Obama anti imperialist?

[EseSocialistaSurge]

I was reading up a bit on Obama and it seems to me that he is a bit anti imperialist in his policies. According to what I read he will do such things as stop giving tax breaks to companies that send their jobs overseas and reward companies that invest in America. It seems to me though that the only reason he is doing this is just because of the economic situation in the country and as soon as things are well things will go back to the way they are. What do you think?

[Guerrilla22]

Imperialism has nothing to do with tax breaks for the wealthy. Imperialism is the control and exploitation of other countries for their resources.

[EseSocialistaSurge]

Well yes. I mean to say that by stopping giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas then they will have incentive to give the jobs to Americans rather than foreigners. In a way you can see people as a resource, because to the capitalist those people they employ in other countries are just commodities. Theyre just used for their advantage. They have no value to them and so they can opress and mistreat them without care. They pay them low wages and there have been many cases where companies use children for their work. Im sure that has to be some form of imperialism as it involves as you said control and explotation. Correct me if im wrong. Im just learning :)

[#FF0000]

Nope. Some of his policies might look that way, but he's expressed interest in putting some embargo or something on Venezuela, among other things. In some aspects, his foreign policy is even more out-and-out imperialist than McCain's.

[bcbm]

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1382/facepalm2ly3.jpg

Obama wants to put more troops in Afghanistan, maintain (if not increase) US presence is Iraq and has unwavering support for Israel and all of their actions, to say nothing of what I'm sure will be policies designed to continue US exploitation or influence over other nations. Hardly anti-imperialist. Assuming he does offer any tax incentives of this sort it is a populist measure, not an anti-imperialist one. It appeases the "America first" crowd on the right and left but doesn't really offer anything substantial. The majority of the important jobs that "left" did so in the 70's and 80's and they aren't coming back.

[Mister X]

Imperialism is not just invading Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
It is economic imperialism as well as Lenin described it in his brilliant work "Imperialism ; the Highest Stage of Capitalism".

Meaning that there is capital flow from the US to "Third World" countries. What ensues is economic exploitation and economic control of their respective governments. Which is imperialism. As long as capitalism exists imperialism will exist. There's no going out of it.

Now I understand that when you say imperialism you mean invading other countries.
Obama in countless interviews said that invading Iran is his second option after diplomacy. Just watch his interview to Bill O'Reilly on youtube. He also said that he'll send more troops to Afghanistan. He never criticised Israel's imperialism , which bombed Gaza just now.

So no, if you think that Obama is anti-imperialist then you leave in another planet.

[EseSocialistaSurge]

Yea your right. Im not saying he is fully anti imperialist but at least somewhat better then presidents in the past. But I guess not. Thanks for the info.

[Hessian Peel]

I hope he's shot.

[rebelmouse]

after obama visited israel, israel started military attack on Gaza. so, he is servant of big capital and his international politics will be the same as Bush. therefore he choose clinton's and bush's people to work for him.
anti war blabla was just pre-election bla bla. even closing of guantanamo doesn't mean that prisoners will be free, they finish in european prisons.
Obama=Bush, Bush=Obama.

[Kassad]

Continuted support for Israel, aggression towards Pakistan and Venezuela, continuing the embargo on Cuba, likely continuing military operations in Iraq and continuing military operations in Afghanistan.

That sounds very imperialist to me. He is just serving the corporate interests and the corporate interests are making a lot of money from war. Put two and two together here.

[Jesus Christ!]

I hope he's shot.


It's really beyond me how comments like this can pass without notice. I assume you know that Joe Biden, one of the most hawkish Democrats, would become president if Obama were shot? Is that really what you want? Also what do you think it would do for race relations if the first black president were assassinated? Or was your comment in the vain of the ridiculous notion of "all bougeroise should be shot" while you really would do nothing to support any struggle. If you wish Obama to be assassinated, sell your computer, buy a gun and do it.

[Hessian Peel]

It's really beyond me how comments like this can pass without notice. I assume you know that Joe Biden, one of the most hawkish Democrats, would become president if Obama were shot? Is that really what you want? Also what do you think it would do for race relations if the first black president were assassinated? Or was your comment in the vain of the ridiculous notion of "all bougeroise should be shot" while you really would do nothing to support any struggle. If you wish Obama to be assassinated, sell your computer, buy a gun and do it.

So in short you support Obama or at least prefer him to other sections of the bourgeoisie, is that it?

Well yes it's not entirely unheard of for Marxists to be in favour of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in every country, regardless of their skin colour or ethnicity. There would be no fundamental difference between a Biden presidency and an Obama one, just as there is little that really separates Obama from the Bush administration.

[Mister X]

So in short you support Obama or at least prefer him to other sections of the bourgeoisie, is that it?

Well yes it's not entirely unheard of for Marxists to be in favour of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in every country, regardless of their skin colour or ethnicity. There would be no fundamental difference between a Biden presidency and an Obama one, just as there is little that really separates Obama from the Bush administration.

Jesus Christ! never said that.
He said that he is against the Narodnik idea of shooting people in order to make the world a better place. This idea is ridiculus. If you shoot a President another one is going to replace him and repress the left wing with the support of a big portion of the population this time(especially in the case of Obama).
So yeah, if you want the destruction of the left, go shoot Obama. If you don't die by doing the act I'll hunt you down and smack your face after:)

[Comrade B]

Remember, we aren't going to get our ideal man out of anything that the US puts up. Obama is a solution to some interior problems that the US has, and will help some people somewhat, but like all US democrats and republicans, he will never mention the working class. Though often comrades enjoy overkilling the evils of the man, he cannot really FIX anything, though I doubt he will make it much worse than what is already in effect.


They have no value to them and so they can opress and mistreat them without care. They pay them low wages and there have been many cases where companies use children for their work. Im sure that has to be some form of imperialism as it involves as you said control and explotation. Correct me if im wrong. Im just learning
I am going to agree with esesocialistasurge that imperialism can be economic. Take a look at places like the coast line of Mexico, the entire economy is based around satisfying the wants of the upper class, mostly from other countries.

If we look at pre-Castro Cuba, the entire country was pretty much the same thing. India's workers rarely see the products that are marketed from their country into the US.

The resources produced by a country belong to the workers of that country. There is no way that someone should be working, building luxury cars for example, all day long, producing multiple cars a day, and never stand a chance of getting one. If you are a part of the production, you should benefit from the production.

[Hessian Peel]

Jesus Christ! never said that.
He said that he is against the Narodnik idea of shooting people in order to make the world a better place. This idea is ridiculus. If you shoot a President another one is going to replace him and repress the left wing with the support of a big portion of the population this time(especially in the case of Obama).
So yeah, if you want the destruction of the left, go shoot Obama. If you don't die by doing the act I'll hunt you down and smack your face after:)


http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1363/pinochetrh2.jpg

[Revy]

I was reading up a bit on Obama and it seems to me that he is a bit anti imperialist in his policies. According to what I read he will do such things as stop giving tax breaks to companies that send their jobs overseas and reward companies that invest in America. It seems to me though that the only reason he is doing this is just because of the economic situation in the country and as soon as things are well things will go back to the way they are. What do you think?

Don't be fooled. Obama is VERY imperialist and he made very imperialist statements about Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Afghanistan, even Iraq which it looks like he is going to continue (he refused to state whether all troops would be withdrawn from Iraq in 2013).

[Revy]

I hope he's shot.

This is a really dumb statement. That will not solve anything! Shooting Presidents does NOT advance the class struggle. It never did.

[Comrade B]

Iran
There is no way in hell he would touch Iran. He would lose all his support


Pakistan
This one is a strange situation, the US is already doing invasions of Pakistan though, if he doesn't stop them, I doubt he will escalate them


Russia
Haven't heard him mention this one before, but once again, the US would never touch Russia, because they are a modern country


Afghanistan
The US already occupies Afghanistan, they will be there for years and years, nothing is getting worse under him


he refused to state whether all troops would be withdrawn from Iraq in 2013
I doubt this came as a surprise to you, the US will always want a slight hold on every country it touches, even if it is just to have some guys with guns around the country's president

[Hessian Peel]

This is a really dumb statement. That will not solve anything! Shooting Presidents does NOT advance the class struggle. It never did.

I never claimed otherwise, I just hope he's shot.

[Mister X]

There is no way in hell he would touch Iran. He would lose all his support

You are mistaken. He clearly stated in an interview to Bill O' Rilley that he will use force against Iran if diplomacy fails. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luA0AMP51Gc

[Revy]

Jesus Christ! never said that.
He said that he is against the Narodnik idea of shooting people in order to make the world a better place. This idea is ridiculus. If you shoot a President another one is going to replace him and repress the left wing with the support of a big portion of the population this time(especially in the case of Obama).
So yeah, if you want the destruction of the left, go shoot Obama. If you don't die by doing the act I'll hunt you down and smack your face after:)
exactly, Biden would replace Obama and put totalitarian measures in place to repress the left. That would be horrible. Biden is more imperialist than Obama.

[Comrade B]

He clearly stated in an interview to Bill O' Rilley that he will use force against Iran if diplomacy fails.
I think the key to this is

in an interview to Bill O' Rilley
He is on a republican run news station, petitioning for republican votes. McCain was raving about killing as many Iranians as possible early on in his run for presidency, Obama decided to counter by showing that he is also a crazy fuck, as to draw the crazy fuck vote in.

Obama's main problem he faced in the campaign was people that said he was "soft on terrorism". Every political campaign revolves around a very small group of voters who change their votes. The far left will usually vote D and a few will branch off to smaller left parties, but they would never vote for the republicans, thus they only have half the importance to the candidate. The two politicians try to create campaigns as far to the other side as their supporters will let them go, trying to bring in the most of the voters from the other party as they can.

[Revy]

I think the key to this is

He is on a republican run news station, petitioning for republican votes. McCain was raving about killing as many Iranians as possible early on in his run for presidency, Obama decided to counter by showing that he is also a crazy fuck, as to draw the crazy fuck vote in.

Obama's main problem he faced in the campaign was people that said he was "soft on terrorism". Every political campaign revolves around a very small group of voters who change their votes. The far left will usually vote D and a few will branch off to smaller left parties, but they would never vote for the republicans, thus they only have half the importance to the candidate. The two politicians try to create campaigns as far to the other side as their supporters will let them go, trying to bring in the most of the voters from the other party as they can.

These things are said by Obama all the time regardless of what venue he is at. He has consistently said he would use force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities.

[Mister X]

I think the key to this is

I think you mean "if". Diplomacy is a tool that the imperialists use with the threat of actual invasion in order to make other States fear them and do what they want.
If you support capitalist diplomacy you support its conscequences which are economic imperialism and control of another nations politics.
If you support Obama for this then you shouldn't post on a revolutionary left forum. No insult here and again the word "if" is key here.

Now going further , Obama threatened Iran with force if negotiations are not favorable enough for the US. What does this show?

If you think that Obama is not as imperialist as Bush then you live on another planet. Because as a leftist you should know that every president is a puppet of the big businesses and there are no lesser evils.


He is on a republican run news station, petitioning for republican votes. McCain was raving about killing as many Iranians as possible early on in his run for presidency, Obama decided to counter by showing that he is also a crazy fuck, as to draw the crazy fuck vote in.

Obama's main problem he faced in the campaign was people that said he was "soft on terrorism". Every political campaign revolves around a very small group of voters who change their votes. The far left will usually vote D and a few will branch off to smaller left parties, but they would never vote for the republicans, thus they only have half the importance to the candidate. The two politicians try to create campaigns as far to the other side as their supporters will let them go, trying to bring in the most of the voters from the other party as they can.


This clearly demonstrates that he is an opportunist and he would do anything in order to get elected. Once he gets elected he will do anything that the bosses tell him to do. It's as simple as that.

[Comrade B]

there are no lesser evils.
Hitler v Bush, is there no lesser evil?

He has consistently said he would use force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities.
You imply that US politicians tell the truth here. They don't.

If you support Obama for this then you shouldn't post on a revolutionary left forum.
I don't support him. I would prefer him as a leader to McCain, Bush, Hitler, Mussolini, The Pope, Franz Ferdinand, and Czar Nicolas though.

Obama threatened Iran with force if negotiations are not favorable enough for the US. What does this show?
There will be no negotiations, and there will be no fighting. The US will complain, Iran will build its nuclear facilities (if possible)
Would the US really ever invade a country with nuclear weapons?


Because as a leftist you should know that every president is a puppet of the big businesses and there are no lesser evils.
The president has the option to choose if they want to be a puppet, which I admit that they always do choose to be, however they also choose who they want to be a puppet for. Someone who is a puppet for Microsoft and US based companies which rely little on outside countries is not as dangerous as someone who is a puppet for Halliburton and companies which rely on the availability of resources from other countries.
All Microsoft wants is to be able to create a monopoly and break some internal business laws, fucking over a few thousand. Halliburton wants availability of other country's. resources. Nationalization of oil is a scary thing for Halliburton.


Once he gets elected he will do anything that the bosses tell him to do.
Ultimately he will make the decision who he will listen to himself. Being that we have to, we may as well see what he does before we start talking about all the horrible things he "will" do. I do not doubt that he will make many mistakes, and do many cruel things, but I will wait for them before I say they are happening.

This clearly demonstrates that he is an opportunist and he would do anything in order to get elected.
There was no argument against that

[Coggeh]

Ultimately he will make the decision who he will listen to himself. Being that we have to, we may as well see what he does before we start talking about all the horrible things he "will" do. I do not doubt that he will make many mistakes, and do many cruel things, but I will wait for them before I say they are happening.

You actually hold hope or some doubt as to what Obama will do? :confused:

[Comrade B]

You actually hold hope or some doubt as to what Obama will do?
What do you think his exact actions will be?
What is one thing you are sure he is going to do?

Not something you heard that he believes, but something you are sure he will do.
also, not something you don't think he will do, such as "I don't think he is going to create a glorious socialist republic", because none of us think that he will. I just don't think that he is going to bring about the apocalypse.

[Ol' Dirty]

That's cute. Nah, Obama is (going to be) the President of the United States. He may be less of a prick than out last... 55, but he's still the leader of the world's most powerful empire. Even though it's going through a tough spot, it's still an empire. He's going to kill more people into Afghanistan, keep NAFTA going, bail out more big-ass firms while people in Chicago, Ney York City, Philly, DC, LA and Miami are out on the streets. He is a great orator, and he's probably a nice guy. But Jimmy Carter was a nice, intelligent guy too, and he still kept that shit with the Contras going.

My grandmother grew up only thirty-five or so years after the "emancipation" of the slaves in the U.S., and she heard stories of how "kind" master was. My father told me this: there is no such thing as a "good slave-master". Moreover, there is no such thing as a "good" ruler, and there's no such thing as a "good" president.

[Comrade B]

That's cute.
what the fuck is that supposed to mean