[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null Is Obama a Marxist? - Conquer Club
In order to answer this question, I'll assume "Marxist" means "one who wishes to implement the means and seeks the ends as described in the Communist Manifesto."
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.
(B) Implementing the above "would, as believed by Marx and Engels, be a precursor to the stateless and classless society."
(C) What were the means? -organize the workers and beat up the bourgeoisie -somehow impose the above demands using an organization which is not a State but is a State (?) -somehow get rid of that organization -??? -PROFIT (end goal of the classless society realized)
Obama cannot accurately be described as a Marxist because:
(A) his goals do not fit all of the above demands in that list, (B) his ultimate goal is not a stateless/classless society (it's another 4 years as president, managing a political capitalist society, then enjoying the future income and prestige that follows) (C) lolwut. No way is that similar to Obama's current means of using/working within the state in order to implement his policies.
Can we all safely assume Obama is a Progressive? okay
I think a better question is, that can cut more clearly to the question and the issue at hand, does Progressivism have a lot in common with Communism? The answer is yes, they have A LOT in common.
Why is it so difficult for people to make the connection? Progressivism is Communism light.
[spoiler]How does America match up with the 10 point plan of the Communist Manifesto? A lot more than you might think!
1. Abolition of private property
The first plank of Communism is the abolishment of private property. America is certainly here in terms of eminent domain, where the state has the ability to expropriate private property “for the public good.” Per the Fifth Amendment, the government must fairly compensate a citizen in return, but lines tend to blur when the government is given the authority to assess what is “fair and just” in the first place. Regardless of whether the final sum is one agreeable to the private citizen, the property will still be confiscated with or without the owner’s consent.
Typically, land or property acquired through eminent domain is used to house public works that are10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American Life intended to benefit the community such as public utilities, freeways, libraries and schools. It is a slippery slope, however. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, the scope of eminent domain was expanded outside its traditional boundaries to include revitalizing “depressed areas.” In other words, in the spirit of gentrification or regeneration, a citizen’s private property can be seized by the government to build a sports complex, or even a shopping mall if the state deems it a public good.
Another example of government encroachment on citizens’ private property is evident in the far-reach of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) that buy mortgages on the secondary market. If a citizen’s mortgage is held by one of these government-backed giants, Uncle Sam is entirely “too close to home.”
Interconnected is property tax. Simply, if one is subject to property tax, then the land or property being taxed doesn’t actually belong to the “owner.” Fall behind on these payments and the government will seize a citizen’s home, business or land, regardless of whether his or her mortgage is paid in full.
10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American LifeHomes are not the only area subject to government encroachment, however. In fact, Uncle Sam owns roughly 650 million acres of land across the 50 states — with its highest ownership stake (85%) in Nevada. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also has the authority to seize private property during “emergency” situations.
2. Heavy progressive income tax
This particular tenet needs no introduction, nor example. America now holds the world record for highest corporate tax rate, surpassing even Japan. This is a crucial plank of the Manifesto, as it ensures that nary a high income earner will remain standing and everyone may subsist in equal mediocrity or (worse).
Ironically, Communists bang on incessantly about “equality” when in fact a flat-tax is arguably the fairest system of all and one that would, by design, ensure “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” If a 10% flat tax were implemented, then 10% of a $5,000 income would amount to far less than 10% of a $500,000 income. Thus, those who make more money, still pay more. Alas, that is certainly not the way Marx would have portrayed it. Nor is it the way the current administration seems to see it given the president’s renewed push to instate ”The Buffett Rule,” which seeks to raise the income tax rate on high income earners — including small business owners — even higher than it is now.
Regardless, whether one is subject to a flat or a progressive tax system, a foreboding and omnipotent force looms dangerously over the American ether: The IRS. Fail to pay your “fair share,” and you will soon learn of the government’s ultimate power — to freeze your bank accounts, seize your property, penalize and, in some instances even imprison you. There is perhaps no greater example of a Marxist economic policy in action than this.
3. Abolition to all rights of inheritance
One of the many stark contradictions found in the Manifesto is outlined in this particular pillar. What was most ironic about Marx’s desire to abolish inheritance was that, if he had his way, citizens would not own anything of value to bequeath upon death in the first place. Nonetheless, his odd and arguably redundant tenet has worked its way into the American landscape via the estate tax — and its very alias, the “death tax.” This alone should raise eyebrows, if not outright suspicion of government’s dubious motives.
First, many argue the estate tax is unconstitutional because it creates a direct tax that is not disbursed to the states for collection. But the more obvious discrepancy is that it allows the government to tax individuals twice, as the items that find their way into one’s estate — be they a car, house, land, jewelry or other valuable possessions — have already been subject to either sales or property tax once before. The Federal government’s carte blanche to double-dip is spurred further by Democrats’ renewed push to resurrect and expand what the Wall Street Journal dubs President Obama’s “night of living death tax.”
With the staggering rate applied to estates worth over $5 million, citizens may soon wonder why it is worth the bother to spend a lifetime building a personal or business empire to pass down to their children and grandchildren at all. By the second generation, there would be nothing left.
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants & rebels
This Manifesto pillar is perhaps best laid out in the recent string of government crackdowns on “homegrown militias.” Those who have paid careful attention to Janet Napolitano know that one of Homeland Security’s preoccupations of late has been the “rise” of “homegrown militias.” With this in mind, the department is likely honing in on anyone considered an “opposition group,” be they merely survivalists or those with a more militant bent.
Some may recall the Michigan militia, or ”Hutaree,” as they are known — a group of anti-government “rebels” who were allegedly engaged in preparations for a potential future clash with federal agencies. The defendants were accused of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government, a planned assassination of a police officer, and an ambush of that officer’s funeral with explosives in order to incite an uprising against the Federal government. While the anticipated attack never actually occurred, this did not stop the Feds, under the blessing of Attorney General Eric Holder, from raiding the Hutaree’s various outposts, confiscating its members’ arms and waging an all-out legal battle against the group.
At the end of March, 2012, presiding U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts dismissed the most serious of the charges against the Hutaree, leveling a staggering blow to the Fed. She said the members’ hatred of government did not amount to a conspiracy to overthrow it.
It remains unclear whether the Hutaree were indeed poised to be the aggressors of a violent assault or if they were simply anti-big-government, “good ol’ boy“ survivalists preparing to ”defend themselves” against a perceived government threat. But the Federal agencies’ indictment of the group perhaps reveals how government will deal with homegrown “threats” — be they real or perceived — moving forward.
Another key element, and one that warrants mention due to its relevance in modern day America, is10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American Life the confiscation of citizens’ weapons. Those who have felt their Second Amendment rights slowly whittle away understand that disarming the public is a crucial step vital to ensuring the state’s grip over its citizenry. In fact, one of the first tasks performed by the then-fledgling Soviet state was the confiscation of citizens’ private arms — even hunting rifles. By stripping people of the ability to defend themselves, the authoritarian state could reign over the vulnerable Russian populace. Many Americans consider this a highly plausible reality given increasingly stringent gun laws and regulations spread across all 50-states.
It should also be noted that IRS liens, levies and seizures are all means by which the Federal government can confiscate a “rebel” entity’s assets — one instance being the recent IRS “shakedown” of Tea Party members. And, in terms of “emigrants,” taxing the off-shore income and assets of American citizens, or causing Americans to give up their U.S. citizenship and flee to foreign lands to avoid abusive U.S. taxes, is yet another means by which the Fed’s confiscatory, overreaching tentacles are changing the American landscape. Statistics point out a rising trend…
5. Centralization and monopolization of credit by means of a national bank
10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American LifeCreated by Congress in 1913, the Federal Reserve is, for all intents and purposes, America‘s national bank charged with setting the monetary policy that controls the nation’s economic stability. The Federal Reserve holds the power to guide interest rates, thus controlling inflation. The effects of this agency’s actions are felt in measurable ways by everyday Americans, every day. From the interest rate accrued to mortgages and other lines of credit to determining the value of one’s home, it is both the seen and unforeseen reach of this institution that sets the tone for Americans’ financial security.
On the grander scale, the Federal Reserve has the more sinister power of devaluing U.S. currency, and thus the value of goods, services and property, via “quantitative easing,” or, as it is affectionately dubbed, printing money.
“One of the fundamental problems with the U.S. economy right now is the Federal Reserve thinks the answer to all our economic problems is printing money,” said the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore. “We haven’t created new jobs from all of this printing of money, but what we have produced is inflation in prices.”
6. Centralized control of communication & transportation
a) Transportation
The ways in which the Federal government controls America’s communication and transportation systems are almost too vast to count, but a few shining examples stand out. In terms of transportation, the Interstate Highway System, the Federal Aviation Authority and the Department of Transportation are of course the most obvious government bureaucracies controlling the country’s means of transport. Less-obvious, perhaps, is Amtrak, a government owned corporation and essentially the only passenger rail carrier in the country. Indeed the railroad industry’s metamorphosis from a private enterprise to a nationalized entity perhaps tells the greatest tale of the insidious ways in which the Federal government appropriates what it wants, when it wants.
The once flourishing U.S. rail industry’s day in the sun was eclipsed when the Fed introduced a “rate-10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American Lifesetting” scheme by which rail carriers were forced to adopt. The result was a decrease in profits, decrease in rail system growth, decrease in investments and an increase in labor costs. Not surprisingly, this had the reverse effect than that intended by the Fed when it first set rail carrier rates. In 1971 Amtrak was formed by the U.S. government. The obvious lesson here is that if government can destroy an industry to such a degree that that industry’s only means of survival moving forward is through nationalization, there is no reason to think it couldn’t just as easily happen to a commercial air carrier, for example, or any other privately held mode of transportation.
As mentioned above, air traffic, ground traffic and maritime traffic via the nation’s port authorities are all overseen and subject to take-over by the government should FEMA deem a state of emergency.
b) Communication
Presently, when it comes to communication, conservatives argue that nothing screams of Marxism louder than the Federal Communications Commission and Obama’s appointment of its “Chief Diversity Officer,” Frank Lloyd.
10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American LifeOne of the administration’s many “czars,” Lloyd was a senior fellow at the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress, where he authored a June 2007 report titled, ”The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” The content may point to Lloyd’s intentions when it comes to silencing voices of opposition, and many conservatives believe that Obama’s “Diversity Czar” intends to revive the Fairness Doctrine.
For those unfamiliar, the Fairness Doctrine, adopted in 1949, obligated broadcasters to provide opposing points of view on issues of national importance regardless of actual market demand for the content. Media Research Center’s Setton Motley said, if reinstated, caps would be placed on local and national ownership of commercial radio stations; local accountability over licensing would be ensured; and those not in compliance would be subject to paying a fee to support public broadcasting. As it stands, the FCC already levies heavy regulations on broadcasters and monitors all communication aired across radio and television waves.
Looking forward, another impending threat can be found in the current struggle for control over the Internet. Currently, the World Wide Web is controlled by the U.S. government via the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and its subsidiary, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Both are under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
There has been a growing push, however, for America to relinquish its control in the name of a world “without borders,“ or ”one world government.” Countries like China and Russia, in particular, have vied for control, doggedly pursuing the United Nations for assistance in breaking the U.S. stronghold.
If the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU), along with its nearly 200 member state allies were to take control of the levers, cyber security and data privacy would be subject to international control.
While even in the land of the free no information received or transmitted over the Internet escapes the prying eyes of Big Brother, it goes without saying America’s First Amendment rights still ensure a far more liberated information superhighway than the one that would exist under the reins of a dubious global body formed by the U.N. and led by China and Russia. Meanwhile, the entire global economy hangs in the balance.
7. Government ownership of factories
In terms of government owned factories, few could ever forget “Government Motors.” After nearly $53 billion in bailout funds over the course of two administrations, the U.S. government now owns a controlling stake in GM, raising the obvious question of how government can fairly regulate its own business. While GM asked the government to intervene, and while Amtrak was instead a victim of a federally-engineered scheme, both are examples of how government assumes control of private enterprise. Typically, it is the American taxpayer who fails to reap the dividends and becomes the victim of these machinations.
8. Equal liability of all to labor
The first thought which springs to mind when reading the Manifesto’s tenet on equal labor is the overriding presence of labor unions within the U.S. workforce. While labor unions in and of themselves are not nationalized organizing bodies, they have enjoyed a long and harmonious relationship with government, particularly through the progressive policies and lawmakers that prop up their various agendas. In fact, there may be no brighter an illustration of socialism manifested than the collective organizing body of America’s labor unions. Although subject to regulation and oversight by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), unions still overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates, thus a cycle of quid pro quo is perpetuated.
Another example of government control in the workplace emerges via the Labor Department’s Affirmative Action policies. By mandating that employers meet a staff-quota comprised of women, minorities and people with disabilities, private business is being forced to relinquish its ability to hire on the basis of merit, thus failing to deliver excellence and best practices. While many women, minorities and those with disabilities do indeed possess the skill sets needed to succeed in a specific job, it should, critics argue, be left to private enterprise to determine which candidate is best suited for the task at hand.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a government owned corporation, has been hailed a prime10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American Life example of true socialism in America. It is the country’s largest public power company, with a generating capacity of 31,658 megawatts. Its 17,000 miles of transmission lines deliver power through 158 locally owned distributors to 8.5 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. While even Republicans, for the most part, consider TVA to be a success, its case is considered unique in that the government model has never been able to be successfully duplicated along any other State waterway.
Agricultural subsidies are another prime example of this Manifesto plank in motion. An extensive analysis conducted by the CATO Institute determined that, when it comes to corporate welfare no one has reaped a greater windfall, or hurt taxpayers more than the “supermarket to the world,” Archer Daniels. An excerpt from the report reads:
ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM’s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM’s corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30
Aside from being incongruent with the free market, the nation’s agricultural subsidies cost tax payers tens of billions of dollars each year and typically only benefit larger farming outfits.
On the flip side, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is placing greater and greater restrictions on business in the form of cap and trade and in mandating the purchase of carbon credits.
10. Free education for all children in government controlled schools
What can be said of America’s beleaguered public education system could fill volumes, yet one needn’t look far to pluck one or two prime examples as proof that there are indeed no “free lunches.”
The Blaze recently uncovered a series of reports revealing what happens when a bureaucrat decides that the school district, along with its unionized faculty members, know better about a child’s needs than his or her parents do. Whether the control comes via mandating a child’s school lunch box contents, or altering the Pledge of Allegiance to omit the phrase “one nation under God,” or subjecting students to inadequate instruction from a teacher solely on the basis of that teacher’s tenure – a teacher who cannot be fired or replaced — the public school system is, arguably, setting up generations for failure.
Free medicine…the 11th tenet?
10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American LifeWhile not addressed specifically in the 10 tenets of the Communist Manifesto, national health care is perhaps — at least in modern day America — “the key to the empire.” It is why the fate of Obamacare is of utmost importance to the left. If passed, it sets precedent by establishing the “new normal” in government authority over private citizens. Legal experts and pundits alike have consistently argued the unconstitutionality of the health care bill, underscoring its significance as a “gateway” to other forms of government intrusion.
The bill’s unconstitutionality is irrelevant to those who, while claiming to champion the founding document, appear to be working to dismantle it.
Some balk at the use of the word “Communism,” dismissing its invocation as hyperbole. Yet when dissecting actual policies, laws, regulations and bureaucratic government approaches which Americans are increasingly subjected to, and weighing them against the 10 progressive “rules to live by,” the facts scream loudly and clearly in the face of those who deny the ever-creeping onset of Socialism. Marx’s Communist “utopia” is only one evolutionary stage away from reality.[/spoiler]
Phatscotty wrote:Can we all safely assume Obama is a Progressive? okay
I think a better question is, that can cut more clearly to the question and the issue at hand, does Progressivism have a lot in common with Communism? The answer is yes, they have A LOT in common.
Why is it so difficult for people to make the connection? Progressivism is Communism light.
Does the Democratic Party have A LOT in common with the Republican Party? The answer is yes, they have A LOT in common. Why is it so difficult for people to make the connection?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:Can we all safely assume Obama is a Progressive?
No, we can't. What progressive things has Obama done (speeches don't count)?
Edit: Another lolwut for the progessive=communist line.
Does a speech of him admitting (proudly might I add) and listing all the progressive things he has done count? If it helps, this speech is delivered at a famous progressive landmark, 100% in the name of Progressivism, repeatedly invoking the name of Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, and the speech is titled "New Nationalism"?
While I wait for you approval, can I also sneak in a small qualifying question to more accurately gauge your definition of progressive, by asking if you think Hillary Clinton is a Progressive?
Phatscotty wrote:Can we all safely assume Obama is a Progressive?
No, we can't. What progressive things has Obama done (speeches don't count)?
Edit: Another lolwut for the progessive=communist line.
Does a speech of him admitting (proudly might I add) and listing all the progressive things he has done count? If it helps, this speech is delivered at a famous progressive landmark, 100% in the name of Progressivism, repeatedly invoking the name of Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, and the speech is titled "New Nationalism"?
While I wait for you approval, can I also sneak in a small qualifying question to more accurately gauge your definition of progressive, by asking if you think Hillary Clinton is a Progressive?
No, that doesn't count. Obama is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He has done nothing to differentiate himself from George Bush. You don't seem to take Obama at his word in any other respect, so why would you believe he's a progressive?
Edit: Hilary isn't as much of a wolf in sheep's clothing as Obama, but she's hardly Kucinich/Sanders.
Phatscotty wrote:Can we all safely assume Obama is a Progressive?
No, we can't. What progressive things has Obama done (speeches don't count)?
Edit: Another lolwut for the progessive=communist line.
Enacting laws without Congressional approval while ignoring laws already on the books. Yesterday was the first official day of his illegal Dream Act Amnesty Program.
Phatscotty wrote:Can we all safely assume Obama is a Progressive?
No, we can't. What progressive things has Obama done (speeches don't count)?
Edit: Another lolwut for the progessive=communist line.
Does a speech of him admitting (proudly might I add) and listing all the progressive things he has done count? If it helps, this speech is delivered at a famous progressive landmark, 100% in the name of Progressivism, repeatedly invoking the name of Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, and the speech is titled "New Nationalism"?
While I wait for you approval, can I also sneak in a small qualifying question to more accurately gauge your definition of progressive, by asking if you think Hillary Clinton is a Progressive?
No, that doesn't count. Obama is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He has done nothing to differentiate himself from George Bush. You don't seem to take Obama at his word in any other respect, so why would you believe he's a progressive?
Edit: Hilary isn't as much of a wolf in sheep's clothing as Obama, but she's hardly Kucinich/Sanders.
How does that work?
What criteria must one meet in order to be considered Democrat?
Phatscotty wrote:Can we all safely assume Obama is a Progressive?
No, we can't. What progressive things has Obama done (speeches don't count)?
Edit: Another lolwut for the progessive=communist line.
Does a speech of him admitting (proudly might I add) and listing all the progressive things he has done count? If it helps, this speech is delivered at a famous progressive landmark, 100% in the name of Progressivism, repeatedly invoking the name of Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, and the speech is titled "New Nationalism"?
While I wait for you approval, can I also sneak in a small qualifying question to more accurately gauge your definition of progressive, by asking if you think Hillary Clinton is a Progressive?
No, that doesn't count. Obama is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He has done nothing to differentiate himself from George Bush. You don't seem to take Obama at his word in any other respect, so why would you believe he's a progressive?
Edit: Hilary isn't as much of a wolf in sheep's clothing as Obama, but she's hardly Kucinich/Sanders.
How does that work?
What criteria must one meet in order to be considered Democrat?
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that 99% of the Democratic party consists of Republicans pretending to be something else. The Democrats are in no way left wing.
Phatscotty wrote:Can we all safely assume Obama is a Progressive?
No, we can't. What progressive things has Obama done (speeches don't count)?
Edit: Another lolwut for the progessive=communist line.
Enacting laws without Congressional approval while ignoring laws already on the books. Yesterday was the first official day of his illegal Dream Act Amnesty Program.
Phatscotty wrote:repeatedly invoking the name of Progressive Teddy Roosevelt
Wait - Teddy Roosevelt was a member of a party that named itself "the Progressive Party" for a period of 4 years, the other 56 years of his life he was a member of the Republican Party.
if someone is something for at least 4 years of their life, they are always that thing = PhatScotty is a virgin
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.
I do not believe Obama is a Marxist, and agree with those who say he is conservative. However, if we are applying Marxism based on a 150 year old treatise instead of more contemporary definitions, Scott may have a point.
> 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
One could argue that Obama's tax policy are equal to a heavy progressive tax.
> 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
as above, vis a vis the Capital Gains tax
> 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
One could say the Federal Reserve and TARP are roads to this end.
> 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
One could argue proposals like the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 are a road to this end.
> 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into > cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
One could argue the existing government stakes in GM, Chrysler and ongoing ownership of the TVA, etc. are a road to this end.
> 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and > combination of education with industrial production.
This has already come to pass.
So, if Scott says "Obama is a Marxist" is this: (a) a rational statement with which you agree, (b) a rational statement with which you disagree, or, (c) an irrational statement?
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Phatscotty wrote:Can we all safely assume Obama is a Progressive?
No, we can't. What progressive things has Obama done (speeches don't count)?
Edit: Another lolwut for the progessive=communist line.
Does a speech of him admitting (proudly might I add) and listing all the progressive things he has done count? If it helps, this speech is delivered at a famous progressive landmark, 100% in the name of Progressivism, repeatedly invoking the name of Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, and the speech is titled "New Nationalism"?
While I wait for you approval, can I also sneak in a small qualifying question to more accurately gauge your definition of progressive, by asking if you think Hillary Clinton is a Progressive?
No, that doesn't count. Obama is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He has done nothing to differentiate himself from George Bush. You don't seem to take Obama at his word in any other respect, so why would you believe he's a progressive?
Edit: Hilary isn't as much of a wolf in sheep's clothing as Obama, but she's hardly Kucinich/Sanders.
If you won't believe Obama's own words about himself, then who's words would you believe?
Okay, but the Communist Manifesto really isn't a great point, but it was more of a counter to something specific said on the first page about how Progressivism has a lot in common with Communism.
We also have to include Obama's deep connections with Frank Marshall Davis, who basically filled the role as Obama's father when Obama moved to Hawaii when he was around 10 years old.
I think Obama quotes/speaks of/shares experiences with Frank Marhsall Davis 27 times in his own auto-biography. Also, Frank's name was scrubbed from future editions of "Dreams from my Father". Don't spend any brain power questioning why he would do that though
Phatscotty wrote:We also have to include Obama's deep connections with Frank Marshall Davis
So I was teetering at "B" (rational statement with which I disagree), but the conspiracy theory pushes me back into a "C" (irrational statement).
John Hinckley's family were friends with the the Bush family. When he shot Reagan was it part of a Bush plot to propel George H.W. into the White House?
Imagining Manchurian Candidate scenarios, multi-layered plot lines and decades long plans that have been cultivated in the shadows can definitely make politics fun. But usually they're things one should not openly discuss if one wants to be taken seriously. Kind of like jock itch.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.
I do not believe Obama is a Marxist, and agree with those who say he is conservative. However, if we are applying Marxism based on a 150 year old treatise instead of more contemporary definitions, Scott may have a point.
> 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
One could argue that Obama's tax policy are equal to a heavy progressive tax.
> 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
as above, vis a vis the Capital Gains tax
> 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
One could say the Federal Reserve and TARP are roads to this end.
> 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
One could argue proposals like the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 are a road to this end.
> 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into > cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
One could argue the existing government stakes in GM, Chrysler and ongoing ownership of the TVA, etc. are a road to this end.
> 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and > combination of education with industrial production.
This has already come to pass.
So, if Scott says "Obama is a Marxist" is this: (a) a rational statement with which you agree, (b) a rational statement with which you disagree, or, (c) an irrational statement?
In the sense in which you described Marxism, it would be a rational statement which I might agree with but am having difficult with accepting as true because...
the above are not including the other main demands of Marxism--namely, 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Therefore, the way in which you described Marxism cannot correct because it isn't Marxism.
We could settle for "Quasi-Marxism," or lol "Obamism," but that renders Marxism meaningless--in comparison to other terms which better describe Obama.
Phatscotty wrote:We also have to include Obama's deep connections with Frank Marshall Davis
So I was teetering at "B" (rational statement with which I disagree), but the conspiracy theory pushes me back into a "C" (irrational statement).
John Hinckley's family were friends with the the Bush family. When he shot Reagan was it part of a Bush plot to propel George H.W. into the White House?
duh
saxitoxin wrote:Imagining Manchurian Candidate scenarios, multi-layered plot lines and decades long plans that have been cultivated in the shadows can definitely make politics fun. But usually they're things one should not openly discuss if one wants to be taken seriously. Kind of like jock itch.
Davis was a Marxist, and he mentored Obama. No conspiracy to see here. Just a Marxist Frank Marshall Davis mentoring a young and impressionable Barack Hussein Obama, for years. Obama thought of him as the father he never had.
saxitoxin wrote:Imagining Manchurian Candidate scenarios, multi-layered plot lines and decades long plans that have been cultivated in the shadows can definitely make politics fun. But usually they're things one should not openly discuss if one wants to be taken seriously. Kind of like jock itch.
Hey, Davis was a Marxist, and he mentored Obama. Not conspiracy to see here. Only Marxism
David Horowitz' parents - HIS PARENTS!!! - were members of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Not book club "I'm a Marxist - can I get a grande espresso, I'm late for the midnight showing of Easy Rider?" kind of Marxists but, training-in-the-forest with AK-47 Marxists. Is David Horowitz a Marxist sleeper agent secretly trying to destroy the Republican Party from the inside?
That question probably doesn't matter because, as your dramatic photo evidence shows, Obama and Davis TILTED THEIR HEAD THE SAME WAY IN PHOTOS A PHOTO. Case closed. Point, Scott.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
hahaha chuckle. I have actually heard Horowitz speak many times, and if he is a Communist sleeper cell, then he is giving away all the Communists secrets! But maybe they are fake secrets, hmmmm. I just wanted to show photos of the 2 people that had more influence in Obama's life than terrorist Bill Ayers, and bonafide Marxist Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
But, to get back to the most serious of business, I want to know. Can the community agree, that what is meant by the word "Marxist", (to speak simply for maximum communication impact) as one who prescribes to, follows, is heavily influenced by, shares the philosophy and the theories of Karl Marx and Communism? Anyone feel free to add what else defines a Marxist.
Phatscotty wrote:But, to get back to the most serious of business, I want to know. Can the community agree, that what is meant by the word "Marxist", (to speak simply for maximum communication impact) as one who prescribes to, follows, is heavily influenced by, shares the philosophy and the theories of Karl Marx and Communism?
That seems like a reasonable definition Scott, in that you limit it to "is influenced by ... the theories of Karl Marx" and not an illogical "is influenced by ... people who are influenced by Karl Marx."
For instance, Saxi loves Oprah but that doesn't mean he supports Obama.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
BigBallinStalin wrote:But the means and ends differ.
Being a Marxist != being a social democrat, or Stalinist, or progressive---even though those forms of governance share some/many similarities.
It just isn't accurate to label a social democrat or progressive as a Marxist.
(Furthermore, thanks, BVP for clearing that up, and you're still a socialist.)
I wish to challenge the progressive assertion. The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's. They may have dropped a couple of planks from their agenda over the last century, but I would say the drops are more due to being outdated. You seem to agree there are some/many similarities, I would just state it's my opinion that the similarities that Progressives share with Communists/Marxists are many/barely indistinguishable. Especially with all the class warfare and racial and social division that is starting to be called "acceptable".
I understand people have the urge to get defensive because of the negative annotations connected to Marxism/Communism, but those annotations are well deserved and when you strip it all down to philosophy and policy and words and actions, they are the same thing if you allow just a little room for evolution and the technological era.
