Marxist anaylsis of Obama?

[Cyberwave]

Well, aside from the obvious, liberal bourgeois democrat whatever, are there any other good sources that criticize Obama? Most of them seem to be coming from radical rightists with excessive bias and misplaced criticism, and the other criticism comes from democrats and centrists who are rather vague, so I'm in need of some Marxist criticism of Obama, or at least a site that is detailed and as unbiased as possible. Or you guys, of course!

[GPDP]

http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet

This guy has devoted more time than most other socialists to debunking and exposing the Obama phenomenon as the bourgeois sham it is. Read through some of his articles; I imagine you'll find some good stuff there.

[9]

Don't know if it's what you're looking for, but the IBRP has some good articles on Obama:

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-01-12/barack-obama-bourgeois-savior-middle-class-messiah

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-07-01/the-obama-speech-new-words-old-policies

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2010-03-29/obama-regime-targets-education-for-massive-cuts

[Proletarian Ultra]

Why Cynics Are Wrong (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4039/). -- Slavoj Zizek

...

My own opinion is it's exactly wrong to expose and debunk Obama. The fact is, he's the most subjectively progressive person ever to be elected president. I mean FFS, he grew up in a house where his granpa smoked pot with a black communist poet. He was friends with Palestinians and Weathermen. He read Fanon and Marx in college. He said nice things about Henry Wallace during the campaign.

And yet it doesn't fucking matter.

He's still governing well to the right of even where ordinary Americans are after ages of constant anti-socialist propaganda. And far, far to the right of where his background would indicate. Why is that? It's not because Obama is a dishonest liar and douchebag. I mean, he might be, but that's not why. The reason is, because that's his fucking job. His job is to be the ultra-violent poolboy of capitalist empire. The point isn't that the guy in the job is flawed in some personal way. The point is that the job needs to be abolished.


But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

The US constitution has to be smashed in order to emancipate this country properly.

[The Red Next Door]

Why Cynics Are Wrong (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4039/). -- Slavoj Zizek

...

My own opinion is it's exactly wrong to expose and debunk Obama. The fact is, he's the most subjectively progressive person ever to be elected president. I mean FFS, he grew up in a house where his granpa smoked pot with a black communist poet. He was friends with Palestinians and Weathermen. He read Fanon and Marx in college. He said nice things about Henry Wallace during the campaign.

And yet it doesn't fucking matter.

He's still governing well to the right of even where ordinary Americans are after ages of constant anti-socialist propaganda. And far, far to the right of where his background would indicate. Why is that? It's not because Obama is a dishonest liar and douchebag. I mean, he might be, but that's not why. The reason is, because that's his fucking job. His job is to be the ultra-violent poolboy of capitalist empire. The point isn't that the guy in the job is flawed in some personal way. The point is that the job needs to be abolished.



The US constitution has to be smashed in order to emancipate this country properly.



This is a poor excuse, Chavez was elected president in a bourgie system, and he did what he said he was going to do. so was Allende too.

[Proletarian Ultra]

This is a poor excuse, Chavez was elected president in a bourgie system, and he did what he said he was going to do. so was Allende too.

Chavez smashed the existing constitution. Allende got shot in the face.

"Obama is a lier!" implies that real change is possible if only we had an honest man in the job. It retards, rather than advances, proletarian revolution. We have to insist that the job description of the president itself is the problem. The US constitution is inherently anti-democratic and anti-labor; a worker's government requires a worker's constitution. Like Chavez, we can't be satisfied with taking power under the present state order but need to insist on a democratic rupture at the first opportunity.

[RojoyNegro]

My dad told me once how the politic of republicans and democrats works out with a simple example: USA believe that we all are guide mainly by basic instincs, so if we see a nice and delicious food we follow this meal (obama=democratic) but we never chase it because the meal is being pulled by a string so we always feel close but never get it, when we are being tricked by this meal following it there is a point when comes the big hammer(rapublicans) and hit us hard, and after another meal will come to distract.. and so on and on and on.

Obama its the distraction after bush left with his hammer, now the people think again that there is hope to find peace and social justice, and they will wait for obama to acted like that until they got smash one more time.

Chavez once said that there are two obamas, the speech one and the one who act. He talks about world peace and he send militars to afganistan, he talks about social justice and keep the brutal block agaisnt Cuba, he speaks about taking care of the earth, and he failure to that big time on the copenhaguen meeting.

Obama sometimes is even worst than bush, because he is putting make up to the imperialism so it looks good, but when the make up is gone the ugly fucking face of imperialims will show up and unglyer than ever.

My english is no that good but i hope i coulded express the idea.

[Zanthorus]

"Obama is a lier!" implies that real change is possible if only we had an honest man in the job.

Isn't that the point though? Obama claims that he can bring "change" from the presidential office, which is a lie.

[GPDP]

My dad told me once how the politic of republicans and democrats works out with a simple example: USA believe that we all are guide mainly by basic instincs, so if we see a nice and delicious food we follow this meal (obama=democratic) but we never chase it because the meal is being pulled by a string so we always feel close but never get it, when we are being tricked by this meal following it there is a point when comes the big hammer(rapublicans) and hit us hard, and after another meal will come to distract.. and so on and on and on.

Obama its the distraction after bush left with his hammer, now the people think again that there is hope to find peace and social justice, and they will wait for obama to acted like that until they got smash one more time.

Chavez once said that there are two obamas, the speech one and the one who act. He talks about world peace and he send militars to afganistan, he talks about social justice and keep the brutal block agaisnt Cuba, he speaks about taking care of the earth, and he failure to that big time on the copenhaguen meeting.

Obama sometimes is even worst than bush, because he is putting make up to the imperialism so it looks good, but when the make up is gone the ugly fucking face of imperialims will show up and unglyer than ever.

My english is no that good but i hope i coulded express the idea.

The concept of there being two Obamas is one leftists often invoke when criticizing him. The cartoonist Tom Tomorrow, for example, makes a distinction from the actual Obama and the "idea of Obama." Paul Street also talks about Brand Obama as opposed to Obama the man. Chomsky and John Pilger have made similar observations.

[AK]

http://tnjn.com/2009/sep/28/op-ed-obamas-policies-are-a-fa/

As for my analysis, I would say he's a bourgeois sonofa***** who won't bring much change at all.