Is Obama a Marxist? Are you?

I was listening to some right wing call-in show on the radio, and the ridiculousness of the calls was what really got me.

A guy calls in and says, "what are we gonna do about this marxist Obama?  We gotta do something, we gotta do something."

While the host didn't deny the statement of Obama being a marxist, he went on to berade the caller saying, "What are you gonna do? Call my show? Is that what you're going to do?  The caller began to say that he was gonna tell his friends and... he was cut off by the host, who said that acions speak louder than words and so on.  It was funny, but it missed the point, BECAUSE!!!!.......

   --Obama is not a Marxist

   --Obama is not a Communist

   --Obama is not a Socialist, or is he?

Obama is a Democrat, Democrats are neither communists, nor marxists.  Before you begin to debate me on this, lets define these terms, I've summerized them off wikipedia:

Marxism -- A lot of political and social ideologies written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that mostly pertain to the problem of class struggles that ensue as a result of capitalism.  To put it simply, rich people own the business, and the not so rich people work for them.  This creates tension between the social classes.  Lots of criticism is given towards capitalism, and the solution of communism is suggested, where society would be classless.  I'm assuming not enoough was said about how to acheive this.

Communism (as quoted in wiki) -- Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

Although many attempts have been made to create communist societies, none have reached the would-be communist utopia that I think Karl Marx was shooting for.

Socialism -- Wiki quote: Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

The best I can see with this, is that the same issue exists in terms of the class problem, (poor people being dominated by the rich) but the methods by which this can be fixed are way more broad, almost to the point where I think that any attempt made to fix differences between social classes can be considered socialist in some way.  From helping the poor, to nationalized medicare, to full blown communism, all can be considered forms of socialism.  The term is way too broad to really be defined as one thing, all you have to do to be labeled a socialist, is to want to help a lower class succeed.  Hence the debate as to weather or not Obama, and democrats as a whole, can be considered socialists.  One thing is true, Obama and the dems still support capitalism and don't want to do away with it,

The term socialism is usually paired with communism, but the two are not the same thing.  Communism is an aspect of socialism, but not all socialism is communism.

Lets dig into this Obama thing.

Obama was a rich lawyer who now lives in a large white house mansion, and is president of the United States.  Obama has never said that capitalism should be done away with.  Obama has never advocated the creation of a classless society, therefore, Obama is not a marxist.

For the same reason mentioned above Obama cannot be considered a communist.

It would seem to me, that anyone who wants to help the poor, is a socialist.  Since republicans are the ones pointing the finger these days, it would seem to me that if you're not a republican, and you think society and america has problems that need fixing, you are a socialist.  Therefore, Obama is a socialist.

Now let's get religious.

Jesus can be considered a socialist because he wanted to help the poor.

The apostles can be considered communists, check this out...

During the acts of the apostles, Acts 4:31-37 Peter and his congregation were joined together as one, by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, (Quote Acts 4:32) "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and of one soul: neither said any of them, that ought of the things which he possesed was his own; but had all things common."

(Quote Acts 34-35)  "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many were possesors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Wow, so these early christains, some of who were apostles could very well be considered communists and socialists.  And since this all happened via the Spirit of God, can one say that God is a communist as well?

Many republicans are christians, does this mean that christian republicans can be considered communists or socialists if they believe this verse?

Maybe it's safer to say that people should stop trying to put a label on anyone that trys to make society or life better. People should stop putting labels on each other every time someone disagrees with someone else.  God isn't a communist, he simply did what he did in that instance, and you just need to stop using that word as a definition of His or any other person's actions.  You need to stop using the words democrat, republican, socialist, marxist or communist, because based on everything I just said, chances are you're a little of all five and you just don't know it.  Therefore, stop labeling people with these terms.

-TMundo

 


25 Comments

Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.
0

Obama is so marxist it makes me see red!

Missy-Busty's picture

I attended the University of Wisconsin Madison (the Bekeley of the Midwest) so I think I can tell a marxist when I see one. American universities are full of them. BTW Madison's sister city is Havana.

The USA is now being run by liberal elites all various shades of red - including pink. Meanwhile Cuba & Venesuela are hosting bombers from Russia. Smells like something is up.

One final point - is Obama really putting together a private army? 

I don't remember a Marx brother named Baracko

Rajah's picture

You're full of shit!

As I suspected, we have a Marxist in our midst. ...

Coaster's picture

A Groucho Marxist.

I Am Not a Marxist!

Wally_Pipp's picture

I am more of a Two-Howards-and-Fein-ist.

Nyuck-nyuck-nyuck-nyuck-nyuck!!

Best regards, Wally

Oh no! Say it ain't so!

Coaster's picture

Wally is a stooge for the establishment.   (lowers head and shakes it sadly)

The Christian comment

Scumby's picture

It's interesting to speculate whether or not Jesus would support welfare state-style socialism.

I speculate that he would have pointed out the difference between state and individual charity.  That is, in the state case the taxpayer is not choosing to be generous with his money, some administrator who strips him of his money is.  The recipient starts to think they have a right to it and they don't owe anybody any gratitude, leading them down the road to dependency.

I doubt that Jesus would disagree with Ayn Rand's characterization of 5% of people carrying the other 95%; but he would say that this reflects the distribution of God-given talent and does not relieve them of the obligation to altruism.  In fact, just the opposite.

The difference between Christianity and socialism with regards to charity, then, is freedom of choice of the individual. 

This would be all idle speculation but fortunately Jesus has now come back to Earth in the form of Obama so we can ask him.

My basic point was this, Mr. Scumby

TMundo's picture

I have posted actual proof in the Bible that God wanted a particular church, the one Peter was pastor over, to not have ownership over any of their possesions, but to share everything according to everyone's need.  Albeit, that church was not lead by the state, or any sort of government, but was lead by God's Holy Spirit.  One could then say, was that an example of how all churches should behave?  Or just an example that shows that God has no problem with the rich giving their money to the poor.

Also, one must take into consideration the quote, "Cast ye not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them, turn again and rend you."  You can't donate money to someone that will go and spend it on drugs and then turn around and ask for more, or require your own life as well.

My whole point though, was that many republicans tend to be Christian.  And many republicans tend to hate socialism and communism, and yet here is actual proof in the christian verse, that God created a socialist, if not not communist, church.  I don't think those in that church that had less and recieved more were swine either, but nevertheless, what God created in that verse, cannot be deniied if you are a christian.  And so, a christian republican must give some sort of thought, to wheather or not socialism or communism in theory, is a bad thing, since God obviously didn't think it was, if it was lead by Him of course.

There is no proof the church

jazzdrive3's picture

There is no proof the church was socialist/communist. Nothing you said give that proof. The more likely explanation is that when there was a drastic need, someone like Barnabas would sell his land to take care of THAT specific need.

You'll also notice that with the Ananias and Sapphira fiasco. Peter didn't reprimand them because they didn't give up all their possessions. He reprimanded them because they lied. Peter even said that "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?"

In other words, everything was at their discretion, and they could do what they wanted to with it. God loves a cheerful giver, not one who is forced to give at gunpoint.

Paul sent greetings to the church that met in Lydia's house. Lydia was a Christian. If everyone sold all their possessions, how could it be Lydia's house?

Same with Jesus's movement. He called some to give all away and follow him. But then he and his disciples were also supported by a some rich people with land, or people who didn't sell they're stuff, like Mary, Martha, and Lazurus.

If EVERYONE gave their possessions away, that well dries up pretty quickly.

The entire old testament is also filled with promises of material blessings. Material blessings are not bad. The rich ignoring or despising the poor, however, is, and that's one of the great common condemnations of the prophets. But so is theft.

The "Christian right"...

FearlessFreep's picture

...is neither Christian nor right.

 

Jazz, I'm not saying that it was a communist socialist church

TMundo's picture

I personally beleive that whatever God does can only be considered only considered righteous.  And this stuff happened long before the concepts of communism, socialism, and marxism were created.  However, while I was going over the definitions of them, the scripture just popped into my head, and felt right to put it in there.

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and of one soul: neither said any of them, that ought of the things which he possesed was his own; but had all things common."

maybe it's easier to say they shared everything with each other, and weren't concerned with ownership anymore.

"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many were possesors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Because they weren't concerned with owning material possesions, they had no problem giving them to others who needed them.

My point was to get right wing repubs (or anyone for that matter) who seems to think that it's wrong to help those in need (and refers to doing so as a form of socialism, marxism, or communism) to take a good look at their own beliefs, assume those beliefs are christian.  I was trying to stir up some debate and get some edification in as a result.  I'm not trying to debate whether or not early churchs were communist, I'm debating whith those that have a problem with sharing with others who are in need.  I guess that's where it's going.

------------------------also-----------------------

I am fully aware that if everyone gave up everything they owned to follow God, there wouldn't be much for very long.  Although I wouldn't repremand one for doing so, but not everyone needs to.  The rich man that went away sorrowful was more than likely separating himself from God because he had riches.  In his specific case, that was his stumblingblock.  For some, the cares and riches of the world choke the Word and cause it to become unfruitful, but for others, that is not the case.

 

Jesus was a hobo and so were his disciples

Rajah's picture

If there had been a railroad back then he would have been able to preach further from his home

How did we get off the subject of the Marx Brothers and The Stooges?

c'mon raj, I know you can give me some of your two cents on this

TMundo's picture

you must have something to say about the accusations that Obama is a Marxist.

Wow, do you see the ad on the sight under my main post

TMundo's picture

It say SOCIALISM, Trickle Up Poverty, and it has the Obama logo in place of the O (say previus line in voice of Ralph Wiggum)

Then they've got T-Shirts you can order.

All economies are a mixture of capitalism and socialism...

MH's picture

The only differences lie in the mixture of private enterprise, government intervention, and regulation which occurs in any society.  Just because Obama advocates policies which bring taxation of rich people back to Clinton-era levels and wants companies to actually play by the rules as a condition of getting bailout money doesn't make him a "socialist" (at least not more then any other American president).

What worries me is the call-in host who TMundo mentioned as berating someone for simply venting about Obama rather then "doing something" - what exactly does he want this person to do?  During Bush's 8 long years as President, I don't remember hearing anyone on the left outside the far, far fringe even hinting at anything worse then wanting Bush impeached (or tried for war crimes), and it really bothers me that people on the right who have a national platform seem to be telling people (many of whom have guns which they bought soon after Obama's election) that they need to "do something" about him...

Those rightists remind me of a WB Yeats poem

FearlessFreep's picture

The one that goes partly like this:

"We've fed the heart on fantasies,

Our heart's grown brutal with the fare.

More substance in our enmities than in our love..."

 

It's nothing but scare tactics

Rajah's picture

The Republicans have no new ideas so they resort to scaring people. There's no way to fix health care as long as it's a for profit system so that leaves a socialist kind of solution. Right now people have no choice but to deal with the insurance and drug companies. I'm not sure what Obama is purposing is modeled after other countries. Sounds like he's trying to fix it by modifying the current system.

"You can't make money taking care of sick people"

Coaster's picture

--Michael Moore

He stated this in Sicko.  He said this was the reason the medical insurance "providers" have to resort to screwing people.

I've never heard anyone dispute this. 

"Fix it by modifying the current system"

FearlessFreep's picture

Didn't work for Bill Clinton 15 years ago.  It's time to slash the Gordian Knot and introduce single-payer health care.

 

MH, I should add, that his advice wasn't violent...

TMundo's picture

...but that he talked about how he had rang doorbells by himself, one by one the first time regan was in the primary, and that even though regan lost, he won the next time.  He definitely didn't insinuate that the guy should take the sort of action that meant getting his guns and so on.  He basically told the guy to stop complaining about it and to start doing something about it.

     While I agreed with that, I did not agree with the caller complaining that Obama was a Marxist.  In this case I would say there really isn't much for the caller to do, because Obama isn't a Marxist.  So there is no issue.  Last I heard Obama wasn't trying to do away with the capitalist system, and wasn't trying to make every class equal.

Obama or Democratic Socialism and Marxism are two completely different things, and cannot simply be heaped together as some people are doing.  If Obama is a socialist, it does not necessarily make him a Marxist.  However, were he a Marxist (which he isn't) then he would be a socialist.  Marxism.communism is a form of socialism, but not all socialism can be called marxism/communism.  People say because he advocates taxing the rich to help support the poor, and supports nationwide healthcare, that he is a socialist, and they are probably right.  But that does not make him a communist or a marxist.

As for my religious angle, I'm sure you see where I was going with that.

 

Even more-so, there was another caller...

TMundo's picture

...a young guy, who said he was the only conservative in his high school, and that he was surrounded by liberals.  That he was tring so hard to deal with it.

To me, these days, the word conservative and liberal carry no meaning.  Too many people from either side share similar opinions.

I, for instance, am trying to be christian, I'd like to get to the point where I serve God continually, abstain from all drugs, and only listen to gospel music.  Even the movies I watch come into question.   I don't bash on gays, I didn't vote for Bush, EVER, I voted for Gore, Kerry and Obama. I think we should give healthcare a try, but I think the economy, and our boys in Iraq/afgan should be are first priority.  I was opposed to the war in Iraq, I understood the war in afganistan, but my immediate response to 9/11 was to find out exactly why the terrorists groups hated us, and to actually attempt to sit down with them and talk, if that was in any way possible.  For a group of people to hate us enough to ram planes into our buildings, they must have a reason for this hatred, maybe we could find out why, instead of just writing them off as loonies and going to war with every country we feel is in any way connected with them.  That won't stop them from hating us.  Not that they aren't guilty for what they've done, but in this case our actions have not only doubled their anger, but have also encouraged others to join the radical islamic cause, at least the invasion of iraq did so.

So what does that make me, a liberal or conservative.  The would-be conservative host would play Linkin Park songs when he went to the break (linkin park is a heavy metal rap group) to be honest, if I'm not listening to gospel, I rather do enjoy linkin park, but i can't say they're conservative.

so is it conservative spending?

conservative wardrobe?

coservation of resources?

what does it mean?  Wherever you define it, you cab find something to negate it.  Being a republican does not necessarily make you a conservative, a christian, a muslim, or a liberal.  And it doesn't NOT make you any of those thing either.

liberal/conservative.........meaningless labels.

 

Here Mr. T, this might help you

Rajah's picture

When people say "Marx," you think "Groucho."

TMundo's picture

I knew it, Rajah and Coaster are conservative!

The right response to 9/11

FearlessFreep's picture

The people Americans really needed to talk to and understand (and still do) were the Arabs who celebrated over the 9/11 destruction.  Maybe you can ignore the terrorists' motivations, but their potential supporters are crucial to the future of the Middle East.

 

Makes sense...

MH's picture

This country (and the whole world, for that matter) would undoubtely be a better place if more people from all walks of life with all sorts of different points of view took action rather then just complaining.  Problem is, when you let rhetoric eclipse reality (by calling Obama a Marxist, Bush a Nazi, etc) you bring discourse to the point where people of different points of view can't even talk to each other without bringing up ridiculous stereotypes and straw man characterizations.

Clinton was far from perfect, but he hardly deserved to be impeached over lying about a BJ.  Looking at all the angry far-right rhetoric, the return of the "militia movement" of the 90s, the endless griping over the birth certificate, and even calls to secession (one of which came from none other then cheestastic action star Chuck Norris), I'm somewhat worried that the far-right is trying to tear the country apart out of spite for losing the election (plus, you combine the far-right anger at Obama with the latent racism of some of the people, and I really hope the secret service is able to do one hell of a job over the next 4-8 years).

can't disagree with that...

TMundo's picture

...had I the time, I'd be more of a doer of peaceful protest.  All I can do right now is pray, and I must say i don't do that enough in the area of praying for the war to end, yadda, yadda, yadda...

I can't stand the exagerated name calling, that's the most ridiculous thing.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.