/Communistic agenda. He is a dangerous, unbalanced individual who will steer us straight into totalitarianism. We have to vote him out or impeach him.
You don’t have to be smart to be a socialist, just greedy for power. As evidence, I offer the following:
Socialism in a nutshell: “Every senior manager is responsible for a business of great importance and should get good nutrition” (in plain English, screw the proletariat!).
A. Mikoyan, Stalin-era Bolshevik and one-time Premier of the USSR.
aallison,
Precisely: i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini were each of mediocre intelligence. You don’t need to be “smart” to be a socialist or a Marxist.
I grew up in Europe an lived there for 31 years. I can recognize the vibes of socialism when they try to catch up with me. This president is in tune with the socialists, so it does not matter whether he fits some formal definition of a what a socialist exactly is. What matters is that, by the agenda he is pushing, he is a the functional equivalent of a socialist, and he has already done a lot of damage.
The US constitution does not have a “Let me help you” clause, nor does it need one. We have some serious cleanup to do. The very identity of America is at stake.
You are absolutely right. There is a clause in the preamble that reads “promote the general welfare”. It does read “provide for the welfare of all individuals”. Barack Obama’s agenda correlates more to that of Karl Marx than to the US Constitution, no matter what twists the Bolsheviks put on it in their own interpretations. I say Barack Hussein is a Communist who is forced, only by political constraints, to push for Fascism instead. Pundits and opinion writers aside, we will decide what to do about him in November. We will be well advised to consider that, once he wins that election, there won’t be as much constraint on his preferred agenda. ABO2012
Sorry, I meant to say It does NOT read.
With all due respect to Mr. Forman, his experience was with socialism/communism fully evolved. It was forced on the Russian people via revolution and civil war, and on eastern Europe by conquest. So he completely missed the peacetime evolution of Liberal/Progressives who seek year in and year out to “progress” in growing the Big all-intrusive Government that will progressively produce a socialist/communist “dictatorship of the proletariat.” He needs to look again at the “progressive” agenda, and take it to its logical conclusion.
I thought PJM had some good blogs some time back showing that BHO is a fascist, like Mussolini of Italy and Peron of Argentina. Fascism is a subset of Socialism. A fascist ruler likes to have the private sector strong enough to obey him. Some other socialists want to destroy private business as a sector of the economy.
I agree. I place Obama and his admin in the Peron strain of the infection. They have followed, step by predictable step, every failure that Peron, and more recently the Kirchners, took. It is easy to see the next steps Obama will take by looking at these histories and outcomes.
While Peron and Kirchners took on nationalization of labor,market and assets, Obama continues to pick his favorites and losers through largesse taxpayer funding or selective punitive regualtory enforcement.
He sindicates and supports the ones that follow his guiding hands, even after they flee the country and build their new plants and staff in other countries (whihc they are entitled to do, just not with stimulus and no-bid gov contracts, please…. I need a job here in the US). The term I saw here in PJmedia was syndicalist socialism at Rubin’s article, a good one. http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/04/10/needed-a-marxist-style-analysis-to-understand-and-combat-the-extreme-lefts-hegemony/
Yes, I lived in Argentina and my father was the economic advisor leading the recovery from Peron and the monetary financial collapse but this does not make me an expert. Living under a socialistic gov at the age of 6 does not make someone else an expert on socialism but they are entitled to their own opinion.
“Is Obama a Socialist?”
Only if Benito Mussolini was, and he was.
Absolutely true. It kills me when people refer to Socialists like Hitler and Mussolini and call them the far right. If I could hope anything for this country it would be to re-introduce accurate American History and Civics courses back into High Schools. It’s one thing for a country to decide that they LIKE Socialism and vote for it (though I would argue that it would be a suicidal move) and quite another to be saddled by stealth Socialists/Communists who pretend to be something else. Most young people today would be quite surprised to learn that Hitler’s early years were filled with passing environmental regulations, legalizing abortion and eugenics, beginning sports and fitness related youth organizations and working together with trade unions to bargain for more benefits. There is nothing new under the sun.
You are right F.Cat, Obamaa is much more Mussolini than Fabian. His stimulus and wild spending on “Green” energy was more about fascist money funneling than a socialist utopian dream of transforming Amerika.
Spot on!
Obama is more of a twenty-first century fascist than any other single word historical description. His use of “Corporatism” is both due to the immediate history of the United States, and the convenience of keeping the governing of such entities as General Motors nominally independent and thus available to demonize. Among historical fascists, I understand that Juan Peron is the most similar to Obama.
One striking distinction between Obama and his historical antecedents is that he appears to hate and despise his own country. He certainly has taken steps to weaken it on the global stage. The only case where I recall that would be the Quislings the Red Army installed in Eastern Europe, who needed to maintain their country’s subservience to Moscow.
Excellent observation; Hitler the Austrian embraced his inner German, Mussolini wanted to recreate the glory of Rome, Stalin promoted the Mother Country, Obama has spanned the globe to bow and grovel for America’s sins.
Y’all are fixated with the wrong continent and cultural background. Obama and his lickspittles admire above most the the glorious results of the Chinese communists and are following a non-violent (so far, as much as it pains them) Maoist march over the USA.
Even the Maoists loved their country and promoted the Han peoples.
Isnt trying to dissempower/destroy the Chinese people via mass immigration/open borders/multiculturalism/diversity promotion.
What Obama is pushing is the ideas of socialism through different means that still get the effective control over the economy and people the Communist sought. You use capitalism by making Big Business a co-partner in what you are pushing on Green Energy and then you tell the tech companies they can be co-managers of the data needed to create a sustainable economy. All of which this Administration has done. The computer/tech nexus was in a report issued last week.
In Education the new Common Core standards and everything being mandated nationally pursuant to them in K-12 and higher ed is based on the Marxist/Dietzgen theory of the mind. You don’t get anymore socialist than targeting consciousness itself.
This DoED has expressly rejected all the research about how the human mind actually works because it “was too narrowly focused on individual thinking and learning.” That’s from a report released this week. That is very much the theory of the mind the Soviets dreamed of getting their subjects to adopt.
The sociocultural, situated perspective, Obama is mandating for all American students is grounded in the work of Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky. He developed it to create the perfect Marxist consciousness. The documents leave that part of its history out but note that they are adopting the sociocultural theory and model of the mind because it applies to all individuals.
Everything surrounding the Positive School Climate that this Administration is mandating in those NCLB waivers tracks back to social and emotional learning attempts to target consciousness or communitarianist beliefs about the individual.
I have written a lot on many of these education pushes and the Belmont Forum/Future Earth Alliance economic restructuring of the West Obama has apparently got John Holdren and the NSF working on. That sociocultural ed mandate for all will certainly help.
Monday I wrote about the partnership education/Caring Economics push coming in as part of Student Wellbeing and Outcomes Based Education. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/rigor-relevance-and-relationships-the-new-3rs-to-get-to-a-caring-economics/ .
If someone that connected (the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation was behind the work) says they are pushing the successor economics to capitalism and socialism through education, we should take their word for it when it fits all the known facts.
Robin, thanks for this. I’ve visited your website (invisible serf’s collar) and appreciate very much the exposé that you present of the Common Core standards.
Do you have an explanation for why they are being adapted so readily with so little (that I’m aware of) public discussion? Is it just another steamroller effect that we can thank the uncritical media for (i.e., since it’s an initiative under Obama, it must be good)?
Last time there were ‘national’ standards proposed, like for history instruction, we had Bill Bennett and people like that leading the charge. Or have I missed the discussion while focusing on the content I need to explain and teach to my students?
Federal money Suzanne and then the chance for more through Race to the Top. Plus the feds pay half to 3/4′s of most state DOEs unbeknownst to most state legislators so the advice is always skewed.
There was talk about tying it to all federal aid and the states know they cannot comply with the 2014 ALL students meeting AYP and the waiver also required commitment to Common Core.
My stuff says over and over again it is not about the content. That’s just the PR campaign to get the new assessments in place to keep track of the changes to the individual student. Most of those changes, the continuous improvement you may hear about, is in desired social and emotional learning. Apart from that it is generic skills like communicate, collaborate, do a project. Then the group project is the assessment for all involved.
You are using school to change the student which is why it is called formative assessment. One of the OECD’s charming pushes globally. Ties into the future desired Green Economy.
Then the final enforcer is the accreditation agencies. Most are now owned by one entity and they follow UNESCO’s desired goals for using education to changes cultures in the West. You do that by making values, attitudes, emotions, and behavioral practices the focus.
The only thing that can stop this is public recognition it is happening. I just got back from a luncheon where I raised the issue of the unprecedented power of the accreditors. Speaker was unaware. Someone came up to me afterwards to thank me. That they had just gone through accreditation and had been shocked at what they were being asked to do. With participation in the federal student loan program at stake higher ed has no choice. If higher ed is compromised and you have gone to subjective portfolio based assessment in K-12 where the artefact creates proof of learning, there’s no one to ring the bells of alarm that have gone off in past.
Thanks for your answer.
What’s really frightening is that most people hear “more rigor,” and think it means harder courses taught to tougher standards. That’s what everyone who wants kids to learn stuff surely wants!
And then, from what you detail, it turns out that that’s just rhetoric covering a political / cultural agenda, which I’m sure most of our parents wouldn’t agree with…
We need new words. Fighting the last groups of thieves.
Obama is a street smart thug.
He is trying to build a perfect coalition of interest groups which will function as a permanent governing majority. It is composed of the poor (those dependant upon the government); those who are paid by the government for their services – the “civil servants” (I avoid the word work because these people are generally overpaid and under-worked); those who pay for access and in return receive transfers of wealth (the crony capitalists); the somewhat talented (Hollywood); the somewhat educated (Academia) and the know-it-all know littles (the Media).
The flaw in Obama’s philosophy is that the little red hens can only create so much wealth to be distributed when they do not have economic liberty.
You forgot the persons of color other than white with whom he wants to construct a minority-majority to seize control of the power and wealth; the illegals with whom he shares a wanton willingness to undermine the laws of our nation; and the public sector unions with whom he shares the idea that the private citizen is their personal bank account.
Marxists of all stripes *love* to ignore the point that the ONLY reason so-called Social Democratic states of Europe are ABLE to exist is because their Free Market aspects are in a position to carry the burden of their Socialist/Marxist features. After that? Well lookie see these days….
“Of course Obama is NOT a communist. He is an elected leader of a politically democratic republic.”
Mr. Radosh, not to beg Godwin’s Law, but you’re forgetting there was another politician who was *also* an elected leader of a republic…known as the Weimar Republic….
It can also be pointed out that those social-democracies were able to survive as long as they did because they put their entire defensive burden upon another country (the US) during the entirety of the Cold War.
There the hard, George Orwell ’1984′ brand of totalitarianism and then there’s the soft, coercive, stupifying, Aldous Huxley ‘Brave New World’ flavor of totalitarianism.
Forman speaks of the former, while Obama is more characteristic of the latter.
The problem is that the latter form – the soft, ‘nice’ totalitarianism – invariably assumes the form of the former one as its policies fail and people begin to resist.
What 0 and his acolytes/minions are aiming at is national socialism, pure and simple. He uses class warfare, wars on women/minorities/immigrants and the other tools of Alinsky, et al. He wants power forever for the “Democratic” party. He is totally o.k. with using the money from Wall Street tycoons and the entertainment/media complex to push his agenda. We now have a nascent group of “Brown Shirts” stalking Republican candidates in several states to both intimidate them and to try to take them down with voters. If you don’t think this works look at what happened to George Allen in Virginia in 2006 with his “macaca” moment.
Make no mistake about it. National Socialism as birthed in Germany and Italy, and elsewhere in Europe, in the 1930s would perfectly fit the desires of today’s Democrats in the U.S. in their quest for eternal power. If they get it the state will not be seen as “benevolent” in any way, shape, or form.
You don’t even need to go back as far as 2006. Look what was done to Herman Cain and all the phoney mistresses that came out of the woodwork and then disappeared into obscurity after he ceased his campaign.
“Most conservatives favor a social safety net, adequate health care, and other common-sense measures. What they do oppose is the limitless welfare state that seemingly never ends in its quest to further extend its grasp, in a manner that produces a whole new set of problems and brings modern economies to a grinding halt.”
Not only that, but the logical end of the road of the limitless welfare state is Greece, as well as Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. They, too, have a democratic form of government and what did it get them? Bankruptcy, and their populations are now paying the horrible price for it in massive unemployment, sky-high taxes, and a large reduction in benefits, all because they are now officially broke. It’s only going to be a matter of time before Italy and especially Spain join Greece in total poverty with absolutely no hope of paying back any of their debts.
The Euro is a giant ponzi scheme that is just now beginning to fall apart and most of the nations in the European Union are about to feel the effects of that crash. And why? Because for almost 70 years after the end of World War II the Europeans actually believed that there WAS such a thing as a free lunch. You COULD have unlimited benefits and somebody else would get stuck with the bill. THAT is socialism and it’s now blowing up in their faces. Couldn’t happen to a “nicer” bunch of people.
Trouble is, are Americans learning anything from that? Right now, I don’t think so. But the real answer will come in November. If Obama is defeated, it will be a rejection of socialism. If not, then the American public is so far gone that they will, like the Europeans, believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch.
The definition of socialist (http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm) is one who favors low-level government management of the economy. Communists do this by nationalizing industries and banks; fascists do it by favoring large corporations that they then control through regulation and by placing government representatives on the boards of directors. If anything, you could make an argument that Obama is a fascist. He is certainly a socialist.
What did Barack Obama mean by “fundamental transformation” of the United States? Did he write a manifesto? Did he have a plan? A thesis? Surely he thought about it before announcing an agenda of this magnitude, right? Did he write it down? Where is it?
The truth is that the comment was never anything more than a rhetorical flourish offered to his deluded followers, high-sounding but vacuous at its core, like the man himself. Obama is a sophomoric thinker at best, and he has no plan. Is he a Marxist or a social democrat? He’s neither because he has no core values and no coherent philosophy of government. His administration is characterized by ad hoc solutions to whatever crisis seems important at the moment. Even then he dithers (recall the gulf oil spill). How can a man so lacking in basic knowledge (corpse man/corpsman, Maldives/Malvinas) be given credit as a deep thinker? Aside from an antipathy for the American way of life, he has revealed no motivations other than a desire for power.
Barack Obama is just another in a long line of corrupt Democratic politicians who use the public treasury to keep themselves in office. He’s in over his head and he has no idea what he’s doing. The only thing we know for sure is that he lusts for power and the perks it brings with it. His autobiography is a fiction, and his persona is entirely contrived. He has no skills other than a talent for self-promotion. If he did have any ideas, he’d be dangerous. But he doesn’t. He’s just incompetent.
Barack Obama… He’s just incompetent.
I gotta disagree. Prez Barack Hussein is happily in the role of Closer. After a lifetime of preparation for the job (his dad a philandering card-carrying Commie, his mom a committed globo-socialist), Hussein studied at the feet of the card-carrier Franklin Marshall Davis, or Frank, on whom the FBI carried one of its biggest files of leftists working for the overthrow of the United States.
No, Hussein isn’t an incompetent. In fact, thus far he’s been a resounding success. ObamaCare is his biggest accomplishment, taking a growing sixth of the economy into a legitimized structure socialist-funded wealth transfer. We’ll see if that success will be carried through by beating “opponent” Mitt, whereupon he will pull the trigger to implement globalism through immigration “reform,” and then economic central planning through Cap and Trade.
Despite his upbringing Obama is no more than a faculty lounge communist at best (unlike William Ayers who understood the necessity to eliminate or incarcerate 40 million Americans). A hard-core communist would know how to handle the Tea Party (find the ring leaders, take names, start a file on every one of them for future prosecution). Don’t ascribe to malice what is more easily explained by incompetence.
Do you think Obama even understands the complexity of the healthcare law that bears his name? Do you think he’s even read it? No, it’s just the type of grandiose plan that flatters his ego, nothing more. Obama is simply too lazy to bother with the details of legislation. That’s why he let Pelosi and Reid do the heavy lifting.
His redistributionist schemes are meant to “fundamentally transform” America? No, he’s interested in packing the ballot box. And buying as many votes as possible. His only consideration is for himself and his re-election. He’s a party boy without energy or interest that attend to the nuts and bolts of running a country. He’s a fraud and he’s corrupt, but he’s no revolutionary.
the worst necessarily rise to the top
obama knows full well what he can get away with and he goes to the limit every time. If he walked around with a hammer and sycle on his shirt he would have been impeached, so the fact that he hasn’t done something as extreme as his salivating groupies would like him to do is irrelevant.
he’s playing the long game. And it isn’t all that long either. One more term and we’re done. No recovery possible.
If you don’t think his end game is just like every other end game the leftists have ever played, you are a foolish person.
Socialism is an endgame, and it always ends badly. Thatcher famously said that socialists eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. My corollary to her remark runs as follows: socialist governments are eventually driven from power when the money runs out. It’s happening in Europe at this very moment. The choice in the end is to endure national bankruptcy and start over, or to allow socialism to metastasize into full-blown communism with all its inherent evils.
While it might be comforting to believe this I doubt it is true. This man rose from nothing to the most powerful presidency in the world. Percy Sutton, once the most famous civil rights attorney in the country, claimed on national t.v. that Obama’s Harvard Law School entrance was facilitated and paid for by the Saudi prince. It makes absolutely no sense that this backwater community rabble-rouser is suddenly catapulted from a low-wage, go-nowhere job to Harvard Law School, becomes president of the Law Review, is elected to the Senate (after his running mates are mysteriously disqualified after sealed records about them are opened to the public), votes overwhelmingly more “present” than “for” or “against” any bill, is elected president of the United States and wins the Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” after serving in the office for just nine months! Smells to me like a lot of money being thrown at someone by very powerful outside interests. I believe it’s all about the U.N. and moving this country closer to global governance.
Do you think Obama even understands the complexity of the healthcare law that bears his name? Do you think he’s even read it? No…
You’re whipping a straw dog, Paules, cuz I never believed either of those things. And neither matters.
His job ain’t to understand what he’s doing except the paramount mission of how to get us fully converted over to globo-socialism, and he’s doing swimmingly at that. He’s doing well to a good extent cuz he’s a slick talking black American. True, he’s neither: he’s a mulato and a born Kenyan. But what the hell, the man is armed with a globo-socialist inculcation, the finest in fake education, a teleprompter and an army of news entertainers acting as his opinion programming arm.
The man is highly effective. We’ll see how he does in the election against his “opponent” Mitt. Interestingly, both are Harvard Men, and that’s doggoned impressive.
He may be dumber than a bag of rocks, but he’s focused – even if someone else if=s pulling his strings. The first thing he did as president was to lock himself in a room for about 48 hours and used executive orders to repeal every one of Ronald Reagans policies to keep the economy going. He hated Ronald Reagan so much that when he signed his final executive order unravelling all Reagan has accomplished he made sure he did it in the Ronald Reagan Building.
When he can’t get his way with congress, he bypasses them and uses the executive orders. He ignores the courts when they don’t ge his way (there is a current contempt of court order against him regarding the oil moratorium he issued) and he uses his attorney general to wage lawfare against states that try and defend themselves against his policies.
That’s no dummy, that is a focused attack.
Focused? Yeah, on golf, vacations, and fundraising. The bureaucracy is running on auto-pilot and it’s staffed with statist apparachiks. Obama defers to his czars who are equally incompetent (who could possibly have thought Fast & Furious was a good idea?). Sure, Obama is a left-wing ideologue. But what is the philosophy behind liberalism, other than “we can run things better if we just had more power”? We on the right have a consistent set of principles that combine to form our ideology. What does the left have? Nothing but their delusions when it comes down to it. The failure of leftist policies is the proof of their incompetence.
Paules, I think it’s a combination of both things. Obama is all those things you mention — lazy, narcissistic, shallow, none-too-bright — but he is also stubbornly wedded to a 1930s-style Leftism and surrounds himself with like-minded people. Granted, he deserves as much praise for his adherence to his political outlook as an ant deserves to be lauded as a genius for being able to build an ant hill or someone shows quick-thinking brilliance when their leg jerks up when hit on the knee. He isn’t very intelligent, but he is single-minded in his determination to seek his revenge on the wealthy and redistribute it to those who he believes have been “exploited” or “kept down” during the past 200+ years of our existence. He has a racial chip on his shoulder the size of a boulder. He is a pathological liar and intellectual sociopath who burns with animosity toward the white power structure and culture.
So Obama is an incompetent socialist?
He uses socialist rhetoric (fat-cats, 1%’ers, fairness, justice) and tactics (Obamacare, raise taxes on the rich). He just sucks at it.
What exactly is your point?
It certainly seems that Obama himself is a virtual nothing.
But who is running him?
There is a plan somewhere–I agree about the rhetorical flourish aspect of the ‘fundamental transformation’ concept, but I’m terribly afraid there is an agenda behind it (as we see from the Obamacare plan, the metastasizing of food stamps, etc.), even if he’s not really the one in charge of it.
The key here is that some lefty is offended. The truth ALWAYS offends lefties. As anybody who’s actually dealt with them knows; if you want to know what they’re thinking or doing, just pay attention to what they’re accusing you of.
Milos Forman’s editorial irritated the hell out of me when I read it. He harps on the secret cops and misery and cold jails of Soviet Europe. That might be a result of socialism, but it’s not socialism. Obama’s results will be different of course, but it will still be socialism.
Fookin’ foreign know-it-all.
You know, this parlor game of tripping over the use of descriptives for what “brand” of radical leftist is “inappropriate” to call Obama and his cabal is a trap for the unwary.
I don’t know Forman’s agenda here, but just because he was one guy who lived under the iron fist of Stalin’s despotism does not make him the final word on all things related to radical leftism. Sorry.
Bill Ayers calls his “brand” of radical leftism “small c communism”. Works for me.
And Forman needs to get his head out of the clouds or some portion of his anatomy if he believes that radical leftism is not alive and destructive in America OR that it doesn’t have its own authoritarian tinge to it.
When a sitting President is willing to sic the NLRB on a company looking to expand. when that same President maneuvers to put the Workers Party into a predominant position ahead of other creditors, when the Workers Party corruption of an entire political party destroys an economy with bloated and unfunded lifetime princely kickbacks, when that sitting President openly and nakedly ignores the Constitution, refuses to submit a budget, appoints czars and czarinas to circumvent our rules for representative self-governance,…then “small c communism” seems pretty appropriate to me.
Obama was bathed in Communism from the days as a small lad, in dingy bars with Frank Marshall Davis, from the radical professors at college, from the Socialist Scholars convention, from the pews in a racist, radical leftist church, from the New Party, from Carl Davidson, from Alice Palmer, from the Midwest Academy.
Either Forman is myopic and uninformed or he is part of the propaganda machine that tries to cover up the radical underpinnings of the entirety of Obama’s existence.
I have no earthly idea why WE need to assist that propaganda machine by watering down and scrubbing the radicalism off of Obama and this administration. Bill Ayers and the “small c communism” seems to fit, hand in glove…or iron fist in glove.
The whole point of the “small c”…is the disguise it wears, not coming in by brute force, but rather, by masked lies and distortion. Pretending to be something other than what it is…and infusing the radicalism slowly and through stealth in every nook and cranny of our republic until it can no longer defend itself or resist.
For my money, we should stop being so timid about calling something what it is and stop playing these stupid parlor games. I could list a thousand offenses against the free market, the Constitution, the infusion of radical leftism and the abuses of power that fit very nicely into a “small c communist” label.
It’s out of their own mouths and they ought to know. “Redistribution” and “transformation” away from the Constitution and the free market are headed somewhere, even if Forman is too ignorant and myopic to be a witness to it.
Myopic might be on point. And wrongheaded in a charming Czech sort of way. I have tremendous respect for Forman and the other Czech New Wave film directors but I’ve always held a grudge against Forman for making a blatant vulgarian and jerk like Larry Flynt into a First Amendment hero. Forman can’t seem to grasp that Flynt is a First Amendment liability, what we tolerate but not what we celebrate. If socialism in the West in its mutated social democratic progressive form is not as thuggish and corrupt as its Old World Stalinist variety, well, that may be only a matter of degree, or time.
Obama’s not a socialist…he’s a fascist.
He believes that govt should DIRECT the private sector in order to bring about “social justice”. But that distinction is simply the result of the wholesale change that most Western socialists underwent as the horrors of 20th century communism/socialism unfolded. They saw that direct govt ownership of the means of production meant that the govt would be blamed when govt-run economies imploded. So they adapted. Instead of a model based on govt ownership of the means of production, they’ve embraced a model of govt regulation of the means of production…that way, when the inevitable failures occur, they simply point their fingers at the “evil fat cats” and “1%” who are impeding the way to Utopia.
And they get away with it because the information streams in Western nations – i.e., news, education and entertainment – are utterly dominated by like-minded Leftists. Why do you think they’re so frothingly hysterical about Fox News?…and are pushing for “Net Neutrality” and other regulatory schemes regarding the internet? Because they are mortal threats to the monopoly on information that they’ve spent the past 50 years cultivating.
This is akin to the “debate” about whether Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb. Of course, Obama is a socialist. Socialism and totalitarianism aren’t the same thing, although the former typically leads to the latter.
The issue isn’t what obama is. Of course he’s at least a Socialist. No thinking person doubts it. And he is almost certainly a Marxist. After all, he was brewed in a caldron of marxism. All of his relatives and associates were or are communists of on form or another. How could he be anything but a marxist?
The issue is what he will be if he thinks he can get away with it. There are tons of hints that he has no limits. He admires China, he dislikes the Constitution, he illegally unilaterally expands his powers in dozens of ways, whenever he can, and with no shame or reluctance to do so.
There is no question that he will go ape shit if he is elected again. This Milos idiot may think he has seen the dark side of socialism. He ain’t seen nothing. obama has no ethics, no morals, and he’s an ego-maniac equivalent to the big 3 dictators of the 20th century. The fact that he hasn’t built ovens says nothing. obama has done EVERYTHING he thinks he could get away with. There is no reason to think he has any limits.
Personally, I think we kind of weaken the force of our argument here if we start mentioning “ovens” at this juncture.
Let’s not be ludicrously hyperbolic. It doesn’t particularly impress, as an argument.
Obama has done and is doing things that are genuinely unconstitutional. Unfortunately, we’re already at the point where plenty of the young are willing to say, “So what if it’s unconstitutional? The Constitution was passed by a bunch of old white guys…” etc., etc., throw in reference to slaveowners, you get the picture.
We have to go back to very simple first principles–about individual freedom, liberty, responsibility–and contrast them with the orientation towards group rights and entitlements of our adversaries.
All of the major leftist dictators are the same. There has never been one who remained benevolent for long.
Pretend that obama is a good one if you like. That’s what the toothy smile is for. He likes your approach.
Meanwhile, he bombs Libya: abets the Muslim brotherhood; discloses our most sensitve national secrets; funds the Palestinian terrorists with YOUR money; plays assassination games with predators: sends three thousand guns to Mexican criminals and declares executive priviledge: attempts to gen up a race war over George Zimmerman; calls Romney a felon, a man who, even though I dont’ agree with Mitt about his liberal views, is certainly one of the most personally decent politicians of all time; tries to force the Catholic Church to act against 2,000 year-old principles; distributes tax dollars to his cronies like a fire hose; releases Black Panthers who were intimidating voters; refuses to protect the citizens of Arizona from marauding illegal aliens; reverses bankruptcy law to pay off his union thug supporters, thus bankrupting who knows how many law-abiding citizens…..entire books have been written about his lawless activities. These are just a few of the things we know about. You will never hear about the hard stuff his thugs do for him.
But go ahead, give obama credit for being a sweetie. Pretend like he’s a slightly misguided person who wants to do good but doesn’t quite know how. We certainly don’t want to hurt anybody’s sensibilities, or even worse, offend a liberal who approves of everything he does.
Forman is just doing the old post-modern two step:
Step 1: (A): “(Insert name here) is a socialist” (B): No, socialism means state ownership of all means of production, (insert name here) does not advocate state ownership of all means of production, he just wants the US to be more like Sweden, therefore (insert name here) is not a socialist.
Step 2: (A) Socialism is really evil. (B) No, Sweden is socialist and Sweden isn’t evil. In fact we should adopt many of the same policies that they have in Sweden.
They never get tired of playing this game, and we shouldn’t fall for it. It’s like the children’s riddle: (A) “Pete and Repeat were in a boat, Pete fell out, who was left?” (B): “Repeat” (A) “Pete and Repeat were in a boat, Pete fell out, who was left?” (B) “Repeat”, etc., ad infinitum. Radosh has spent about as much ink on this leftish nonsense as was needed. Let’s move on.
However labeled (for any negative label will get ferocious pushback from the Left)Obama is an ignorant ideologue. He has no experience in the private sector and exhibits a monumental lack of knowledge about it. But underlying all of it — and this is the most accurate label of them all — he is power-mad. Coupled with that, he is anti-democratic, wanting to dictate how each of us should live, eat, wear, believe, buy and so on. All that is about power. As to “socialist”, if anything he is a Fabian or Utopian Socialist. Both indicate a belief in fantasy.
Obama is not a Stalinist or even a communist. He is a democratic socialist like Francois Hollande or Helmut Schmidt. The term “socialist” is a very big tent, it can extend from Stalin to Tony Blair. In Marxist terms, Obama is a “rightist”. In American political terms, he is a leftist. In European terms, he is a center-left social democrat.
During his second run for re-election back in 1984, Ronald Reagan drove home the fact that his opponent, Walter Mondale was a “liberal.” Liberal became a dirty word. Reagan won the election based on that perception alone.
This is what Romney needs to do if he hopes to win. He needs to call a spade a spade and very deliberately and directly label Obama a socialist. The S word needs to be bad. Don’t worry about people not knowing what it means. enough people will begin to look into it once the label is securely placed.
Obama is attempting to take us towards socialism. No doubt, his intent may be more along the lines of socialism with a happy face, social democracy, but that won’t be the real endpoint.
You can see the darkness in the left’s tactics: video the homes of GOP lawmakers, attempt to intimidate those who contribute to the GOP, etc. There is a serious ugly aspect to the left, including the DNC, the administration, the media. It isn’t hard to see how this could end up.
Communism was a sweet idea, too. Shame millions had to die because of it.
Ron;
I agree w/ some of the commentators that even you give “dear leader O” too much leeway. You’re obviously guilty of at least not-connecting-the-dots you accuse M. Forman of. Just read the insightful & informed comments above. Putting labels on him & his cronies has little meaning, especially to his supporters among the ordinary citizens. The radical Left in the US-EU has learned the use of propaganda, subterfuge & incrementalism. As any pathology, it mutates, metastasizes, and takes on new forms, labels, and disguises. It poisons everything it touches & it eats its host including the useful idiots. As the Good Book says, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Ergo, he & his minions, the sycophants in the so-called MSM, the czars, the EPA & other bureau-c-rats truly are evil control freaks. That’s all we need to know & act accordingly.
As you can tell by my ‘nom de plum’, I’ve lived under, fought against & escaped from the Evil Red Empire. Btw, last week I celebrated 42 years of Liberty & 20 years as an un-hyphenated US citizen (been here 30 y.). I escaped (didn’t emigrate) the Soviet tanks through Yugoslavia to Switzerland following my dad. He drove out in May ’69 by bribing a red commandant at a small border crossing into Austria. He then kept bribing the CZ-KGB goons in Prague about $300/month till my escape in June 1970, five days after graduating in geology.
M. Forman became an icon in the late ’60′s w/ his sarcastic movies making fun of the socialist-realism. His movies lasted about a week each & were banned for 20 years along w/ the ‘libri prohibiti’ (M. Kundera, etc.). The commies kept all the dissident works in an underground vault under armed guard. The power & fear of ideas.
However, I believe that Forman never wholly rejected socialism or social democracy (also an oxymoron; the soc-dems in Russia & after WWII in the Soviet satellites were useful idiots helping the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat & were all later disposed of). He has never been an American style of a constitutional conservative. Such type of patriotic ‘right-wing’ doesn’t exist in EU.
I come from a rare-breed family of 3 generations of freedom fighters; my great-uncle fought the Bolsheviks within Russia as a Col. in the CZ-Legion from the Volga region all the way to Vladivostok, some 5,000 miles. Stalin & Trotsky wanted them all disarmed & make them into Soviet commies. In WII, he was one of the founders of the anti-Nazi resistance as a Brig. Gen. & executed by the Gestapo in Oct. 1941. My dad was a top-notch chemist declared by the reds for his pro-American pranks in the 50′s the enemy of the state & sent into the ditches w/ a shovel. Commie kids beat me in grade school as the son of the enemy of the state. As teens during the Cuban Crisis, the five of us began doing pranks against the red-gov. My buddies were executed. The Soviets shot in ’68 five of my college buddies, likewise for pranks. My middle brother served 5 years of hard labor as a political. My baby brother blew up in ’68 a Soviet tank (then 13 y.), got caught & sent to prison. He was tortured & broken in two years; he drank himself to death after that.
I doubt it that M. Forman can claim such treatment by the comrades. The same goes for the late V. Havel, he was part of the so-called lib-socialists of the Dubcek kind (socialism w/ a human-face; what a sick joke!). Just read his “Letters to Olga”; his ‘jail-time’ was a sham & he cheated on his wife repeatedly. He was not even for a day in the hard labor or death camps, i.e. uranium mines, as my family & our friends. I’m sorry about the long rant; just want to give the writers/readers of PJ Media first-hand perspective.
Anyway, should ‘O’ be re-elected & obamacare, etc. enacted & enforced + more debt, our economy will go into a tailspin. The crony corporate brown-red statism (soft for now) will go on w/ abandon. The death-panels will eliminate old people by selective services. Not to mention the politicizing of healthcare; only for the faithful & well connected; political foes will not be treated for serious health issues by the best docs. Seems far fetched to you now, however, I speak from experience & have the scars to prove it. Should you be interested, visit my URL: http://www.robertofprague.com & read my blog. In it are embedded three b&w photos from Prague in ’68 w/ the burning tank my brother blew up w/ Molotov cocktails.
Being a Reagan optimist, I want to end on a positive note. Reading the comments here & on PatriotPost gives me hope. Thank you fellow Patriots for being in the know & for rational thinking in this age of irrational emoting. You’re one of the many reasons why I love this country. This is my home & I am a proud & grateful American. ‘Nuff said.
With all due respect for your family’s struggle against Communism, Robert, you are dead wrong when you accuse Social Democrats of enabling Stalinism. Lenin, even before he took power in 11/17, wrote reams of paper excoriating the SocDems as sellouts and lackeys of the bourgeoisie. There were NO SocDems in the Bolshevik government — ever. The Bolsheviks saw SocDems as their worst enemies, because their program was designed to appeal to workers WITHOUT a dictatorship, which the Bolsheviks felt was absolutely necessary.
If you wish to say that ANY program which posited alternatives to unfettered capitalism aided the Bolsheviks, then yes, the SocDems did that. Otherwise, not guilty.
Although it’s a bit late, I’d just like to formally welcome you to the United States of America,sir. I’m extending you an old-fashioned American welcome to an old-fashioned America which unfortunately had already begun to become non-existent by the time I was a child (about the time you were finalizing your citizenship).It fills me with shame that you come here to escape an oppressive totalitarian government only to have to watch your new country begin treading down that same evil path. We had high hopes when I was younger, and most of us really did have the best of intentions toward this great nation of ours,and the road to Hell we have paved with them is nearly complete.Unlike our president,I am not ashamed to be American. I am ashamed that I have not done more,risked more,sacrificed more to preserve the freedoms and vision that I was taught growing up. I am ashamed that I will be unable to share in the wonderful freedom I grew up with with my own children,or to build allegiances based on it with men like yourself. My own ancestors came to this country fleeing oppression,even though all of my relatives I can name,generations of people,have been born here.
You may have been born somewhere else,but you are more American than any of these natural citizens in liberal circles spitting on our Constitution and attempting to shred,revise,or abandon it. Your SPIRIT is American,my brother, and it is to people like YOU who those freedoms these idiots scorn should be bequeathed. YOU are the one our Founders had in mind,not Obama or our self-elected Communo-Socialist would-be masters. You quote the bible, I assume you are a believing man. I am not. Yet,in these times, I believe we all should be praying that enough of us are left to drive this evil out of our country,our birthright,gifted to all of us kindred souls who value liberty above all else by our brothers in thought who came before us.
So,I will join all of you in prayers for the dignity of our nation,for its sovereignty,and the permanence of the system of values so many have fought and died for,or crawled through barbwire fences in order to get to.
Welcome to America,my only shame is that you could not see her in the days when the platitudes now mouthed by our scumbag politicians were facts of life, and those who treaded disparagingly upon them were the subjects of the scorn they so richly deserve. I place no blame,I only lament that it’s come to this.
I’m, like Miloš Forman, from former Czechoslovakia, though he belongs to (nearly) my parents generation, being 10 years older. I greatly admired his 60′s czech movies, and followed his career in the USA. I don’t know if it’s the famous NYT fact-checker, or Miloš´clouded recollection, but the incident with Mr. Kuňásek couldn’t happen in 1972: more likely it was in the dark 1952. The GULAG @ uranium mines in Jáchymov, which untill late fifties supplied 80% of fissile material for the USSR nukes, were long closed in 1792. And the STB (czechoslov. KGB) were much more behaved then.
I have experienced very simmilar story on my first trip to Tibet in 1986: after descent from the high pass crossing Himalays from Nepal in an open lorry with a group of Tibetans I felt I was close to death of exposure. When the lorry stopped by the first humble house bellow the pass, still just bellow 5,000m, we all piled into it and fought for a place near the fire. The house belonged to an old couple, who were not too happy about the 25-30 travellers. After I thawed a bit I went back to the lorry and brought my back-pack and said to the driver I will stay there. I just wanted to stay by the fire… like forever. When he translated my request (they saw my back-pack), the couple started crying, moaning, totally terrified. The driver explained that they cannot allow me to stay: in the morning there will come chinese soldiers and because of me, unreported foreigner, they will be shipped to prison! After living till 1968 in simmilar system I understood thier plight and terror: I humbly took my pack and climbed the lorry. After another 30 km we passed a chinese PLA-checkpost and soon after a lorry stop. I survived, but I never forgot the tears and terror of these old, simple mountain folks…
At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter WHAT we label captain zero as. He’s just plain destructive and he’s luvin’ it. He’s using the office as his own personal get-even plan and it would seem that few of the communists in our government have caught on, or, quite possibly they all co-opt each other thinking they are smarter than the person they just used like a cheap whore.
Romney is slowly coming around to the right approach and needs to continue to just simply identify what obama has SAID versus what he has DONE. Simple cause/effect lessons every evening.
Simple, like Reagan, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”.
“There you go again”
etc, etc.
Obama is easy to attack because the media and himself have made it oh-so-simple. Grab a sound-bite, any sound-bite and then provide the statistic that counters that sound-bite. There are literally thousands of them from 2008 onward.
Don’t forget either that the Left, ie., allies of Obama, are engaging in some serious and scary totalitarian technique on a small scale — I’m talking about the practice of SWATting that is intended to silence or maybe even KILL their political opponents. Baby steps…
We are nearly four years into Obama’s reign and we are just now suspecting that he just may be be a Communist? Yes Martha, Obama is a Communist. Sheesh. Next subject. ABO2012
Mr. Radosh wrote an excellent reply to Mr. Forman’s comment regarding our current situation.
Perhaps one thing to consider is that after 1968, communism in the former Czechoslovakia was of an exceptionally virulent kind, approaching that of Romania, the East Germany, and even that of the beast itself, the USSR. It would thus stand to reason that the difference between what Mr. Forman remembers, and what he sees today in our country, is still, thankfully, wide.
However, another thing worth mentioning is that socialism and communism evolve into “denominations” – Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, and many lesser, more local, cults (Fidel, Che, and Hugo come to mind). It is not a given that the American version of this pathology will necessarily evolve into the Western European kind – that would be a rash assumption. We’re are certainly on the road that demands our utmost alertness of mind and spirit.
“I’m surprised that Milos Forman does not understand that”
Oh – he understands it all right…. but he is an operative of the Left… and anything he can do to hide it and at the same time promote it is his goal.
Like the proverbial frog in a pot full of water on a stove.
Worse, he’s a Fascist
I think his loyalty to himself …OBAMIST……is what he is. He wants to be the Sultan of the World.
Two primary goals of Transformation of the US will take at least 20 years.
One is disarming the populace to the greatest extent possible. Fast and Furious may have been a start.
The other is transforming the military into a politically progressive organization.
Forman contends that Obama is not a socialist and as proof offers up experiences from his childhood living under totalitarian style socialism/communism. However, his very experience explains why we who were born here in the United States can view Obama so differently. When one is born into a totalitarian state, any little bit of freedom is treasured. From the standpoint of totalitarianism, America remains the land of the free. However, from the standpoint of people born into a nation which endowed its people with enormous freedoms and valued liberty above most other things, every bit of that freedom that is lost takes us closer to the totalitarianism we have learned to abhor. Obama has not transformed this nation into totalitarian socialism, but he is moving us in that direction. We are closer than ever before. Our freedoms and liberty are gradually eroding the executive branch s getting far too powerful. We who were lucky to be born in a different America can see the difference clearly. Milos Foreman cannot even begin to know what it means to be born and raised in a country with the freedoms granted by our Constitution nor can the many many immigrants who come here from the socialist nations of Europe or the semi-dictatorships of Latin America or the corruptocracies like Mexico or Russia. Neither can many of the young who were actually born here know what has been lost because they have no knowledge of it. To those people, America still has far more freedom than that to which they were accustomed or they ever knew. And so, they do not cringe in the core of their being when they see freedoms, even little ones not to mention bigger ones slipping away. You cannot lose what you never had. But people over 50 knew a freer America. We cringe. We know what is being lost.
DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK.
As for me, I say he is a socialist/ marxist. He is into buying votes with welfare. Expanding Big Brother Gov.. Stimulus for his crony union buddies.
VILLIFYING THE RICH…. Envy Envy Envy propaganda.
So sure, Obama must be defeated in Nov.
Lets not forget socialist healthcare with the death panel rationed care…
Oh yes. Obama is a marxist.
Obama’s NOT a socialist, he’s a communist.
Socialists tend to criticize capitalists for just being capitalists: http://modeltstocktrends.blogspot.com/2012/06/taking-care-of-business-experience.html
“Is Obama a socialist”? A better question is “do bears crap in the woods”? Some things are just that obvious.
“Socialism does not have to be the Stalinist totalitarian variety”.
Yet it always seems to end up there.
You mean like England and Sweden and France and Denmark and Italy. In point of fact, no country which has democratically elected socialism in whole or in part has EVER gone Stalinist. Stalinism achieves power through revolution and/or coup’s d’etat, ELIMINATES democratic processes, and rules as a dictatorship. You cannot name a single Stalinist regime that took power in any other fashion.
I take your statement to mean that democratically elected measures such as the ACA, which you deem to be socialist, are a slippery slope to Stalinism. There is not a single scintilla of evidence to support your view.
“In point of fact, no country which has democratically elected socialism in whole or in part has EVER gone Stalinist.
Stalinism achieves power through revolution and/or coup’s d’etat, ELIMINATES democratic processes, and rules as a dictatorship. You cannot name a single Stalinist regime that took power in any other fashion.”
You’re absolutely correct. Stalin wasn’t elected and Stalin was exactly the same as Lenin.
All dictators are psychopaths. The very nature of psychopaths is to control others, in order to make up for deficiencies in their own personalities. Childhood abuse, neglect, or uneven, haphazard discipline is typical of psychopaths, and does terrible things to their tender little psyches. The genius (???) of Karl Marx, another psychopath, was his ability to create a semi-plausible, quasi-intellectual system that other psychopaths can rally around while they pretend to know what they are doing and plot to take over the world. The fact that no Marxist system has ever worked is irrelevant as long as sufficient psychopaths keep pouring sufficient resources (our resources!) into their system. But endless input and limited output leads to eventual collapse, as happened in the USSR, as is happening now in the EUSSR, and as Obama is trying to make happen in his idea of the USASSR.
I would imagine, with all the EPA, FDA, and innumerable other regulations, taxes, obamacare, licences, fines, red tape, bureaucracy, etc.,….the gov’t doesn’t have to actually own private enterprise. It can squeeze alot out of it and claim it’s not socialism. It can have its cake and eat it too. Perhaps the classic definition of socialism is outdated.
….I might also add; if my amateur theory isn’t exactly socialism in the classic sense, doesn’t it amount to the same control, lower growth, opportunity, etc., as expressed in overall output? Isn’t that all that matters whilst academics fret over definitions?
So it’s all semantics?!!?
The textbook definition of socialism that I learned was Ownership of the means of production. It is also accompanied by centralized planning of the economy.
The government in this country will never owns the means of production (a bailout here-or-there (under Bush in the case of the banks, and under both Bush and Obama in the case of the auto industry) notwithstanding). Companies own their equipment, the government does not. And Obama has shown no inclination for govt to own a private entity’s means of production.
when I hear the Obama-is-socialist mantra, and ask the speaker to clarify, they almost always start talking about how reguation is stifling businesses. Regulation is not socialism.
If PJM or another conservative outlet wants to (re)define socialism as taking care of society’s worst off through the public coffers, that’s fine. But at least acknowledge that you first made up the definition that differs from the classically accepted one.
“The textbook definition of socialism that I learned was Ownership of the means of production. It is also accompanied by centralized planning of the economy. The government in this country will never own the means of production…”
You’re absolutely wrong.
If the govt doesn’t hold paper title over the means of production but controls
every aspect of the use of those means up to an including whether those means are employed at all is still ‘ownership over’.
Just because you dont have a chain around your ankle getting whipped to produce for your master doesn’t mean you’re not a slave being forced to produce for the master. I dare you not to pay the IRS.
The greatest country in the history of the planet is being stolen under the guise of semantics and dolts like you point out ‘Hey, the Democrats aren’t doing it EXACTLY like the Stalins, Maos and Hitlers so they aren’t evil socialists’
It might be semantically different, but in the end it’s absolute central planning and the same damn thing. You’re a tool.
semantic (sɪˈmæntɪk)
— adj
1. of or relating to meaning or arising from distinctions between the meanings of different words or symbols
Candidate Obama espoused a Positive Law interpretation of the Constitution to replace the current Negative, or Natural Law interpretation. This is his vehicle to deliver “transformative” governance. This fits the definition of the European social democracy concept and what we interpret as socialism in America. Essentially, under a Positive Law interpretation the Constitution is no longer a limiter (of rights and freedoms) document, but a grantor of rights (and freedoms). Presently, laws are designed to limit rights. Everything not overtly limited is assumed to be retained by the citizen as his unalienable freedoms (rights and freedoms predate the Constitution). Under his brand iof socialism, the law of the land overtly lists what the citizen CAN do, with every instance not listed not granted. Change the method of interpretation and new law to this, and the power of government is limitless. He has stated on many occasions he is a proponent of Positive Law.
It won’t matter after January.
He’s neither Socialist nor Communist. He’s just a Narcissist Opportunist BS Artist who uses a “Socialism” carrot to catch donkeys. Put another way, he uses BS to attract Dung Beetles! Like Edwards, he just cares about his own ego.
Obama is not a socialist and Radosh, who actually understands the nuances of left ideologies, should know that. Obama is a Social Democrat — that is to say, a believer in the capitalist system who nevertheless feels it is equally important to restrain its destructive aspects. (And if you think conservatives hate Social Democrats, read Lenin sometime — he outdoes them by the end of the first page.)
Obama’s health care plan was crafted in order to establish the right to good health care for all Americans regardless of income. Most of his followers wanted Canadian-style single payer; he settled for universal health insurance with subsidies. I assume Radosh knows this — if so, how can he conflate a plan which works hand-in-glove with capitalist insurance companies with socialism.
Unless, of course, Radosh buys into the concept that ANY mitigation of capitalism’s shortcomings is “socialism.” Forman understands this. If super-rich people paying taxes at a rate lower than their secretaries are forced to pony up a little more money so children don’t die of insufficient care at an overcrowded emergency room, that’s not socialism; that’s simple humanity. You can even call it Christianity — only the most hardened ultras would deny that Christ demanded no less of us than to heal the sick, even if it meant that people with seven homes were forced to live in six.
Radosh accuses the left of hiding its “socialist” agenda but in fact what he is pointing to is the fact that today’s conservatives have become so far removed from human compassion and have seized so great a slice of power in our body politic that it is now hard to say “the poor are entitled to good health care” and “taxes on the super-rich should not be less than ordinary workers” without being called a socialist. Again, Forman understands this. Radosh, however, buys into this debased dialogue.
I suggest that you read the latest National Review and the article detailing how Obama Care hurts the poor, that you and other social-democrats ostensibly care about. Then, after reading it,g et back to me again.
“Obama is not a socialist ”
That gulping sound was you swallowing something. I wont comment on what tho.
It’s too bad more of Obama’s policies are found in the soviet communist constitution than in the American one.
“Obama’s health care plan was crafted in order to establish the right to good health care ”
…at the govt forced expense of others. Do you even know what socialism is?
Holy b@#$%^&,Batman! All ObamaCare is about is helping the unfortunate? How come it establishes 16 new offices on women’s health and none for men? How come women and children are mentioned hundreds of times but men are mentioned only a handful and never in connection with services this bill is supposed to confer upon them? The very LANGUAGE of the bill is unconstitutional and inegalitarian. It DOESN’T establish “the right to good health care for all Americans”,it mainly does that for the women and illegal immigrants whose votes the Democratic Party wants to buy. If you are a man with testicular cancer, this bill will f*** you six ways to Sunday and laugh in your face about doing it.
Also, the very fact that Obama has all of you pro-socialist astroturf a-holes on the payroll attempting to control what the media says about him,and filling private blogs,run and frequented by private citizens,with your lying leftist half-truths PROVES he is at least stepping over,above,and beyond any acceptable limit established by the conduct of ALL former presidents of this country who understood that these decisions are the right and DUTY of the American people to make,NOT the f***ing WHITE HOUSE.
Obama is aggregating powers and standards to himself delegated to the Supreme Court,Congress,and the American people respectively, THAT would have been reason enough for Thomas Jefferson to justify SHOOTING HIM. I,however,would simply prefer to throw LOLBAMA out of office and you astroturfers out of the country for assisting him in doing it. You are all traitors to this nation and I hope there is a hell so all of you liberals who are doing this can burn in it. It is not about one bill or even a bunch of bills, it is about you people throwing open the gates of the citadel to the marauders out there waiting to sack us. TWO HUNDRED YEARS of self-governance by the American people. THAT is what this is about. You don’t just throw away 200 years on a freakin lark about universal healthcare unless the world is going to end immediately if you don’t do it.
If you hate this country,go somewhere else. You don’t deserve the freedoms in the bill of rights anyway. You WILL NOT throw my liberty away with your own.
All one needs to know to answer the question of whether Obama is socialist is contained in the following:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/15/picketvideo-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/
This man has no idea how wealth is created.
This appears to be a fun site. I was highly entertained by many of the comments. Does anyone here know what real communism is as defined by Marx and Engel? It’s the disappearance of the nation state. What does that really imply? That human’s are perfect enough to run their own societies without leadership or guidance. Anyone laughing yet? We all should be because humans will never have the intelligence to operate free of conflict or desiring what someone else has. And trying to run a society without any leadership would only be chaos. But it’s intriguing how human sensibility and kindness is often associated with socialism. We need to start using the term anti-socialism more often which would merely break down to people who clearly are more anti-social than social, yet expect an orderly society to be had from anti-social sentiments and regards. That’s equally as funny as expecting masses to operate in perfection on their own. Both thoughts belong on Pluto.
Capitalism nor any other economic form will ever be perfect simply because humans will never be perfect. Now there was an argument in Europe when the framework of capitalism was being theorized,that humans could be perfect. That’s highly ambitious thinking like saying medical science will enable people to live to be 500 years old in the future. Somethings are just not realizable as imagined.
Another sad factor that many don’t seem to realize is that capitalism main tenet is open competition, not the support of established business or tradition, as some seem to think capitalist theory support. The US has never been a true capitalist country because the politics that supports it all has never been unbiased enough to foster total competition. Saying an economic class drives the economy is a theory which belongs in feudalism. Capitalism has always been by those who could provide needs to the masses. There is a sector today that supports capitalism is driven by corporations and wealth elites. Historically, that could not be more false. But that can be manifested if those who have that belief can control the government. There has always been those that have wanted to be more significant in goods and power than the ordinary individual. But that is not capitalism either. In an economy that is driven by mass consumption, top down ideas are anti capitalistic and really the economic inverse of socialism. Which really implies those who control the resources also control how much the market can buy and who can buy and at what prices. That does not bode well for the mass consumers. So while many roll in the game of who is socialist or communist, they really need to look at who benefits from the policies the most. Unfortunately, the rich cannot support the rich because they are not going to buy goods in total quantity the way the masses do regardless of how much money they have. Just imagine Bill Gates attempting to buy 100 or more burgers daily to make up the losses for a shrinking economy. he can’t eat all of them daily and live, so why would he attempt to save a major chain that way? The real capitalist realizes that a strong massive economy can only be supported by a massive amount of consumers that have the capital to purchase for their many needs and desires. Any other ideas of building wealth from the masses and sustaining it is false.
Obama is not a communist, nor is he a socialist. True socialism believes in the nationalisation of heavy industry and utilities. Although even the US has certain socialist traits – the Postal Service, Medicare and so on – it is certainly not a socialist country. Is Obama a Social Democrat? One problem is to define what a social democrat is.
Wikipedia defines social democracy as follows:
“Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism. Social democracy rejects the “either/or” polarization interpretation of capitalism versus socialism. It claims that fostering a progressive evolution of capitalism will gradually result in the evolution of capitalist economy into socialist economy. Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: education, health care, workers’ compensation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly. Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers. Contemporary social democracy advocates freedom from discrimination based on differences of: ability/disability, age, social class, ethnicity, gender, language, race, religion, and sexual orientation.”
Much of this could be said of Obama, although I don’t believe for a moment that the aim of the Democratic Party is a socialist economy. I don’t in fact at all believe that this was the aim of, say, Tony Blair’s social democratic policies. However, at the end of the day I would qualify Obama as a social liberal.
There is a huge difference between socialism and social democracy. Socialism refers to government ownership of the means of production – the so-called temporary state before handing over control to workers. North Korea is really just socialism in action – not communism because workers really have no say or control over their factories or over government policy. Chavez is socialist in ideology (meaning he would like to theoretically nationalize everything but his country is still largely a social democracy. Social democracy is what we can comfortably label Sweden because there is about a 50-50 mix and capitalism is left really intact in certain industries.
Obama is not even close to a Swedish style Social Democrat because other than proposing an insurance based plan to over those without medical care, he is not proposing any large scale expansion of government. Would you call S.Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Chile and HK socialist because they have universal healthcare? Many of them like Taiwan and Chile have single payer systems, too but are very capitalistic in most areas 2) He is not proposing any new nationalization of any industries. True he did allow for the emergency bailout of GM and several banks but bailouts had already been approved by Bush before leaving office.
Obama is largely a capitalist president who favors a more active role for government in areas that the private sector either can’t address or needs some regulation to address. He is a Teddy & Frank Roosevelt/Johnson/Nixon/Carter style capitalist as opposed to a Calvin Coolidge/Reagan/Bush capitalist that resists government involvement but expands government through military spending.
If you want to call him a socialist that’s fine but its a gross distortion of the original intent of the label.
Health provision in the US was/is inadequate. Reform was a central platform of Obama’s election campaign. It wasn’t a hidden agenda or a stepping stone to anything.
Obama is not a socialist. I wish he were! But he’s a dirty millionaire capitalist. The only reason I’m voting for Obama is because Romney is fifty times more wealthy than Obama, and fifty times more dirty.
socialism, fascism, marxism, communism…….all different means to the same end……Totalitarianism. Obama, to me, is a little of all these…..sort of a quasi-something dangerous coward, his way he believes will work, which is why he’s trying it ONE MORE TIME, hope ‘n change!
Now this is something to contemplate:
ttp://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Barack-Hussein-Obama-According/dp/1469952793
Try again, this time with the “h” in front the “ttp”:
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Barack-Hussein-Obama-According/dp/1469952793
Mr. Radosh, I see you’ve been snookered, wittingly or unwittingly, by the far right. As a member of Chicago’s New Party back then, I assure you that it was never socialist, nor even social-democratic, and it was designed to be that way. Most Chicago socialists of the real sort even opposed it as too reformist for them. It’s true that we interviewed and endorsed Obama in his first run for office, along with a few other local Democrats. We worked for him, he won, and came to one meeting and thanked us. The is the total of his relation with us. And in Chicago, the New Party was largely an arm of ACORN, not DSA. The platform important in that race was the living wage and fair lending–hardly socialism. Yet this is the one thin reed the right tries to use for its bizarre assertion of Obama’s ‘socialism’, when all he has ever been, on a good day, is a corporate liberal. By going along with this scurrilous nonsense, your credibility is now zero. Those advocating that Obama’s a ‘socialist’ know it’s a lie, too. I’ve told them the same story I’m telling you here, but they choose to ignore it. You might ask what is it that they are really saying in this effort to make Obama ‘The Other’ and consider whether you still want to be part of it.
I’m glad to have just discovered this site. The article is obviously correct in it’s conclusions but in my mind overlooks an ominous element to today’s modern socialism… which is the global environmental movement.
I don’t think Obama gives a hill of beans about the environment and frankly I think he cares more about watching basketball than he does about solving global problems. But the common denominator for both movements as well as Obama is the desire for wealth and power. Take the concept of “limousine liberal” to the extreme and you have what is going on globally embodied in the modern left. Whether or not Obama is a socialist or not is irrelevant. As long as he is in charge and his cohorts are in control… the outcome is easy to predict… a finite supply of goods and services that they will be the first in line to consume.