Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Obama really a Socialist?

Rate this topic


Rocky Racoon

Recommended Posts

I've been debating with a friend of mine about Obama. Obviously he is a supporter and I am not. I cannot get behind the idea of more government control and his whole "spread the wealth around" idea.

Anyway what I'm getting at is that I would like to be more educated on this issue. I'm asking anybody to present their reasons for why they think Obama’s political philosophy is that of socialist ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I cannot get behind the idea of more government control and his whole "spread the wealth around" idea....

I'm asking anybody to present their reasons for why they think Obama’s political philosophy is that of socialist ideas.

In a nutshell, this is it. The fundamental idea of socialism is that the state should redistribute wealth so that everybody has an equal "share" of the net wealth of a society; regardless of whether they actually created any wealth. This view is opposed by the capitalist view that everybody should be allowed to keep what they create.

What remains to be seen is just how closely Obama will adhere to and be able to implement his socialist philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say he's a socialist, and living in Canuckistan I ought to know! :P

The bulk of his policy announcements so far seem to hinge on the nebulous specter of "need".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to me to walk and quack like a duck.

I'd say he's a socialist, and living in Canuckistan I ought to know! :P

I've had Canadians vehemently deny that your govenment is Socialist, and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. :P

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to me to walk and quack like a duck.

I've had Canadians vehemently deny that your govenment is Socialist, and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. :P

Oh, well that's different... We're allowed to do it, you're not. :P :P

<Psst> there's a 60% chance you were talking to one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not progressively moreso than his Republican opponents. If we are just saying that a Socialist is a person who uses the government to redistribute wealth, then most American politicians are socialists. I don't think Obama actually wants to make it so everyone has the same amount of wealth, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for a guy that really doesn't have much of a voting record, he's certainly said a lot that one would believe that he believes in socialism.

He's talked a lot about people being "selfish" with their money. As though government knows better what to do with it. As it is the governments right. Biden, his VP, called a paying taxes "patriotic".

In the end, what bills will be send to his desk by the Democrats in the House and Senate. That might be more telling. They, meaning the House and Senate leaders and Barry O certainly seem pretty certain that more needs to be done to "spur economic growth".

I think he's a socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's a socialist. I think he's a fascist.

Both ideologies justify massive economic intervention on the grounds of "need" and the "public good". The difference is that socialists go for outright nationalization of industries, whereas fascists go for overwhelming government control within the framework of a nominally private market. Which of those sounds more like Obama's program? A socialist health care system, for example, would be one in which all doctors work for the government and provide health care to any who ask for it. A fascist health care system would be one in which the government forces individuals or private businesses to purchase health insurance meeting some specified standard, and then forces private doctors to accept it. The various "health mandate" reform proposals floating around sure sound more like the latter than the former. The government doesn't want to own and operate the auto companies -- it wants to dictate their actions while leaving the market for cars nominally private. Etc.

It still isn't clear to me whether Obama is an ideologically-committed fascist, or merely a left-wing pragmatist embedded in a cultural context that is trending towards fascism. Certainly he isn't unique -- McCain was just as much a fascist as Obama. That's part of what's scary. Obama is an accurate reflection of the current intellectual state and cultural trend-line of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is a philosophical pragmatist and a political populist. He's merely disregarding any principles he may have in order to adapt to the dynamic (and irrational) demands of those who support him. The fact that his constituency is currently advocating certain socialist policies doesn't make him a socialist. Unless his constantly vaunted "major public works project" is a code for nationalizing the means of production, I don't necessarily believe he meets the criteria.

I've been debating with a friend of mine about Obama. Obviously he is a supporter and I am not. I cannot get behind the idea of more government control and his whole "spread the wealth around" idea.

Anyway what I'm getting at is that I would like to be more educated on this issue. I'm asking anybody to present their reasons for why they think Obama’s political philosophy is that of socialist ideas.

Edited by Ordr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that his constituency is currently advocating certain socialist policies doesn't make him a socialist.

This does(italics mine)

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Obama added, "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does(italics mine)

Despite the obvious references to redistributionism, one of the major tenets in Socialism, I'm not sure if that qualifies him as a socialist. I'd say he's socialistic, meaning: having some views consistent with Socialism. This might be a semantic argument, of course, but the only reason why I'm pursuing it is because my understanding is that Socialism is a very specific system involving more than just redistributionist aspects. Historically, the shift from private ownership of the means of production to public ownership has tended to be the determining factor as to whether or not a government is truly Socialist. In a debate about whether he is or is not, where saying that he is would be an absolute, my opinion, for the sake of accuracy, because of the evidence thusfar, is that he is not. Yet. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll place this in my context.

I don't see what he says or what he's done as giving very much support to capitalism. Therefore, he his a threat to my freedom to produce.

As I understand him through various statements, he believes that profit is selfish, and there is continued talk of redistribution of individual wealth to others that didn't produce it.

Certainly, his leanings are toward socialism, facisim, etc. It's a threat to my freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically, the shift from private ownership of the means of production to public ownership has tended to be the determining factor as to whether or not a government is truly Socialist. In a debate about whether he is or is not, where saying that he is would be an absolute, my opinion, for the sake of accuracy, because of the evidence thusfar, is that he is not. Yet. :P

One might say that Obama is fascist (or socialist) in the same sense that Bush is theocratic -- he holds the same basic premises, but doesn't carry them out to their full logical conclusion. Because such basic premises do tend to play out to their logical conclusion over time, the effect of such leadership is to move the nation in that direction. So even if one does not consider Obama to be a fascist, the net result of his administration will be to move the United States in a fascistic direction.

In a way, quibbling over whether Obama is a socialist or a fascist may be missing the point. He's clearly an altruist, a collectivist and a statist. That's enough to know that his policies, to the extent that they flow from such ideas, will be damaging to freedom, prosperity and human life.

Edited by khaight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll place this in my context.

I don't see what he says or what he's done as giving very much support to capitalism. Therefore, he his a threat to my freedom to produce.

As I understand him through various statements, he believes that profit is selfish, and there is continued talk of redistribution of individual wealth to others that didn't produce it.

Certainly, his leanings are toward socialism, facisim, etc. It's a threat to my freedom.

I absolutely agree. He is an enemy of individual rights and Capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One might say that Obama is fascist (or socialist) in the same sense that Bush is theocratic -- he holds the same basic premises, but doesn't carry them out to their full logical conclusion. Because such basic premises do tend to play out to their logical conclusion over time, the effect of such leadership is to move the nation in that direction. So even if one does not consider Obama to be a fascist, the net result of his administration will be to move the United States in a fascistic direction.

In a way, quibbling over whether Obama is a socialist or a fascist may be missing the point. He's clearly an altruist, a collectivist and a statist. That's enough to know that his policies, to the extent that they flow from such ideas, will be damaging to freedom, prosperity and human life.

I like that Bush parallel and I wholeheartedly agree with it as well as the rest of your statements.

As I said above, in a debate situation when linguistic precision is necessary to not only accurately convey one's position but to not leave an opening for one's argument to be attacked, it would be inaccurate to call him a socialist simply because the opponent can provide an accurate rebuttal stating that he has never advocated certain aspects of Socialism and, therefore, cannot be a de facto socialist. Since the OP claimed this issue arose during a debate both here and in this thread in our debate forum, I felt I had to be more accurate and nit-picky with the language.

Personally, if this wasn't a debate, I'd be calling him a fascist too. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to me to walk and quack like a duck.

I've had Canadians vehemently deny that your govenment is Socialist, and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. :P

They have a mixed economy, with more socialism in their mixture than America has. If they were pure socialist they'd be like the old Soviet Union.

Obama is a philosophical pragmatist and a political populist. He's merely disregarding any principles he may have in order to adapt to the dynamic (and irrational) demands of those who support him. The fact that his constituency is currently advocating certain socialist policies doesn't make him a socialist. Unless his constantly vaunted "major public works project" is a code for nationalizing the means of production, I don't necessarily believe he meets the criteria.

I think he's using pragmatism to push socialist policies. I don't know if you listened to Tara Smith's lecture on pragmatism (available on the AynRand.org website), but from her speech I got the impression that pragmatism is used as a way to push bad ideas. Pragmatism softens the hard edge of ideas, so that more people are willing to accept them bit by bit. This is what makes it so deceptively dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if you listened to Tara Smith's lecture on pragmatism (available on the AynRand.org website), but from her speech I got the impression that pragmatism is used as a way to push bad ideas. Pragmatism softens the hard edge of ideas, so that more people are willing to accept them bit by bit. This is what makes it so deceptively dangerous.

I read that essay this morning on The Objective Standard website :P. I definitely agree with you; his pragmatism is definitely pushing bad, immoral ideals, but I still believe that he is still far too much of a populist to deal with the political backlash from pushing as Socialist an agenda as he has outlined (nebulously) in speeches and interviews. Perhaps that nebulousness is the softness around the hard edge of his ideology, as Ms. Smith might claim, but nothing about him implies any steadfastness or willing to stand on true principle. His populist streak has shown that he's as malleable as hot steel, but unlike the metal, he has little chance of hardening to the point of supporting anything substantial.

Edited by Ordr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that essay this morning on The Objective Standard website :). I definitely agree with you; his pragmatism is definitely pushing bad, immoral ideals, but I still believe that he is still far too much of a populist to deal with the political backlash from pushing as Socialist an agenda as he has outlined (nebulously) in speeches and interviews. Perhaps that nebulousness is the softness around the hard edge of his ideology, as Ms. Smith might claim, but nothing about him implies any steadfastness or willing to stand on true principle. His populist streak has shown that he's as malleable as hot steel, but unlike the metal, he has little chance of hardening to the point of supporting anything substantial.

You may be right about that. Your last sentence is very artistically put!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duh.

Hey, listen, I think it's important to be clear that socialism is really bad in practice and that places like Canada are not that bad to live, because they are mixed. Lots of people think Sweden, for example, is socialist and "it's not that bad", but Sweden too is an example of a mixed economy and the good elements that make it worth living there are the free elements. I realize you know this, but I also think it’s vital to point it out for people generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, listen, I think it's important to be clear that socialism is really bad in practice and that places like Canada are not that bad to live, because they are mixed. Lots of people think Sweden, for example, is socialist and "it's not that bad", but Sweden too is an example of a mixed economy and the good elements that make it worth living there are the free elements. I realize you know this, but I also think it’s vital to point it out for people generally.

Do they have freedom in the moral sense of Objectivism? No.

Should those people accept their system if they believe in the morality of freedom and production? I don't think so. Nor should I roll over for those that want to replace my freedoms with their will.

I think there were some in Communist USSR that had a pretty good life too. Could it be better? Sure. Is capitalism hard? Yes. It is moral, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they have freedom in the moral sense of Objectivism? No.

Should those people accept their system if they believe in the morality of freedom and production? I don't think so. Nor should I roll over for those that want to replace my freedoms with their will.

Of course, and this is my point, to make it clear that socialism is hell and should be fought.

I think there were some in Communist USSR that had a pretty good life too. Could it be better? Sure. Is capitalism hard? Yes. It is moral, however.

Well, Canada and Sweden are much better places to live for the average man than was the old Soviet Union. I think you have to look at the average Joe here. I have relatives to live in Canada and it's a pretty good life. Not nearly what life could be and ought to be, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been debating with a friend of mine about Obama. Obviously he is a supporter and I am not. I cannot get behind the idea of more government control and his whole "spread the wealth around" idea.

Anyway what I'm getting at is that I would like to be more educated on this issue. I'm asking anybody to present their reasons for why they think Obama’s political philosophy is that of socialist ideas.

It might just depend on who you talk to. Some seem to hold the believe that if a person is in any way affiliated with the Democratic Party in America, then they are automatically a socialist.

Socialism is about having the means of production forcibly controlled by one exclusive group of people. So it comes it all shapes and sizes. Obama hasn't made any plans to outright take over the means of production and exclude anyone from competing without his or his administration or groups permission. So, no, he's not a socialist.

He also hasn't concertized his positions very well. And a lot of things he says seem to be conveniently ignored by whoever is doing the commenting about what he said. Most of the discussion on his views involved taking a sound bit and interpreting it to mean whatever you feel it should mean.

For instance, here is an excerpt from a CNBC interview during the elections.

HARWOOD: On your general approach to business, you have criticized trade deals as not in the interests of American workers. You’ve talked about Wall Street speculators tricking people out of their homes, you’ve hit corporations for outsourcing. Are you a populist, and do you have any concern that your agenda might end up doing some damage to a US and global economic system that, though it’s struggling now, has delivered a lot of benefits to a lot of people over the last 25 years?

Sen. OBAMA: Look. I am a pro-growth, free market guy. I love the market. I think it is the best invention to allocate resources and produce enormous prosperity for America or the world that’s ever been designed.

As I said before, I think what’s happened is that the market has gotten out of balance. This isn’t the first time it happened. It happens often, particularly during periods of great technological and economic change. It happened, you know, when we moved from farms to factories. It happened when we shifted from factories to the information age. We’re still in the process of adapting to this new environment. And there are those of us who have done very well in this new global economy. A lot of dislocations have taken place. And all I’ve said is let’s make sure that our economy takes into account not just the winners but also the losers in the economy.

Let’s make sure that the burdens and benefits of globalization are fairly distributed. Let’s make sure that we are investing in what’s required for long-term growth. And I don’t think there’s any market advocate who would suggest that if our schools are underperforming, if our investment in basic science and research is declining, if young people can’t afford to go to college, if our health-care system is broken and more expensive delivering less in terms of quality care than any other advanced nation, that those are good things for the market, then, you know, we should go ahead and make those investments, make those changes, to make this marketplace work better. That’s my basic philosophy.

And on trade deals, I believe in free trade. And as somebody who lived overseas, who has family overseas, I’ve seen what’s happened in terms of rising living standards around the globe. And that’s a good thing for America, it’s good for our national security. But what I also believe is that if trade agreements are written only with corporate profits and Wall Street in mind and not with its possible effects on Main Street, then we’re only seeing half of the equation, and we’ve got to take those into account.

So, what do you want this to mean? That Obama is definitely out to get the free-market because he knows about it's strength and his maniacal drive to power urges him to control this wonderful allocator of resources? That he is only saying it to get votes? That he just doesn't know what to say?

Take your pick.

When you begin throwing labels around easily they begin loose their meaning. Like the old story about the boy who cried wolf. Don't speak without certainty if you can. Certainty precludes Hugo Chavez is a socialist; Barack Obama is not, or at least not Hugo Chavez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...