Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama

[Le Libérer]

I was recently debating on my personal blog the fact that Obama is NOT a socialist. I enjoy debating cappies on this kind of stuff because it give me some insight on why they think they way they do and where they get their information to back up their counter debates.

Anyway, I had a response by one of my Capitalist readers that its a well known fact that Communists and Socialist support Obama's election.

He cited this page. (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama)



This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people! I took the time to google "Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama ", and didnt find anything on them. All the links I did find, where conservative bloggers referring to that one post as proof that Obama is a socialist, which leads me to believe a conservative planted it on Obama's web site.

Any thoughts?

[Drace]

So one communist made a "group" that says he supports Obama. So what? This doesn't establish that communists generally are for Obama.

Just show the thread around on here were we all bash Obama.


which leads me to believe a conservative planted it on Obama's web site.

That's what I thought too but the post wasn't full of shit and actually had a bit of Marxist understanding, so I changed my mind.

[Raúl Duke]

That group already exists in real life...
it's called the CPUSA! :tt2:

On a serious note, it's not surprising that some "socialists/communists" supported Obama. In the U.S. we have many self-labeled socialists who in the end still vote or endorse liberals in some lofty idealization that "they're ok."

Even famous leftists have done it, consider Chomsky.

[Joe_Germinal]

Interesting, whoever posted that obviously knows very little about left politics in America.


Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virtually no chance they will be elected on a National level.One of many reasons why these two organizations have "virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level" is that they don't run candidates on a national level. DSA has never run candidates, but are in fact the organization for so called "socialists" who support Democratic candidates and the CP has supported every democratic presidential candidate since 1988.

Not to mention, the thing about not supporting Cuba is a little strange, lots of leftists in America don't support the DPRK, but most leftists in America are at least critically supportive of Cuba.

All in all, I'd say either some dumb high schooler whose thinks being a left liberal makes him a dangerous radical or a right wing troll pretending to be a dumb high schooler whose thinks being a left liberal makes him a radical.

[JazzRemington]

I think there were some anarchists who supported Obama's election. I think they're way of looking at it was from a "lesser of two evils" perspective, but I'm not sure.

[Le Libérer]

So one communist made a "group" that says he supports Obama. So what? This doesn't establish that communists generally are for Obama.

Just show the thread around on here were we all bash Obama.
Well, that is my point here. I question such a group exists especially when any other links I found were Conservatives using one short paragraph some anonymous person posted to Obama's site. And the after effect being the only people citing it is other conservatives. Where is this group? They certainly didnt assimilate information on the internet.

To do so is pretty shitty tactics. We all know Obama isnt a socialist and does not have a socialist agenda.

They really have gotten creative and is completely deceptive in proving he is. At best they argue hes hiding behind a moderate or liberal front but is secretly a socialist.

[Drace]

Though the allegation that Obama is a socialist is backed by some heavy evidence. That is, if it is true.

Take this site for example. Its written by a strong conservative so its commentary is lacking any intellectual thought, but the evidence is there.

http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

His ties to socialists seem undeniable. Take a look at it. Like I said, a lot of its shit, but there is some things set in stone (if true)

If you filter out the stupid claims. It comes down to

1. His father being a socialist.
2. His brothers being Marxists (?)
3. Ties to Acorn.
4. Ties to Frank Davis
5. Attending a socialist conference.

[Le Libérer]

Though the allegation that Obama is a socialist is backed by some heavy evidence. That is, if it is true.

Take this site for example. Its written by a strong conservative so its commentary is lacking any intellectual thought, but the evidence is there.

http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

His ties to socialists seem undeniable. Take a look at it. Like I said, a lot of its shit, but there is some things set in stone (if true)
Yes I saw that site as I was researching this thread.

I also came across this one. (A whole article wrapped around one single paragraphed posted on Obama's site.)
http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/marxists-socialists-communists-for-obama

[Drace]

I also came across this one. (A whole article wrapped around one single paragraphed posted on Obama's site.
http://www.conservativecrusader.com/...ists-for-obama (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/marxists-socialists-communists-for-obama)Yeah, I skipped through it and I am not going to bother reading the junk.


The other side believes in the Marxist group-think definition of Utopia, where all human beings are not Created equal with equal opportunities, but rather made economically equal via man made laws, regardless of unequal individual efforts. This group seeks their idea of Utopia via the Marx concept, “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

And apparently, his claiming 50% of the population actually supports this line of thought?

[Nolan]

"The other side believes in the Marxist group-think definition of Utopia, where all human beings are not Created equal with equal opportunities, but rather made economically equal via man made laws, regardless of unequal individual efforts. This group seeks their idea of Utopia via the Marx concept, “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

God what a titanic strawman. I want to skewer them. Marxism will never get anywhere as long as people believe we advocate bullshit like this.

[khad]

The CPUSA supports Obama, but that's because they've degenerated to a branch of the Democratic Party. This is actually the source for a lot of these paranoid theories about communism and Obama.

[Nolan]

The CPUSA supports Obama, but that's because they've degenerated to a branch of the Democratic Party. This is actually the source for a lot of these paranoid theories about communism and Obama.

That's why the claims about Obama being tied to Marxists sometimes look reasonable. But they really aren't. The CPUSA is a reformist social-democrat party now.

[Agnapostate]

I'd perceive the majority of socialist support of Obama as a "lesser of two evils" strategy also, with the traditional identification with what passes for the "left" in the U.S. with the poor and working class leading many socialists to be personally sympathetic to liberal democratic capitalist policies, regardless of the fact that they ultimately sustain the private ownership of the means of production. Rightists seem quite stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge that the majority of socialists reject the premise that Obama is one of them, which they'd certainly have ample incentive to do, considering that he's the most powerful head of state in the world. They simply insist that socialist public figures refuse to "narc" on their closeted comrade. I wonder what a visit to this site would teach them...

[GPDP]

Well, there are the likes of Progressive America Rising, formerly known as Progressives for Obama, which does contain actual socialists within it, such as Carl Davidson, who IIRC is a Leninist. They support Obama critically, and sort of see him as a buffer between the progressive "popular front" and the far-right.

[Nolan]

Well, there are the likes of Progressive America Rising, formerly known as Progressives for Obama, which does contain actual socialists within it, such as Carl Davidson, who IIRC is a Leninist. They support Obama critically, and sort of see him as a buffer between the progressive "popular front" and the far-right.

A Leninist supporting Obama, a bourgeois politician? That doesn't make any sense.

[Tablo]

It seems to me a lot of liberals try to sound cool by calling themselves Socialists or Marxists when they have absolutely no understanding of either. I have a friend that called herself a Socialist when in reality she has never read an ounce of Socialist writings and worships Obama.

[Bud Struggle]

Obama represents the general drift of the world to a Socialist world order. Little by little. Step by step.

Socialism will happen--but not with a bang, but a whimper. And it will be a synthesis: the Capitalist thesis and then the Communist antithesis resulting in the Social Democratic synthesis.

[Agnapostate]

Obama represents the general drift of the world to a Socialist world order. Little by little. Step by step.

Socialism will happen--but not with a bang, but a whimper. And it will be a synthesis: the Capitalist thesis and then the Communist antithesis resulting in the Social Democratic synthesis.

The social democratic "synthesis" exists within the confines of capitalism, as the private ownership of the means of production is preserved. Along with liberal democratic capitalism, social democratic capitalism ultimately functions as an impediment to socialism due to its strategic utilization of the state, an integral role in the capitalist economy, to maintain efficiency.

[Bud Struggle]

The social democratic "synthesis" exists within the confines of capitalism, as the private ownership of the means of production is preserved. Along with liberal democratic capitalism, social democratic capitalism ultimately functions as an impediment to socialism due to its strategic utilization of the state, an integral role in the capitalist economy, to maintain efficiency.

Maybe in theory. But in real life Obama is the next step closer to a melding of Communism with Capitalism. You have to realize that Capitalism is WAY to strong to just go away. Even if the Proletarians wanted a Revolution--which there seems to be no evidence of--they most likely still wouldn't win.

You may not LIKE it, but Capitalism is here to stay. It's best to make one's concessions while you have some bargining power.

[Agnapostate]

Maybe in theory. But in real life Obama is the next step closer to a melding of Communism with Capitalism.

No. Ironically, economic rightism would probably facilitate the establishment of socialism more than Obama's liberal democratic capitalism would, as it would lead to instabilities and the worsening of inequalities that would inspire the working class to violent insurrection.


You have to realize that Capitalism is WAY to strong to just go away. Even if the Proletarians wanted a Revolution--which there seems to be no evidence of--they most likely still wouldn't win.

You may not LIKE it, but Capitalism is here to stay. It's best to make one's concessions while you have some bargining power.

As I said, that would be a function of the "lesser of two evils" strategy also, with the traditional identification with what passes for the "left" in the U.S. with the poor and working class leading many socialists to be personally sympathetic to liberal democratic capitalist policies. It is not, however, a synthesis with "socialism."

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe in theory. But in real life Obama is the next step closer to a melding of Communism with Capitalism.And yet even by your criteria (well at least the idea that socialism=nationalization and pro-poor reforms) he's still behind Nixon, LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower FDR, Lincoln, and Sarah Palin as Gov. of Alaska who taxed corporations and uses the money for tax breaks for workers and social programs.

If Obama was really a socialist 1) he would leave the Democratic party immediately on principle. 2) even if he ran as a Democrat, he would be destroyed by the leaders of that party before he could finish registering to run for a local election - as someone who worked with an actual progressive (non socialist) reform campaign, I have seen first hand how the Democratic Party works undemocratically to destroy any left-opposition to them. 3) If he somehow got past the Democratic Party machine and got into the primaries, he would be ignored, ridiculed, marginalized, and told he is hurting the party.

I don't know which is more aggravating - liberals who listen to Obama's rhetoric and think he actually will help them and deliver reforms or conservatives who listen to his rhetoric and think he's going to hurt capitalism with his reforms.

Here's some helpful advice: don't believe people based on what they say, believe them based on what they do or at least attempt to do. North Korea is not democratic or "the People's", The United Kingdom is not really a feudal monarchy, and there's a bit of spin on the "Factor's" no spin zone.

Obama has accomplished: doubling down on Bush's giveaway to the rich with TARP, keeping the same people from the last administration who ran the war and the economy - adding more troops to Iraq - increasing the US presence in Pakistan - bombing Pakistan more than Bush had been able to - convinced unions to offer concessions while also telling them that he was not going to be able to introduce card-check (the union's pet legislation and the excuse they gave for spending millions to help elect Obama).

What he promised - chard-check (flat-out no) - LGBT rights (after being pushed he said he will tell the pentagon to reconsider "don't ask don't tell" - the pentagon said they will take a year and do a "study" on the police... i.e. No) - healthcare (after saying he supports single-payer, he helped make sure that this option would not be part of the debate).

Saying that Obama is "a little bit socialist" or "inching towards socialism" is like saying the Kind of France is a little republican or inching towards the end of caste-distinctions because he decided pass a law saying that the aristocracy can only flog peasants on weekdays. As the French merchants and business owners and laborers and peasants discovered, they couldn't reform the feudal system - they had to throw it out and build a new one.

[Tablo]

Obama is in no way a step towards Socialism. Anyone that makes such an idiotic statement has not read a single bit of Socialist literature. I have yet to see any increase in workers democracy, so Obama is just the same old worthless politician as far as I am concerned.

[Bud Struggle]

And yet even by your criteria (well at least the idea that socialism=nationalization and pro-poor reforms) he's still behind Nixon, LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower FDR, Lincoln, and Sarah Palin as Gov. of Alaska who taxed corporations and uses the money for tax breaks for workers and social programs. You are missing the point. Obama and EACH of these other leadders and a whole lot more are gradually leading the way to Social Democracy. It could take a couple of hundred years. There's no hurry.


If Obama was really a socialist 1) he would leave the Democratic party immediately on principle. 2) even if he ran as a Democrat, he would be destroyed by the leaders of that party before he could finish registering to run for a local election - as someone who worked with an actual progressive (non socialist) reform campaign, I have seen first hand how the Democratic Party works undemocratically to destroy any left-opposition to them. 3) If he somehow got past the Democratic Party machine and got into the primaries, he would be ignored, ridiculed, marginalized, and told he is hurting the party. Again you miss the point--Obama isn't a "classical" socialist in any sense--he is just gradually bringing in a Socialist idea here and there. The next President will do the same and the next after him/her. And there will be some backlash and things will seesaw. As I said it will take a long time for these ideas to move forward.


I don't know which is more aggravating - liberals who listen to Obama's rhetoric and think he actually will help them and deliver reforms or conservatives who listen to his rhetoric and think he's going to hurt capitalism with his reforms. The problem here is that most people in the US don't want anything to do with "Socialism." And they certainly don't want a Revolution. It's going to take a lof of work to get things through.


Saying that Obama is "a little bit socialist" or "inching towards socialism" is like saying the Kind of France is a little republican or inching towards the end of caste-distinctions because he decided pass a law saying that the aristocracy can only flog peasants on weekdays. As the French merchants and business owners and laborers and peasants discovered, they couldn't reform the feudal system - they had to throw it out and build a new one.

All well and good--but there's not going to be a Revolution any time soon--so we have to make due with what we have. And further there's no guarentee that a Revolution will bring us anything close to Communism. for example there were 115 Revolutions in South America in the 19th Century and not one of them brought Communism.

I might be wrong in how the future will play out--but so might everyone else.

[RGacky3]

You are missing the point. Obama and EACH of these other leadders and a whole lot more are gradually leading the way to Social Democracy. It could take a couple of hundred years. There's no hurry.

Name one step toward social-democracy Obama has taken, one step, I'll name many he's taken toward streangthening Corporatism. Obama has'nt done anything toward social-democracy.


Again you miss the point--Obama isn't a "classical" socialist in any sense--he is just gradually bringing in a Socialist idea here and there. The next President will do the same and the next after him/her. And there will be some backlash and things will seesaw. As I said it will take a long time for these ideas to move forward.

He did'nt bring any socialist ideas out there, he exploited the socialist ideas the people had, during the campain he sounded like a progressive, but again, has he made any steps toward social-democracy???


The problem here is that most people in the US don't want anything to do with "Socialism." And they certainly don't want a Revolution. It's going to take a lof of work to get things through.

Ask people if they want more democratic control of hte economy, if they want universal healthcare (and explain exactly what it means), if they want more worker say in the workplace. Americans, like most people, have socialist ideals. What they don't want is death pannels, and rightfully so, and unfortunately some in the US are gullible enough to believe that universal health-care = death pannels. But you go back to the core, AMericans are just like other people in the world.

Obama is LESs socialistic than the American public, by far.

But if you think that the Obamas of America are going to introduce social-democracy your badly mistaken. What brought social-democracy in europe was not benevolent leaders, it was an active demanding public.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If communists are supposed to support the party/person who is to best help mobilize the proletariat, then regardless if that person/party can win, the votes should be going to socialists parties, or at least Ralph Nader.

[Bud Struggle]

Name one step toward social-democracy Obama has taken, one step, I'll name many he's taken toward streangthening Corporatism. Obama has'nt done anything toward social-democracy. He's introcuding the idea of universal healthcare. It dosnet matter if he gets it through or not--the idea is introduced. Some other President will get it through--in time.


He did'nt bring any socialist ideas out there, he exploited the socialist ideas the people had, during the campain he sounded like a progressive, but again, has he made any steps toward social-democracy??? that will happen over the next 100 years or so. there's no hurry for this.


Ask people if they want more democratic control of hte economy, if they want universal healthcare (and explain exactly what it means), if they want more worker say in the workplace. Americans, like most people, have socialist ideals. What they don't want is death pannels, and rightfully so, and unfortunately some in the US are gullible enough to believe that universal health-care = death pannels. But you go back to the core, AMericans are just like other people in the world. Yea there will be a give and tale--a little Socialistic thought a little Capitalist back lash. That's just fine. You don't want Socialism forced on people. all you'd get would be another Soviet Union. And that didn't work, did it?


Obama is LESs socialistic than the American public, by far. There we disagree.


But if you think that the Obamas of America are going to introduce social-democracy your badly mistaken. What brought social-democracy in europe was not benevolent leaders, it was an active demanding public. He's a step in that direction. It may take hundreds of years, but such social change has to be brought about organically, not through some utopian "Revolution."

The idea of the "Revolution" is like placing a huge bomb under a dump and beautiful city will fall into place from all the debris after it's exploded. The Revolution is like Jesus comming down from the clouds and setting everything right or Visitors from Outer Space landing and showing us the best way to live.

These things might happen, who knows? But chances are we have to make a good world on our own. Step by step. Day by day.

[RGacky3]

He's introcuding the idea of universal healthcare. It dosnet matter if he gets it through or not--the idea is introduced. Some other President will get it through--in time.


He campained in support of single payer, he droped it to public option, and he did'nt fight for it at all and instead let it get dropped, does'nt raise one finger in defense of it. He did'nt bring the issue up, he responded to popular consensus to get elected, most of America wanted universal healthcare.


that will happen over the next 100 years or so. there's no hurry for this.

I'll believe you when he makes one little tiny step in that direction, even if its offset by the former steps toward more corporatism.


Yea there will be a give and tale--a little Socialistic thought a little Capitalist back lash. That's just fine. You don't want Socialism forced on people. all you'd get would be another Soviet Union. And that didn't work, did it?

The concept of forcing socialism on people is as silly as forcing democracy on people. But its not a little give and take, the people of America OVERWHELMINGLY wanted universal healthcare, and still the majority want it. Heres what the truth is, its the people of America trying to influence the government and the Capitalists trying harder and wining.

Obama is not hte face of social-democracy, not by a longshot, the closest we have is Bernie Sanders in the Senate. I'll believe he is when, as I said, you can name one progressive thing he's done.


There we disagree.

You can disagree all you want, but the statistics and polls overwhelmingly prove me right, sorry.


He's a step in that direction. It may take hundreds of years, but such social change has to be brought about organically, not through some utopian "Revolution."


What step? WHeres the step? The people voted him in because he was going to give them change, he did'nt even try, he's a corporatist like the rest of them. The revolutionaries were right, change comes from the picket line, from mass protests, from resistence, from occupations, from revolution.

How did we get ANY of hte change in the past?
How did we get workers rights?
Strikes, occupations, mass protests
How did we get civil rights
Mass protests, sit downs, scaring the hell out of hte state
How did we get freedom of speach,
Civil disobedience, so on and so on
How did and workers anywhere get any say over the Capitalists?
Syndicalism,

it has NEVER come about by voting the right guy in office.

If you want social-democracy you have to fight for socialism, you have the scare the hell out of the ruling class into thinking theres going to be a revolution, they are NEVER going to just give it to you, because guess what, it IS class warfare, look at te news, te lobyists, the corporations they are fighting it and winning and the people in America are getting shafted again and again, if you want the state on your side you have to do what the corporations do, threaten it, they threaten with their money, we have to threaten with revolution, we may not get it, but if we scare them enough we will move toward social-democracy.

[GPDP]

He campained in support of single payer, he droped it to public option, and he did'nt fight for it at all and instead let it get dropped, does'nt raise one finger in defense of it. He did'nt bring the issue up, he responded to popular consensus to get elected, most of America wanted universal healthcare.



I'll believe you when he makes one little tiny step in that direction, even if its offset by the former steps toward more corporatism.



The concept of forcing socialism on people is as silly as forcing democracy on people. But its not a little give and take, the people of America OVERWHELMINGLY wanted universal healthcare, and still the majority want it. Heres what the truth is, its the people of America trying to influence the government and the Capitalists trying harder and wining.

Obama is not hte face of social-democracy, not by a longshot, the closest we have is Bernie Sanders in the Senate. I'll believe he is when, as I said, you can name one progressive thing he's done.



You can disagree all you want, but the statistics and polls overwhelmingly prove me right, sorry.



What step? WHeres the step? The people voted him in because he was going to give them change, he did'nt even try, he's a corporatist like the rest of them. The revolutionaries were right, change comes from the picket line, from mass protests, from resistence, from occupations, from revolution.

How did we get ANY of hte change in the past?
How did we get workers rights?
Strikes, occupations, mass protests
How did we get civil rights
Mass protests, sit downs, scaring the hell out of hte state
How did we get freedom of speach,
Civil disobedience, so on and so on
How did and workers anywhere get any say over the Capitalists?
Syndicalism,

it has NEVER come about by voting the right guy in office.

If you want social-democracy you have to fight for socialism, you have the scare the hell out of the ruling class into thinking theres going to be a revolution, they are NEVER going to just give it to you, because guess what, it IS class warfare, look at te news, te lobyists, the corporations they are fighting it and winning and the people in America are getting shafted again and again, if you want the state on your side you have to do what the corporations do, threaten it, they threaten with their money, we have to threaten with revolution, we may not get it, but if we scare them enough we will move toward social-democracy.

The Following User Says Thank You to RGacky3 For This Useful Post: GPDP (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=23484)

[RGacky3]

your welcome. I now expect Buds eyes to be a little more open.