The left has gotten away with repeatedly jeering at people who refer to Obama as any of the following:
Marxist
Socialist
Communist
and while he embodies traits of all those things we have to admit that strictly speaking by the definition of those terms they are correct. Not embracing any of these in its entirety his politics do noty meet the criteria to be soley any one of these.
He is a hybrid of all these things I personally can’t figure our which wins out. He’s like an evil statist jackalope.
So, in all seriousness please.. how do we define Obama correctly?
All of those things are accurate, but not fully obviously. He grants all of the major Marxist-communist premises, and he clearly is a socialist. He isn’t a Bolshevik however, he’s more of a Menshevik/social democrat, but less of the communist variety, and more of the fascist pattern, but not out of any principled dedication to fascism, just out of mere pragmatism.
He’s an American Democrat. His parents were communists, he was surrounded by communists, his father-figure was a member of the Communist Party USA, and his mentor was a communist, he has communists in his cabinet. I would venture to say that the only things keeping the man from openly embracing communism is that he the political climate is one where communism has been discredited and out of the mainstream, and he is a pragmatist.
Obama is an American. He is a hodgpodge of pragmatism plus whatever stuck to him while he grew up.
Ok to be more precise.. what would you label his political, economic and social agendas as? Labels are pretty important actually.. defining something and knowing what to call it.
Obviously he believes in mass redistribution.. but I don’t believe he wants total economic equality.
It seems he would like some private ownership of businesses to remain- but almost in a sort of feudal manner- things may be owned privately but the govt controls the use and disposal thereof (in feudal Japan people owned the land but the rulers owned everything on and produced by it)
He has kept and expanded upon the govt intrusion into the privacy of Americans started under Bush and also has a strong anti second amendment leaning.
He believes in zero transparency as far as govt dealings-makes Bush’s improprieties look like a joke.
He appears to believe in a sort of Kantianesque philosophy where everyone should consider everyone else an end unto themselves while believing one’s own self to be nothing but a means.
Politically he seems to believe in a sort of “custodial liberalism”. If you are lazy, stupid, corrupt, destructive, evil, etc that can be forgiven because of course something caused you to do that. All daddy wants is for you to admit that you need to be told what to do.
Actually I have to say more than anything his beliefs and actions from how I perceive them appear to be straight out of 1984.
But is he Napoleon or Snowball?
Edited
I apoligise for lots of typos and sloppiness lately. Am typing with a broken index finger
He appears to believe in a sort of Kantianesque philosophy where everyone should consider everyone else an end unto themselves while believing one’s own self to be nothing but a means.
In what particular writings of Kant do you find it advocated that one’s self is to be considered by oneself as nothing but a means?
In what particular writings of Kant do you find it advocated that one’s self is to be considered by oneself as nothing but a means?
He openly advocated that one must treat others as an end to themselves. At the same time advocating that one must act with a sense of duty towards others (which would make one a means and not an end).
If you do not believe that his philosophy advocates this feel free to show me opposing examples.
Being an end to myself, I don’t often do google searches for others that they can perform themselves <_<
He openly advocated that one must treat others as an end to themselves. At the same time advocating that one must act with a sense of duty towards others (which would make one a means and not an end).
Your parenthetical inference comes from your own rather rough simplification of Kant’s theory. I am interested in what particular passages in Kant you take as advocating that one should regard oneself as nothing but a means.
If you do not believe that his philosophy advocates this feel free to show me opposing examples.
I’m not proposing any particular interpretation of Kant. In this instance I’m just trying to find what passages you regard as Kant advocating that one should regard oneself as nothing but a means.
Being an end to myself, I don’t often do google searches for others that they can perform themselves
I don’t need Google search results. I’m just inquiring as to what particular passages in Kant YOU think advocate that one should regard oneself as nothing but a means. Of course, if you wish not to state what particular passages you have in mind, then so be it.
Ok to be more precise.. what would you label his political, economic and social agendas as? Labels are pretty important actually.. defining something and knowing what to call it.
Don’t label the man label the agendas. There is no reason why his various agendas should add up to anything or be consistent.
Obama in not a socailst, fascist, and he is especially not a marxist. Obama is left of center, but “right” wing leaders in other countries have similar policies.
He is a FDR, Woodrow Wilson type guy. That is scary enough.
Obama in not a socailst, fascist, and he is especially not a marxist. Obama is left of center, but “right” wing leaders in other countries have similar policies.
He is a FDR, Woodrow Wilson type guy. That is scary enough.
Of course he is. Does he not support the labor theory of value? Does he not support Marxist class struggle theory? Does he not support Marxist exploitation theories? If he’s not a Marxist why does he hold so many Marxist premises?
Of course he is. Does he not support the labor theory of value? Does he not support Marxist class struggle theory? Does he not support Marxist exploitation theories? If he’s not a Marxist why does he hold so many Marxist premises?
Jeez. So does Mikhail Bakunin, you know? I shouldn’t have to say this, but Marxismis the economic and political model of Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels), meaning, Marxism is not Barack Obama’s favorite aspects from it, even if they’re “many”, since being a marxist is not an issue of “quantity” of premises, but of full understanding and consistency to actual marxist tenets, which btw are in conflict by the mere fact of having a marxist president in the first place, since socialism can only by achieved by a proletarian revolution, resulting later in a certain form of direct democracy, after the working class assumes the State power in order to socialize the means of production (this according to Marxism) and not by the implementation of transitional reformist methods, which have been always strongly criticized by actual marxists, since Rosa Luxemburg. If this works or not, which I think it doesn’t, that is irrelevant, and I don’t care to discuss it. I’m just saying that if Obama is to be called a “marxist” (even if marxists who agree on this are extremely rare to find), then we should be just and start calling Glenn Beck an Objectivist.
Of course he is. Does he not support the labor theory of value? Does he not support Marxist class struggle theory? Does he not support Marxist exploitation theories? If he’s not a Marxist why does he hold so many Marxist premises?
See this is where my question is coming from..Obama agrees with much of Marxist theory but strays enough away from it that to call him a Marxist is wholly inaccurate- as calling someone who agrees with free market but little else an Objectivist would be incorrect.
The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is “State Capitalism.” It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the “classic” ideal of egalitarian Socialism.
I think the right term to describe his domestic policies is “fascist”. His signature policy initiatives do not call for overt nationalization of industries or the abolition of private property. Rather, they call for total government control inside a nominally private framework. Don’t nationalize the auto companies – give controlling ownership interests to your political allies. Don’t nationalize the banks – give them bailout money and use that as leverage to dictate their lending and compensation policies. Don’t nationalize the medical industry – dictate the kinds of policies they can sell, and force people to buy them with their own money. Etc.
I think the right term to describe his domestic policies is “fascist”. His signature policy initiatives do not call for overt nationalization of industries or the abolition of private property. Rather, they call for total government control inside a nominally private framework. Don’t nationalize the auto companies – give controlling ownership interests to your political allies. Don’t nationalize the banks – give them bailout money and use that as leverage to dictate their lending and compensation policies. Don’t nationalize the medical industry – dictate the kinds of policies they can sell, and force people to buy them with their own money. Etc.
Also, in light of my above remarks, I can’t resist pointing out that fascism is a form of socialism. Never forget that “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist Worker’s Party”. So in a way the answer to the question “Is Obama a fascist or a socialist” is “Why can’t he be both?” It’s also worth noting that the fascists were themselves influenced by Marx, so there’s no contradiction between identifying Obama as a fascist and acknowledging the Marxist elements in his thought and background.
In the end, though, Obama is a thorough statist and collectivist, utterly hostile to the principle of individual rights. That’s the fundamental. Whether he’s a fascist or a socialist or a Marxist is derivative. That only identifies the particular form of totalitarianism he is working towards, and from the point of view of the victims – us – does that really matter?
