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.

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.

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/ar...an_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?

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

[Plagueround]

Seriously? She reacted that badly?

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!