Re-Electing Obama

[Howard509]

I would support Obama's re-election if he ended the Iraq war, repealed the Patriot Act, closed Gitmo, disbanded NAFTA and WTO, expanded Medicare to all Americans, and found Osama bin Laden all in his first term. This would all be possible, if he didn't let the ruling class tell him what to do. Otherwise, he'll be another Clinton rather than an FDR.

[Lolshevik]

Because FDR was a great leader who brought us bounty and socialism, right?

[Howard509]

If I'm not mistaken, the IWW supported FDR, as did the Bohemian left.

[Kukulofori]

He'll end Iraq... on terms that leave it with a worse dictatorship than Saddam was.

He won't expand medicare. If he does it'll be on really shitty populist terms that don't amount to much.

He's been quite public about not even really caring if he catches Bin Laden anymore so long as he can cripple Afghanistan's infrastructure enough to leave him powerless (and Afghans in poverty). In any case we shouldn't be focusing on finding Bin Laden so much as we should on not dicking around the middle east anymore because seriously we were asking for it (not that I condone attacking civillians, but if 9/11 surprises you you're an idiot) and the invasion is not helping.

[Sarah Palin]

I'd support Obama if he wasn't such a fucking wimp. He bends over backwards to please the ruling class and their corporations. He has no intention of creating an acceptable universal healthcare system, no intention of withdrawing from Iraq AND Afghanistan (don't forget about that war, now), no intention of doing anything to strengthen unions, and no intention to do anything remotely leftist or even sympathetic to the far left. He is a corporate puppet just like every other U.S president.

[StalinFanboy]

I'd support Obama if he wasn't an imperialist fuck. Also, if I thought bourgeois democracy meant anything to the working class.

[FreeFocus]

If a person is president, they will never get my support.

[Misanthrope]

Obama is a puppet and the same people are pulling the strings when it was Bush's turn. I don't see the occupation ending or any other social democrat pipe dreams being achieved.

Bourgeois politics are irrelevant to reality, to class struggle.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Even if the Iraq War is officially ended, the Iraqi government will remain a puppet regime for the US empire and the US will maintain a sizable military presence, as it has in many countries around the world.

[gorillafuck]

I'd support Obama if he was a socialist.

[Misanthrope]

Because FDR was a great leader who brought us bounty and socialism, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

He had to be doing some good.

[Axle]

I support Obama if:

A.) He tells his overlords to fuck off.
B.) He renounces being a Democrat.
C.) He resigns the government to the American people.

[Howard509]

Chomsky and Zinn voted for Obama.

[FreeFocus]

Chomsky and Zinn voted for Obama.

Chomsky and Zinn are also what I call "starter leftists." They are great as an introduction to leftism, but you outgrow them, although Chomsky has a great deal more to offer than Zinn IMO. Moreover, both seem to have strong reformist tendencies.

[Howard509]

Chomsky and Zinn are also what I call "starter leftists." They are great as an introduction to leftism, but you outgrow them, although Chomsky has a great deal more to offer than Zinn IMO. Moreover, both seem to have strong reformist tendencies.

That's bullshit and you know why.



So where do anarchists stand on state intervention? This question does not present a short answer simply because it is a complex issue. On the one hand, as Proudhon stressed, the state exists to "maintain order in society, by consecrating and sanctifying obedience of the citizens to the State, subordination of the poor to the rich, of the common people to the upper class, of the worker to the idler." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 243] In such circumstances, appealing to the state makes little sense. On the other hand, the modern state does do some good things (to varying degrees). As a result of past popular struggles, there is a basic welfare system in some countries which does help the poorest sections of society. That aspect of state intervention is what is under attack by the right under the slogan of "minimising the state."

In the long term, of course, the real solution is to abolish capitalism "and both citizens and communities will have no need of the intervention of the State." However, that does not answer the question of what we do in the here and now when faced with demands that the welfare state (for the working class, not corporate welfare) and other reforms be rolled back. This attack has been on going since the 1970s, accelerating since 1980. We should be clear that claims to be minimising the state should be taken with a massive pitch of salt as the likes of Reagan were "elected to office promising to downsize government and to 'get the government off the people's back,' even though what he meant was to deregulate big business, and make them free to exploit the workers and make larger profits." [Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, Anarchism and the Black Revolution, p. 100] As such, it would be a big mistake to confuse anarchist hostility to the state with the rhetoric of right-wing politicians seeking to reduce social spending (Brian Oliver Sheppard discusses this issue well in his article "Anarchism vs. Right-Wing 'Anti-Statism'" [Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, no. 31, Spring 2001]). Chomsky puts it well:

"State authority is now under severe attack in the more democratic societies, but not because it conflicts with the libertarian vision. Rather the opposite: because it offers (weak) protection to some aspects of that vision. Governments have a fatal flaw: unlike the private tyrannies, the institutions of state power and authority offer to the despised public an opportunity to play some role, however limited, in managing their own affairs. That defect is intolerable to the masters . . . the goals of a committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against them, while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful public participation -- and, ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free society, of the appropriate circumstances can be achieved." [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 193 and p. 194]

There is, of course, a tension in this position. The state may be influenced by popular struggle but it remains an instrument of capitalist rule. It may intervene in society as a result of people power and by the necessity to keep the system as a whole going, but it is bureaucratic and influenced by the wealthy and big business. Indeed, the onslaught on the welfare state by both Thatcher and Reagan was conducted under a "democratic" mandate although, in fact, these governments took advantage of the lack of real accountability between elections. They took advantage of an aspect of the state which anarchists had been warning of for decades, being "well aware that [the politician] can now commit crimes with immunity, [and so] the elected official finds himself immediately exposed to all sorts of seductions on behalf of the ruling classes" and so implemented policies "solicited by big industry, high officials, and above all, by international finance." [Elisee Reclus, The Modern State, p. 208 and pp. 208-9]

As such, while anarchists are against the state, our position on state intervention depends on the specific issue at hand. Most of us think state health care services and unemployment benefits (for example) are more socially useful than arms production, and in lieu of more anarchistic solutions, better than the alternative of "free market" capitalism. This does not mean we are happy with state intervention, which in practice undermines working class self-help, mutual aid and autonomy. Also, state intervention of the "social" nature is often paternalistic, run by and for the "middle classes" (i.e. professional/managerial types and other self-proclaimed "experts"). However, until such time as a viable anarchist counterculture is created, we have little option but to "support" the lesser evil (and make no mistake, it is an evil).
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secD1.html

[FreeFocus]

Don't try to lecture me about Chomsky. I've read a ton of Chomsky over the years. Radical Priorities was an excellent read and if you haven't read it, I'd suggest it. He goes into his vision of a freer society and also the philosophical foundations for his political ideas. Before I read that, however, I read Failed States, and then picked up Hegemony or Survival.

I never said Chomsky was a fool or had nothing to offer. In fact, it's quite the contrary. However, I take real issue with Chomsky squandering his position of influence by effectively endorsing Kerry and Obama in 2004 and 2008, respectively. "Vote Democrat in a swing state." How about no, especially to Obama, who has and will reinvigorate American imperialism in a way that no other president has been able to, even Kennedy.

It should be made known that socialism is the only solution. If it's not in the discussion, make it clear that there are no choices pretty much.

[RHIZOMES]

I would support Obama's re-election if he ended the Iraq war, repealed the Patriot Act, closed Gitmo, disbanded NAFTA and WTO, expanded Medicare to all Americans, and found Osama bin Laden all in his first term.
This is so stupid. So so stupid. I wouldn't support Obama's re-election even if he did do all these things. He'd still be an imperialist capitalist bourgeois ruling class liberal fuck.

I mean let's go through these shall we?

1) If he ended the Iraq war they'd still be a puppet government (And expecting the US to give up such a strategic stronghold 100% because of "goodwill" or because a nice smiley guy got elected by "the people" president is incredibly naive).
2) If he repealed the Patriot Act oh cool the state apparatus is slightly less authoritarian they'll just find a way to subvert us in other ways when they need to.
3) If he disbanded NAFTA and WTO capitalism would still exist, capitalism is just as exploitative whether it's protectionist or globalized, just in different ways. Liberals like blaming all the problems caused by capitalism itself to just certain capitalist institutions. It allows them to act like they're aware of the world's problems while still being middle-class yuppies.
4) Medicare - Yes that would be really good but you assume that a capitalist state-run medical service is some sort of utopian ideal. My country has universal health care and we're all stuck in fucking 2 year long waiting lists and people are regularly bumped off to make the list look shorter.
5) Finding Osama - Oh cool he found the "enemy" of America good job the world is safe now. :lol: As soon as they've found Osama all Islamic fundamentalism will completely detoriate, all anti-US "terror" groups will be like "Hey they caught Osama I guess we should stop fighting". I doubt Osama will seriously get caught though (Unless by accident), he's too much of an Emmanuel Goldstein-esque rallying cry for supporting US imperialism.

The fundamental of this all though is that he isn't going to do all these things because they aren't in the interest of the ruling class.


This would all be possible, if he didn't let the ruling class tell him what to do.


I'd support Obama if he wasn't such a fucking wimp. He bends over backwards to please the ruling class and their corporations.

You guys talk about Obama and the ruling class like somehow Obama isn't part of the ruling class, but is just trying to please them? :confused: Obama isn't "bending over backwards" to the interests of the ruling class, he's the fucking LEADER of the ruling class. The Presidency of the United States is an important ruling class position in the maintenance of capitalism and US imperialism. Spare me with your liberalism, you guys must think the ruling class just means the CORPORATIONS MAAANN. :rolleyes: Also, if Obama actually opposed the ruling class he wouldn't have become president, noone would have heard of him and he wouldn't have even risen to the ranks of state senator. And if he somehow did manage to become president I think he'd be dealt with by the capitalist institutions quite rapidly and severely.


Otherwise, he'll be another Clinton rather than an FDR.

FDR was a dick.

[LOLseph Stalin]

My main problems with Obama is the fact that he promised to close down Gitmo and remove troops from Iraq. Last I've heard there was also talk of the US getting a Universal Health Care system. However, knowing them it would likely be some kind of two-tiered system where the wealthy could still buy their way into better service. Also, Gitmo violates so many human rights it's not even funny. I bet the people involved with creating the Geneva convention are rolling in their graves(not only about Gitmo, but about other atrocities too. *cough*Imperialism*cough*). So following this criteria I really don't think Obama should get re-elected unless he's running against somebody endlessly idiotic like Sarah Palin. Not that there would be much of a difference in US politics anyway though.

[Communist Theory]

Bin Laden is the governments excuse to steal all the oil.

[Revy]

I would support Obama's re-election if he ended the Iraq war, repealed the Patriot Act, closed Gitmo, disbanded NAFTA and WTO, expanded Medicare to all Americans, and found Osama bin Laden all in his first term. This would all be possible, if he didn't let the ruling class tell him what to do. Otherwise, he'll be another Clinton rather than an FDR.

Yeah and his secretary of state should be Santa Claus. C'mon now. He is not going to do any of that.

I fucking hate this myth that Obama is some huge progressive or even a radical who is doing what he is doing only because the "elite" or "ruling class" or his "advisors" tell him to do it. STOP!

[Communist Theory]

Yeah and his secretary of state should be Santa Claus. C'mon now. He is not going to do any of that.

I fucking hate this myth that Obama is some huge progressive or even a radical who is doing what he is doing only because the "elite" or "ruling class" or his "advisors" tell him to do it. STOP! Who told you this? The CPUSA?
Homie yous a rebel yo.

[Howard509]

Obama is a stooge of capitalists. Duh.

[Misanthrope]

You guys talk about Obama and the ruling class like somehow Obama isn't part of the ruling class, but is just trying to please them? :confused: Obama isn't "bending over backwards" to the interests of the ruling class, he's the fucking LEADER of the ruling class. The Presidency of the United States is an important ruling class position in the maintenance of capitalism and US imperialism. Spare me with your liberalism, you guys must think the ruling class just means the CORPORATIONS MAAANN. :rolleyes:





Obama is ruling class but I would just like to raise the point that he is not the leader of the ruling class, rather the puppet - tool - poster boy. The state's main objective is to forcefully protect the ruling class and its interest. Whenever the state acts it is thinking of the ruling class. The ruling classes interests come first, the state's second.

Not to mention, look at the bailouts in the first months of his term. Those who donated to his campaign got the majority of bailout money.


Also, if Obama actually opposed the ruling class he wouldn't have become president, noone would have heard of him and he wouldn't have even risen to the ranks of state senator. And if he somehow did manage to become president I think he'd be dealt with by the capitalist institutions quite rapidly and severely.

EXACTLY

[Invariance]

The change I'm looking for is a bullet in Obama's head.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The change I'm looking for is a bullet in Obama's head.

Really? I don't see how that would improve things. In fact, if anyone was to assassinate him, it would probably be the result of the extreme right's campaign of racism and hysterical anti-socialism. And I imagine things would roll that way afterwords.

[Invariance]

I think it would be as about as relevant to working class politics as voting for him.

[Chow Foo]

Obama is the lesser evil of the two. I think he is a hypocrite but at least he's better than right wing lunatics like Palin ..

[Durruti's Ghost]

People waste time and resources supporting the "lesser" of two evils when the better course of action would be to divert their energy towards the struggle against evil in general.

[Revy]

The change I'm looking for is a bullet in Obama's head.

Yeah, and the only thing that will cause to change is Biden becoming President.
Guess what? He's even worse.

[Communist Theory]

The change I'm looking for is a bullet in Obama's head.
This is what Stormfronters will use to prove we are racist and they are the saviours of America.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I think it would be as about as relevant to working class politics as voting for him.

Then it is irrelevant. It makes us all look dumb when one loser who thinks he's Mr. People's Hero of Great Communist Justice goes off on a complete disconnect from the working class movement and sacrifices their life to kill a single politician for no practical reason. How much change to the system did Lee Harvey Oswald or the anarchist who killed McKinley (I can't even be arsed to remember his name, he is so irrelevant) bring?

[LeninKobaMao]

I'd support Obama if he was a socialist.

He's a wannabe social democrat and he even fails at that -_-

[Outinleftfield]

I think Obama is for real in that he really does care about the people.
But there are limits to what he can do because of the class structure and his handlers will try to influence him away from doing any real good.

I hear Afroman is running in 2012. Maybe I'll vote for him. Maybe I'll even campaign for him.

[Manifesto]

Has he really done much while in office? Really I cannot think of anything besides a little more for health care.

[Invariance]

:D

Gee, my post more than anything was to annoy liberals with an Obama fetish.

The only change, of course, which I can foresee for the working class is change which comes from them - revolutionary change. I think, today, that Obama, or any other leader of a bourgeoisie state, is largely irrespective to the brutality and actions of that capitalist system. The system, not the leader, is the problem...which should be clearer than anything with the current financial crises which was no conscious decision of the ruling class, but came from the instability of the economic system itself.

I disagree, to a limited extent however, that there is 'no good reason' to kill a single politician. Often it is retribution - e.g Durruti's involvement in the revenge of a murder of an anarcho-syndicalist, or various assassinations of bosses who have likewise killed workers. I think it is a shame that Lucetti and Zamboni failed in killing Mussolini in 1926. Lucheni's killing of the Austrian Empress Elisabeth and the killing of King George of Greece by Schinas were a form of justice. I think they contribute little to class struggle, yet I am not going to opportunistically condemn them as 'losers' as you have done.

[RHIZOMES]

Obama is ruling class but I would just like to raise the point that he is not the leader of the ruling class, rather the puppet - tool - poster boy. The state's main objective is to forcefully protect the ruling class and its interest. Whenever the state acts it is thinking of the ruling class. The ruling classes interests come first, the state's second.

Not to mention, look at the bailouts in the first months of his term. Those who donated to his campaign got the majority of bailout money.

I wouldn't say he's a "puppet" of the ruling class. He's a tool and poster boy of the ruling class but I wouldn't say in the way you describe. He's a tool and poster boy in the sense that his wishy washy Carebears let's hug and kiss everyone image strengthens the image of US imperialism and capitalism abroad and domestically. He's one of the key players in ruling class policy, ideology and action. There's a bit of a false dichotomy going on in this thread, that it's either "Obama is a complete and utter puppet of the ruling class who contributes nothing on his own to bourgeois rule" vs. "Obama must being in control of everything/is completely independent minded/the only reason he hasn't cured every single social ill in the entire universe is because of the CORPORATIONS MAAAAN". It isn't simply a case of as soon as the President is elected, he goes into a dark smokey room and a bunch of shadowey rich people direct the President in what he's gonna do, as Bill Hicks would have hypothesized :lol:. I mean the bailout/donations thing you mention I'd more call a circle jerk then a hand job. That's how the ruling class roll, they help each other out to strengthen what they see as their collective interests as a class. The whole notion of Obama being in the pockets of "big business" almost seems to imply that if sections of the ruling class weren't giving him donations he'd be a good leader or something. But the problem isn't WTO, it isn't NAFTA, it isn't corporate CEOs giving capitalist politicians hefty donations, it's how the system itself is run.


He's a wannabe social democrat and he even fails at that -_-

Obama isn't trying to be a social democrat in particular, he's just doing whatever actions are needed to protect US capitalism and imperialism. Sometimes that involves "failing" at being a social democrat, whatever that means.

[Sarah Palin]

The change I'm looking for is a bullet in Obama's head.

Then Joe Biden would be president. Then I'd put a bullet in my head.

Edit: Check this out. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562 HE'S A FAILUER MON. DON'T YOU SEE. Seriously. Obama= failure douche.