What do we do about Obamabots?

[GPDP]

In case no one is familiar with the term, apparently it is what backers of John McCain have called Obama's cult-like followers. :laugh:

Anyway, I bring this up because last night, while hanging around with some friends, one of them declared that she had a lot of faith in Obama, and his ability and willingness to change things. Of course, I could only scoff at this notion, and put forward that Obama wouldn't change jack shit, and even if he wanted to, the system of power would not allow anything substantial to happen. But of course, she wouldn't have it, and just about dismissed my suggestion that we trash the system and establish direct, participatory democracy as utopian.

Now, I've seen this enthusiasm from Obama followers a lot. They usually get those "starry-eyes" when talking about him. You know the ones. Of course, I'd like to see them retain that cult of personality after he turns out to be, for the most part, more of the same.

Still, something I find about these people is that they tend to be much more progressive-minded than Obama himself is. There is certainly a disconnect. Yet they don't support him because of some notion of lesser-evilism, as I found to be the case with Kerry. They genuinely believe in him. It could be the "hope and change" rhetoric, but I'm not sure. This is stepping into grounds of worshiping.

Basically, what can we do about these people, who despite their apparent naivety, truly desire progress? Are they a potential source of radical fervor? Or will their disillusionment lead to nihilism?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Still, something I find about these people is that they tend to be much more progressive-minded than Obama himself is. There is certainly a disconnect. Yet they don't support him because of some notion of lesser-evilism, as I found to be the case with Kerry. They genuinely believe in him. It could be the "hope and change" rhetoric, but I'm not sure. This is stepping into grounds of worshiping.

the thing is, people who are more progressive than your average conservative American, will tend to believe all that nonsense about "change" that Obama is always talking about. he really is just using the contempt and dissatisfaction for the current Presidential administration that is displayed by "progressives" in America, and appealing to voters who all want "change". it has a similarity with how Hitler charmed his way into power, when all of Germany was pissed off for being reprimanded, and forced to pay war reparations.




Basically, what can we do about these people, who despite their apparent naivety, truly desire progress? Are they a potential source of radical fervor? Or will their disillusionment lead to nihilism?

the best thing we can do is educate them as much as possible. if they still want to believe in Obama's rhetoric, and vote for the guy, there just gunna be pissed that all that "change" is really the same shit. so yes they could be a potential source of radical fervor, but i wouldnt count on it.

[The Idler]

I started a group on Facebook called The Left against Obama with lots of good articles so feel free to reproduce the list of articles. ZMag is a good place to start but also Socialist Worker has a section on Obama of articles shorter than the ones on ZMag.

[Decolonize The Left]

In case no one is familiar with the term, apparently it is what backers of John McCain have called Obama's cult-like followers. :laugh:

Anyway, I bring this up because last night, while hanging around with some friends, one of them declared that she had a lot of faith in Obama, and his ability and willingness to change things. Of course, I could only scoff at this notion, and put forward that Obama wouldn't change jack shit, and even if he wanted to, the system of power would not allow anything substantial to happen. But of course, she wouldn't have it, and just about dismissed my suggestion that we trash the system and establish direct, participatory democracy as utopian.

I am very, very, familiar with this response from 'progressives' in support of Obama. I usually adopt the following argument, and it carries great weight for you must remember that 'progressives' are emotionally leftist, but politically centrist. Anyway, my argument:

I will easily grant that Obama will produce better material benefits than McCain. No arguments here on this point. But one must look at the 2008 presidential election in light of a greater perspective. The United States is a capitalist, imperialist nation (most progressives will accept this claim, if they do, it's over - the argument is yours). Given that this is the case, and Obama has already stated that he will continue US imperialism (Afghanistan is a fine example) as well as capitalism, and hence one must look not at Obama himself, but at the systems of capitalism and imperialism.

At this point, I tend to generalize because progressives are not prepared to be lectured in Marxism - they need simple arguments which will strike emotional chords. I take the following approach:

Capitalism necessarily involves the systematic and widespread oppression and exploitation of millions of individuals within the US, and billions worldwide. This is not difficult to see (if they ask, provide a simple explanation of surplus value and wage slavery). Furthermore, Obama will only occupy the directorial seat within a system of exploitation and oppression. And given that this is a republic, you are endorsing this systematic and widespread exploitation and oppression with your vote. I cannot do this as I am opposed to exploitation and oppression (this last line should really work them over for it implies that they are not opposed to exploitation and oppression - which they aren't politically, but are emotionally).

Basically, you are asking them to be coherent individuals.


Basically, what can we do about these people, who despite their apparent naivety, truly desire progress? Are they a potential source of radical fervor? Or will their disillusionment lead to nihilism?

They are obviously a potential source, for they are highly emotionally attached to the notions of "freedom," "democracy," and "equality." They merely occupy a reformist, usually bourgeois perspective on the system of capitalism. This can be changed by proper argumentation (as elaborated above). You must remember that they are not prepared for a lecture in Marxism, such an approach will inevitably lead to failure. You must change their perspective, and then guide them into leftist theory.

- August

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I will easily grant that Obama will produce better material benefits than McCain. No arguments here on this point. But one must look at the 2008 presidential election in light of a greater perspective. The United States is a capitalist, imperialist nation (most progressives will accept this claim, if they do, it's over - the argument is yours). Given that this is the case, and Obama has already stated that he will continue US imperialism (Afghanistan is a fine example) as well as capitalism, and hence one must look not at Obama himself, but at the systems of capitalism and imperialism.

At this point, I tend to generalize because progressives are not prepared to be lectured in Marxism - they need simple arguments which will strike emotional chords. I take the following approach:

Capitalism necessarily involves the systematic and widespread oppression and exploitation of millions of individuals within the US, and billions worldwide. This is not difficult to see (if they ask, provide a simple explanation of surplus value and wage slavery). Furthermore, Obama will only occupy the directorial seat within a system of exploitation and oppression. And given that this is a republic, you are endorsing this systematic and widespread exploitation and oppression with your vote. I cannot do this as I am opposed to exploitation and oppression (this last line should really work them over for it implies that they are not opposed to exploitation and oppression - which they aren't politically, but are emotionally).
Good points here.

It is especially important to consider that no matter who; Obama, McCain, a third party, or a potted plant, wins the presidential election, the net result will be about the same.

One candidate as president may speed up or slow down the U.S.'s decadent spiral, but they are a figurehead of a much larger monster called "the American government".

[GPDP]

That's a good point you make on the way progressives look at the issues, August. Emotionally leftist, but politically centrist. I like that. It really makes sense.

Indeed, that is often the case with many of the liberals and progressive-minded people I've encountered. Hell, I should know, I used to be like that myself. I knew I wanted a better, more just world emotionally, but politically, I figured I had to be "pragmatic" and "moderate". All being "pragmatic" and "moderate" does, however, is make your beliefs come across as incoherent and confused.

Such is the way this girl acted when speaking about Obama or about attaining a more sustainable environment. She got emotionally charged when speaking about the things she wanted to happen, but held little to no coherent idea about how to accomplish them. She showed no understanding about the dynamics of the system and the government, though she was seemingly aware of things like special interests and lobbyists and such. Of course, in her mind, the solution is to get someone in the White House who would stand up to them. And we all know how Obama really stands when it comes to those interests.

Anyway, if it comes up again, I'll be sure to talk about the system of international capitalist exploitation, and how Obama surely plans to continue it.

[DancingLarry]

Don't worry about Obamabots, he'll lose, that's the Democrats job, to be the fig leaf, the Potemkin Village of democracy. Unless of course corporate hegemony needs cover for radical violations of the social contract,be it as it may. That's why you get Clintonian "Third Ways" and Blairite "New Labour". Moving forward, the hegemonic narrative will explain to the disappointed bots that they were too radically left, too naive and purist in supporting Obama, and they need to be more pragmatic and centrist in the future. (Yes, I know, I'm laughing scornfully, too, but the corporate media really will push that, and the Dembots WILL swallow it.)

[GPDP]

Yeah. I know I did back when Kerry lost.

[Comrade B]

Obama is the most progressive candidate the US has had in a long time. He has my support for US president.
He is not our enemy nor is he our ally, he is an American left politician. I will judge him by his actions, not by the fact that he has not commit political suicide by declaring his support for communists, or whatever it is you wish for him to do.
If he makes things worse, I will speak ill of him, if he improves things slightly or changes nothing for the worse (as most likely he will) I will ignore him. If Jesus, the Easterbunny, and George Bush's literacy skills are real, and Obama turns the US into a workers state, I will go door to door singing Jesus saves with a big grin on my face while dancing in tap shoes. Unfortunately, no American mainstream politician will ever do this.

Now for the declarations of me being a fascist/counter revolutionary.

[Ismail]

Obama is the most progressive candidate the US has had in a long time. He has my support for US president.No President will ever be progressive. Even F.D. Roosevelt relied on a lighter form of economic fascism to save capitalism. (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm) The closest the USA got to a 'progressive' President was T. Roosevelt.


Now for the declarations of me being a fascist/counter revolutionary.If anyone calls you a fascist, they're idiots. Also it's good that the last politician that could truly be called fascist in the USA died back in the 30's. (Huey Long, another 'progressive' that many Democrats hyped up and, unlike Obama, was a demagogue just like all fascist speakers while also promising 'radical' reforms that were obviously fascist)

Look him up on Wikipedia or whatever. He was an interesting man.

When it comes to Obama's policies, he's no different from (Bill) Clinton. Only difference is that Obama is more charismatic and the USA was in a worse position than it was in 1992.

[Plagueround]

I am very, very, familiar with this response from 'progressives' in support of Obama. I usually adopt the following argument, and it carries great weight for you must remember that 'progressives' are emotionally leftist, but politically centrist. Anyway, my argument:

I will easily grant that Obama will produce better material benefits than McCain. No arguments here on this point. But one must look at the 2008 presidential election in light of a greater perspective. The United States is a capitalist, imperialist nation (most progressives will accept this claim, if they do, it's over - the argument is yours). Given that this is the case, and Obama has already stated that he will continue US imperialism (Afghanistan is a fine example) as well as capitalism, and hence one must look not at Obama himself, but at the systems of capitalism and imperialism.

At this point, I tend to generalize because progressives are not prepared to be lectured in Marxism - they need simple arguments which will strike emotional chords. I take the following approach:

Capitalism necessarily involves the systematic and widespread oppression and exploitation of millions of individuals within the US, and billions worldwide. This is not difficult to see (if they ask, provide a simple explanation of surplus value and wage slavery). Furthermore, Obama will only occupy the directorial seat within a system of exploitation and oppression. And given that this is a republic, you are endorsing this systematic and widespread exploitation and oppression with your vote. I cannot do this as I am opposed to exploitation and oppression (this last line should really work them over for it implies that they are not opposed to exploitation and oppression - which they aren't politically, but are emotionally).

Basically, you are asking them to be coherent individuals.



They are obviously a potential source, for they are highly emotionally attached to the notions of "freedom," "democracy," and "equality." They merely occupy a reformist, usually bourgeois perspective on the system of capitalism. This can be changed by proper argumentation (as elaborated above). You must remember that they are not prepared for a lecture in Marxism, such an approach will inevitably lead to failure. You must change their perspective, and then guide them into leftist theory.

- August

This advice just caused my girlfriend to get angry, start crying, level the same old standard arguments against communism/anarchy, tell me I was a failure placing my faith in something that WILL NEVER HAPPEN, and storm out of the house not telling me where she was going.

But it's still really good advice...some people just don't handle reality well.

[GPDP]

Seriously? She reacted that badly? :D

I mean, that kinda sucks, but at the same time, it's kinda funny. No offense or anything.

[Plagueround]

Seriously? She reacted that badly? :D

I mean, that kinda sucks, but at the same time, it's kinda funny. No offense or anything.

No offense taken. It'll be a whole lot funnier to me once she calms down and I am no longer a resident of the couch.

[John Lenin]

Of the two options, Obama is clearly the better of the two.

And I won't begrudge any Leftist who sees him as the lesser of two evils.

It comes down to whether Americans want to be lightly pissed on ... or thrown in and drowned in an ocean of piss.

[GPDP]

The way I put it, it comes down to what set of brown people you want to see bombed to hell and back.

[John Lenin]

The way I put it, it comes down to what set of brown people you want to see bombed to hell and back.

Would those be Iranian vs Pakistani ?

[OI OI OI]

I ay let them have all theur hopes on Obama now.
They willsoon realize that he wn't change anything for obvious reasons that we all know as communists/anarchists.
Then after the Republicans and Democrats will be discredited the people that are affected by the system and want change will draw the conclusion of formating a workers party.
So our attitude should be that of exposing Obama from now.

People now will dismiss us as "idiots".
But when the find out for thhemselves that Obama is bullshit they will think. Hey these people were telling the truth.
Some peoplewll draw revolutionary conclusions ,some won't but they will get more radicalized.
All this favours a formation of a labour party which will stand to the left(even though it will be reformist). But it has a potentialto be a mass labour party.
And that is a very progressive step .

So comrades in the US should absolutely agitate for that now and when Obama betrays the people.

And that labour party can have the potential to turn into the vanguard of the American proletariat when a revolutionary situation comes.

[GPDP]

Would those be Iranian vs Pakistani ?

Actually, I was talking about Iraqi vs. Afghan, but I suppose that works as well. Though Obama has also spoken quite ill of Iran.

Does anyone frequent any liberal/Democrat forums, like Democratic Underground? I wonder how they would respond to accusations from actual leftists, as opposed to the usual crap conservatives fling at them.

[Winter]

The problem with Obama supporters is that they think they're thinking outside the box of the system by supporting him. They epically fail to notice that they're just supporting another pro-capitalist/imperialist swine who may want to take some troops out of Iraq, but what for? So he can redistribute them to Afghanistan and Darfur?

I think people think they are acting "Revolutionary" by voting for the guy, so the question is how can we convince them otherwise?

[Winter]

I ay let them have all theur hopes on Obama now.
They willsoon realize that he wn't change anything for obvious reasons that we all know as communists/anarchists.
Then after the Republicans and Democrats will be discredited the people that are affected by the system and want change will draw the conclusion of formating a workers party.
So our attitude should be that of exposing Obama from now.

People now will dismiss us as "idiots".
But when the find out for thhemselves that Obama is bullshit they will think. Hey these people were telling the truth.
Some peoplewll draw revolutionary conclusions ,some won't but they will get more radicalized.
All this favours a formation of a labour party which will stand to the left(even though it will be reformist). But it has a potentialto be a mass labour party.
And that is a very progressive step .

So comrades in the US should absolutely agitate for that now and when Obama betrays the people.

And that labour party can have the potential to turn into the vanguard of the American proletariat when a revolutionary situation comes.

I agree with alot of this, but the same thing can be argued about people who had so much faith in other democratic canidates, such as Bill Clinton. It seems like they never learn! :(

[GPDP]

They do not learn because their concept of politics ranges from liberalism to convervatism. They basically just vote for the "most liberal" candidate and hope for the best.

Plus, a lot of people seem to think Clinton was a good president for some reason, which usually includes stuff like "balancing the budget". Odd, those liberals.

[OI OI OI]

I agree with alot of this, but the same thing can be argued about people who had so much faith in other democratic canidates, such as Bill Clinton. It seems like they never learn! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gif

Yes but this was under different objective conditions.
We are Marxists. We understand that the conditions of 1990 are not the same in the US(and in most countries) than those now.

Now people are losing their jobs, housing and in general the economy is in crisis and also there are two wars that contribute to the whole crisis of the US.

The people seek answers for their everyday problems which are aggravated as time goes by. The hope now is embodied in Obama.
It was not the same situation with Clinton. The objective conditions were not that favourable for us building a labour party or for the people to draw radical solutions to their problems.

Now the radicalization has reached the Obamamania position.
When that hope proves bs they will be even more radicalized.

This is basicaly reduced to the different historical epoch with different objective conditions . You cannot compare what is happening now with what happened before.

History does not move in a straight line...

[Winter]

^^^ Good point. I really hope you're right.

[GPDP]

Thought I'd bump this thread with a little insight into what liberals think about socialism and communism:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x235785

I notice there's a few comrades there, as well as some social-democrats and left-liberals sympathetic to socialism, but for the most part, they seem to be hostile to the idea of communism (look at North Korea, human nature, etc).

I just thought it'd be interesting to look at their mindset, since a lot of us here, from what I can gather, do believe liberals can potentially be radicalized and brought over to our side. It cannot hurt to see what their grievances with our ideas seems to be.

[Plagueround]

Thought I'd bump this thread with a little insight into what liberals think about socialism and communism:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x235785

I notice there's a few comrades there, as well as some social-democrats and left-liberals sympathetic to socialism, but for the most part, they seem to be hostile to the idea of communism (look at North Korea, human nature, etc).

I just thought it'd be interesting to look at their mindset, since a lot of us here, from what I can gather, do believe liberals can potentially be radicalized and brought over to our side. It cannot hurt to see what their grievances with our ideas seems to be.

Its very telling that almost every single person decrying communism insisted that "the state owns everything" and "you have no personal freedoms". They haven't actually given it any thought, looked into any theory beyond glancing at the communist manifesto (if that), or looked into successful instances of communism throughout history, and most can't think beyond what we're spoon fed about the "big bad communist bloc".

[Lector Malibu]

The problem with Obama supporters is that they think they're thinking outside the box of the system by supporting him. They epically fail to notice that they're just supporting another pro-capitalist/imperialist swine who may want to take some troops out of Iraq, but what for? So he can redistribute them to Afghanistan and Darfur?

I think people think they are acting "Revolutionary" by voting for the guy, so the question is how can we convince them otherwise?


This. And an excellent question.

As a person of color I's sure you all can understand the importance to me personally about having a candidate like Obama. That said, it is true what Winter's Demise has said.

Too focus so much on my end on that, was not the right approach. I understand why I did though.

Obama is just a continuation of what we know the problem is plain and simple.

[oujiQualm]

Were I a graphic designer I would make a picture of a hamster labeled DNC on a hamster wheel going nowhere with lots of cash raining down in the cage.

Then on the side there would be more tanks invading the next country.

The idea of the hamster wheel is primal, mahn, on account of it ILLUSTRATES THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF WORKING FOR THE CORPORATE BENDOVERCRATS. IE what would all this money and effort have accomplished had it not been givern to a mute corporate mummy-- who just happens the be Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Now why would the Bendovercrats nominate a guy who has never said ANYTHING to the most likely position in congress that would get on TV-- namely the Majority Leader in the US Senate.?

[oujiQualm]

One other point. I think that bashing the Corporate Democrats needs to be done also on Big daily newspaper websites. and also postings made in areas where people ONLY get to hear right wing sewage on the media (like Springfield Missouri)

There are great things about the internet. There are also some bad things primarily the way it fragments opposition voices so that REAL CRITICISM CANNOT HAVE A COMMON COMMUNICATIONS DENOMINATOR ie. no one recognizes each other because even though they might hate Corporations one person days Trilatterl Commission while another says Republican etc--

But on bigger newspaper sites you are talking to the whole spectrum.

You can point out just how Corporate Billionaire the Bendovercrats are TO PEOPLE WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE NEVER GET TO HEAR THAT OPINION AND WOULD OTHERWISE REMAIN IN THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF THE REPUBLICANS AND THE BENDOVERCRATS.

I know there is a tremendous amount of cynisicm about these sites. SOme like Topix forums(newsday, La times, 600 others have become centralized so they actively censor real threads in favor of mental sewage threads. Its like Clearchannel internet.

But other papers still run their own like St. Louis Post Dispatch, etc. There are quite good discussions that can occur there and the main point is PEOPLE ARE MORE WILLING TO LISTEN TO HOW FAKE THIS POLITICAL SYSTEM IS THAN YOU MIGHT THINK! I know because I spend most of my time typing into the big swimming pool!

to type only on "left " sites actually can be counterproductive. Think about that for a minute. No I am not saying dont lead them from big newspaper sites to others. But if you dont build the bridge who will? The Pew Charitable Trust (really Sunoco oil money that funds the leading journalism school in the US-- Annenberg at U. Penn!!;) Kind of thing more people should know about huh? HOW WILL THEY EVER?

The medium is you or nobody.

[ashaman1324]

i think people are supporting obama because hes the most progressive candidate in their eyes, as previously stated.
its not coincidence that hes the best choice for us socialists too, people are starting to believe in our mindset without realizing it, still in the "Red Bastard" mindset from the cold war. if our goals could be stated in a mainstream forum, comparing the similarities of what the "obamabots" want and what we want, our party would no longer be so frowned upon by the mainstream and would gain alot of support and recognized for our progression and lead to more radicalization of the masses for a workers party, that could eventually be as recognized as the democrats or republicans.
where real change can begin.

[gla22]

Obama will be the U.S next president, so after 2-3 years when nothing has changed people will be sick of both sides of the coin.

[GPDP]

A lot of people have stated that what will happen is all the people that support Obama will be disillusioned in a few years, and will get fed up with both the Republicans and the Democrats. But I'm not sure it's that simple.

Again, I point to the girl I talked about in the OP. One other thing she said was that she does not expect things to get better immediately, probably not even within the first couple of years or even Obama's whole term. Her faith in Obama ran so deep that she was already willing to look past any lack of change, and apparently is of the mind that a system this fucked up would take a long time to reform into something better. She only hopes Obama gets the ball rolling in the right direction.

We should not be so quick to expect liberals to join our ranks, even if Obama's promises turn out empty. I expect many to either fall into apathy, or like my friend, just set their expectations for change so low that they support him anyway because change will take a long time to come, and all that's needed is Obama's effort.

[Chapter 24]

I think that once they see that the status quo has remained intact despite his promises of change, it will be easier to educate these "Obamabots" about the system and why it doesn't work. Now I don't know how long he'll have to be in office before people finally realize that he's really no different than any other politician, but when they do they should definitely be educated.

[GPDP]

Well, I agree that they'll be most open to a new perspective if ever they start doubting their messiah. But I am worried that it's not a matter of when, but if.

Either way, we need to push our side as much as possible during this entire campaign, and long after Obama takes office.

[Benos145]

Obama is exactly what the bourgeios needs, a 'progressive' hero to restore American faith in political opportunism and social-chauvanism. The days of the cynical Bush imperialism maybe over, but the days of the bourgeios idealist 'American will save the world' imperialism of the Democrats (aka Kennedy) is going to replace it.

[ashaman1324]

Obama is exactly what the bourgeios needs, a 'progressive' hero to restore American faith in political opportunism and social-chauvanism. The days of the cynical Bush imperialism maybe over, but the days of the bourgeios idealist 'American will save the world' imperialism of the Democrats (aka Kennedy) is going to replace it.
i never thought of it like that.
it makes sense.
but even the most deeply rooted obamabot will lose faith he proves to be counterproductive, and if he wants to stand any chance for a second term, hell have to carry through on a few of his promises.

[Dimentio]

No President will ever be progressive. Even F.D. Roosevelt relied on a lighter form of economic fascism to save capitalism. (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm) The closest the USA got to a 'progressive' President was T. Roosevelt.

If anyone calls you a fascist, they're idiots. Also it's good that the last politician that could truly be called fascist in the USA died back in the 30's. (Huey Long, another 'progressive' that many Democrats hyped up and, unlike Obama, was a demagogue just like all fascist speakers while also promising 'radical' reforms that were obviously fascist)

Look him up on Wikipedia or whatever. He was an interesting man.

When it comes to Obama's policies, he's no different from (Bill) Clinton. Only difference is that Obama is more charismatic and the USA was in a worse position than it was in 1992.

In what way was Huey Long a fascist? Yes, he used fascist aesthetics, but he was neither espousing the fascist ideology of "Might is Right" nor held any sympathies for the KKK.

He was not a communist, but a leftist populist in the same style as for example Hugo Chàvez.