6 ms·

I'm not sure why it would seem curious or even mildly surprising. Obama is a self-proclaimed Marxist and has been from the start. Creating a centralized, unchec

I'm not sure why it would seem curious or even mildly surprising. Obama is a self-proclaimed Marxist and has been from the start. Creating a centralized, unchecked position of power is what Marxists do; you know, for the good of the people.

innocentoldguy 11y ago
And down voting those truths people don't like to hear is exactly why he made it into office . . . twice.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  I down voted you because of the wildly inaccurate use of the term "Marxist". Most of Obama's policies have very little to do with what Marx wrote about; at best, you could call him a socialist on a handful of issues, moderate/mild-conservative on other issues, and a pro-establishment Democrat overriding everything. Words have specific meanings, and you shouldn't label all of your political opponents "Marxist" (or "communists", "reds", or even "fascists", "neocons", etc) just because some of those labels may have fit some political opponents in the past.
  - innocentoldguy 11y ago
    Read my other comment and read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx. Obama's actions and Marx's document align quite well. I'd love for you to show me how they don't. I also have a question for you. Do we only call people Marxists once we're all properties of the state, residing in gulags, or dead? Or, do we see the slow movements in that direction early on and stop them? I personally prefer the latter.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Read my other comment and read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx The Manifesto of the Communist Party was written by Marx and Engels, not Marx as sole author. > Obama's actions and Marx's document align quite well. I'd love for you to show me how they don't. Okay, sure. the Manifesto's most direct policy prescriptions are contained in Chapter 2 [0], where after acknowledging that particular steps will differ from country to country, it states that "[n]evertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable" and lists the following items: > 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Where has Obama advocated anything like this? > 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Certainly the US has something like this, with a suitably loose definition of "heavy", but that pre-dates Obama. > 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Where has Obama advocated anything like this? (Proposing actually paying capital gains tax on the appreciation of capital assets transferred in inheritance -- e.g., treating transfer in inheritance like a transfer -- is far from abolition of all rights of inheritance.) > 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Again, where has Obama advocated anything like this? > 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. The US, obviously, has a central bank, but that's not an Obama innovation. > 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Certainly, the Obama Administration has supported some tweaks of existing communication and/or transportation regulation, but, again, where is there anything substantially like this? > 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Again, where? > 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Same question as above, where has Obama advocated this? > 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. The first part of this is a process that private industry has led in this country, but where has Obama proposed anything to advance either part? > 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. Much of the first two sentences of this had been advanced in the US prior to Obama, and is fairly (with "present" in the 1848 sense!) uncontroversial. Where has Obama done anything on the third? Where -- with specifics from both Obama policies and the Manifesto -- has Obama, in short, done anything that shows his actions "align quite well" with the Manifesto's agenda? [0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...
      - innocentoldguy 11y ago
        Let me answer your questions, dragonwriter. First of all, I am aware than Engles was involved, but it was Karl Marx who slaved over this document and ideology to the detriment and devastation of his wife and children. It was Marx who was the self-centered megalomaniac behind this concept, and he who pictured a future where people would worship him as a god. Engles's most important contribution was really money. 1. As I said, Obama has used the state to block the development of domestic energy over vast amounts of land. Furthermore, Obama upholds the notion of public domain, which means our property rights are subject to the whims of the state. How does this NOT fit? Just because the state hasn't confiscated all land yet doesn't mean this shouldn't be a concern and a type of things to come. 2. I never said Obama introduced the progressive tax in America. I said he fully supports it and has expanded it. His obsession with taxing the rich is well documented. I don't believe Marx was the original inventor of all of his ideas either. Does a pre-existing art doctrine prevent us from pointing to the state of our union today and accurately declaring what is wrong with it? 3. Confiscating wealth via a death tax, regardless to what extreme you do it to, places us directly on the path of Marxism, does it not? How can you claim that the federal government's confiscation of up to 45% of your wealth upon your death isn't just slightly under halfway there when it comes to Marx's goal? If I only forcibly molested you half way, would you feel as if it hadn't happened at all? 4. You have obviously never worked abroad. The federal government absolutely rapes you in taxes, especially if you are a software engineer, successful sales person, or an executive and make more than the standard overseas deduction. Furthermore, have you ever lived overseas and held money in a financial institution? Obama got the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act passed in 2010, which gives the federal government the ability to order foreign financial institutions to provide information to the IRS regarding Americans' offshore holdings. Then, if they feel like it, the federal government can confiscate your off-shore property. Fits quite nicely into number 4, really. 5. Yes, number five was going on before Obama. I never said it wasn't. However, Obama embraces this centralization and accelerated it via Dodd-Frank, which drastically increased the federal government's control over financial firms; as I already mentioned. 6. Regarding communications, Obama wants to revive the "fairness doctrine." He upped the Patriot Act's spying on American citizens for the last 6 years. He has expressed hostility towards free speech on numerous occasions. Regarding transportation, Cap & Trade. He also keeps trying to push America into the government's high-speed rail system. He keeps trying to compel Americans into "green transportation" by attempting to get laws passed that outlaw things like coal, pipelines, domestic energy production, etc. Has he centralized it yet? No. But, I don't believe those things happen overnight. They are slowly introduced in order to minimize backlash. Is that what Obama is doing and are we on that path? I believe so. 7. Obama has made every attempt to inject the federal government into the health care industry, housing industry, auto industry, and energy industry. Again, he has us on the path. 8. What do you think Obama's ramping up of federal employees in the IRS, Americorps (or "corpse," if you're Obama), and his Serve America Act are? 9. Obama used the Department of Housing and Urban Development to relocate people in order to make America more evenly distributed, racially speaking. Additionally, Obama's cap & trade would severely limit our ability to commute. This has a very high potential for forcing people to live in urban hubs. 10. The purpose of this point in Marx's Communist Manifesto was to control what people think. Don't you believe that is what Common Core is all about? In his State of the Union Address in 2012, Obama called for more funds and new federal education programs, and talked about mandatory federal schooling for everyone under 18. Also, what purpose does Obama have for wanting to give Associate degrees away for free? Did that answer your questions? In conclusion, I never said that Obama implemented all of the Marxist problems we now have. I simply said, and proved, that he supports Marxist ideals. Just because we have had other Marxists in our country's leadership before now doesn't negate the fact that Obama is indeed a Marxist. This isn't a talking-point. It is simply a fact.
  - innocentoldguy 11y ago
    Let me further refer you to Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. THE MARXIST PROFESSORS and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." In other words, by his own admission, he sought out and aligned himself with Marxist professors. It is surprising to me why smart people who can read can't see this ideal in Obama's policies, politics, and governance.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > In other words, by his own admission, he sought out and aligned himself with Marxist professors. By his own words that you quote, this was done as political cover to avoid certain labeling. That quote does not support your argument.
      - innocentoldguy 11y ago
        Perhaps not, but all the things in my other post do. This is just further evidence. You don't seek the company of Marxists, have a communist as a mentor, align your presidential campaign with documented communists, and not have that ideology rub off on you. I'm not really sure why you're having a hard time accepting that Obama leans towards that ideology. The evidence is all there.
mullingitover 11y ago
Ah, this explains why he's constantly advocating for the elimination of private property and for the state to own all means of production. Of course.
- innocentoldguy 11y ago
  Yes, mullingitover, because that is the ONLY thing Marxism is about. Since you, and those who down-voted my posts, are so smart, please explain how Obama's attempts to increase state control over our energy, health care, economy, finance, and education are not Marxists ideals and leading us down that socialist path. Please explain how Obama's blocking of domestic energy supplies via the assertion of government ownership and regulation over massive amounts of acreage isn't Marxist. Please explain how Obama's maniacal zeal for progressive income taxes specifically targeting the rich is not Marxist. Please explain how Obama's desire to reinstate estate taxes isn't Marxist. Please explain how Dodd-Frank wasn't a giant leap towards the centralization of the U.S.'s financial system into the hands of the federal government. Please explain Obama's appointments of self-proclaimed Marxist Van Jones and his relationships with his mentor, and documented member of the Communist Party, Frank Marshall Davis, and the links of David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to the Chicago Communist Party. Instead of down-voting my posts, why not read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, for yourself and see exactly how Obama's policies align with that document's 10 steps. No, we're not to the gulag stage yet, but that is certainly the path Obama has us on. Read and see.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    You seem to be confusing state ownership and management of industry with regulation of private industries. The state regulating and industry by banning various things or putting various requirements on the exploitation of common resources isn't anything like Marx's discussion of the state owning the means of production. > domestic energy supplies If you want to drill for oil on public land, your fellow citizens would like you to not fsck-up the land while you exploit it. Only in childish pure-capitalist fantasies does a business get to exploit common resources without without any social responsibility. > progressive income taxes Again, you apparently don't understand the difference between Marx's ideas of state ownership and modern economic theories, only some of which is even considered socialist. You tax the rich because they are the people with the money. Trying to squeeze it out of the poor with a flat tax is not only wildly socially irresponsible, it also creates social unrest. It also fails a producing revenue for the government. Oh, and you did know that progressive income tax started a loooong time before Marx was born, right? Even the ancient Romans had a progressive income tax. > estate tax Nothing specific to do with any of the economic suggestions discussed by Marx. Like the progressive income tax, limiting the dynastic accumulation of "old money" with an estate tax is a lot older than Marx. It's not like it even affects many people, contrary to the lies spread by many right-wing pundits. Are you leaving more than $5,430,000 to your kids? You did know that the estate tax exempts that amount, right? ... Ok, I have better things to do than to point out the errors in your fairly stereotypical GOP-propaganda-based view of the world. Obama has done more to continue Republican policies than any other modern president. You might want to take note of that - and do more reading about the history of politics on all sides. Obama and our current government have done some very worrying things (the Patriot Act power grabs that are the subject of this thread are a good example). I suggest focusing on these real problems if you want to accomplish something useful. Retreading old, easily debunked GOP is a waste of time and distracts from the actual problems that need to be addressed.

innocentoldguy 11y ago

And down voting those truths people don't like to hear is exactly why he made it into office . . . twice.

pdkl95 11y ago
I down voted you because of the wildly inaccurate use of the term "Marxist". Most of Obama's policies have very little to do with what Marx wrote about; at best, you could call him a socialist on a handful of issues, moderate/mild-conservative on other issues, and a pro-establishment Democrat overriding everything. Words have specific meanings, and you shouldn't label all of your political opponents "Marxist" (or "communists", "reds", or even "fascists", "neocons", etc) just because some of those labels may have fit some political opponents in the past.
- innocentoldguy 11y ago
  Read my other comment and read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx. Obama's actions and Marx's document align quite well. I'd love for you to show me how they don't. I also have a question for you. Do we only call people Marxists once we're all properties of the state, residing in gulags, or dead? Or, do we see the slow movements in that direction early on and stop them? I personally prefer the latter.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Read my other comment and read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx The Manifesto of the Communist Party was written by Marx and Engels, not Marx as sole author. > Obama's actions and Marx's document align quite well. I'd love for you to show me how they don't. Okay, sure. the Manifesto's most direct policy prescriptions are contained in Chapter 2 [0], where after acknowledging that particular steps will differ from country to country, it states that "[n]evertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable" and lists the following items: > 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Where has Obama advocated anything like this? > 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Certainly the US has something like this, with a suitably loose definition of "heavy", but that pre-dates Obama. > 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Where has Obama advocated anything like this? (Proposing actually paying capital gains tax on the appreciation of capital assets transferred in inheritance -- e.g., treating transfer in inheritance like a transfer -- is far from abolition of all rights of inheritance.) > 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Again, where has Obama advocated anything like this? > 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. The US, obviously, has a central bank, but that's not an Obama innovation. > 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Certainly, the Obama Administration has supported some tweaks of existing communication and/or transportation regulation, but, again, where is there anything substantially like this? > 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Again, where? > 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Same question as above, where has Obama advocated this? > 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. The first part of this is a process that private industry has led in this country, but where has Obama proposed anything to advance either part? > 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. Much of the first two sentences of this had been advanced in the US prior to Obama, and is fairly (with "present" in the 1848 sense!) uncontroversial. Where has Obama done anything on the third? Where -- with specifics from both Obama policies and the Manifesto -- has Obama, in short, done anything that shows his actions "align quite well" with the Manifesto's agenda? [0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...
    - innocentoldguy 11y ago
      Let me answer your questions, dragonwriter. First of all, I am aware than Engles was involved, but it was Karl Marx who slaved over this document and ideology to the detriment and devastation of his wife and children. It was Marx who was the self-centered megalomaniac behind this concept, and he who pictured a future where people would worship him as a god. Engles's most important contribution was really money. 1. As I said, Obama has used the state to block the development of domestic energy over vast amounts of land. Furthermore, Obama upholds the notion of public domain, which means our property rights are subject to the whims of the state. How does this NOT fit? Just because the state hasn't confiscated all land yet doesn't mean this shouldn't be a concern and a type of things to come. 2. I never said Obama introduced the progressive tax in America. I said he fully supports it and has expanded it. His obsession with taxing the rich is well documented. I don't believe Marx was the original inventor of all of his ideas either. Does a pre-existing art doctrine prevent us from pointing to the state of our union today and accurately declaring what is wrong with it? 3. Confiscating wealth via a death tax, regardless to what extreme you do it to, places us directly on the path of Marxism, does it not? How can you claim that the federal government's confiscation of up to 45% of your wealth upon your death isn't just slightly under halfway there when it comes to Marx's goal? If I only forcibly molested you half way, would you feel as if it hadn't happened at all? 4. You have obviously never worked abroad. The federal government absolutely rapes you in taxes, especially if you are a software engineer, successful sales person, or an executive and make more than the standard overseas deduction. Furthermore, have you ever lived overseas and held money in a financial institution? Obama got the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act passed in 2010, which gives the federal government the ability to order foreign financial institutions to provide information to the IRS regarding Americans' offshore holdings. Then, if they feel like it, the federal government can confiscate your off-shore property. Fits quite nicely into number 4, really. 5. Yes, number five was going on before Obama. I never said it wasn't. However, Obama embraces this centralization and accelerated it via Dodd-Frank, which drastically increased the federal government's control over financial firms; as I already mentioned. 6. Regarding communications, Obama wants to revive the "fairness doctrine." He upped the Patriot Act's spying on American citizens for the last 6 years. He has expressed hostility towards free speech on numerous occasions. Regarding transportation, Cap & Trade. He also keeps trying to push America into the government's high-speed rail system. He keeps trying to compel Americans into "green transportation" by attempting to get laws passed that outlaw things like coal, pipelines, domestic energy production, etc. Has he centralized it yet? No. But, I don't believe those things happen overnight. They are slowly introduced in order to minimize backlash. Is that what Obama is doing and are we on that path? I believe so. 7. Obama has made every attempt to inject the federal government into the health care industry, housing industry, auto industry, and energy industry. Again, he has us on the path. 8. What do you think Obama's ramping up of federal employees in the IRS, Americorps (or "corpse," if you're Obama), and his Serve America Act are? 9. Obama used the Department of Housing and Urban Development to relocate people in order to make America more evenly distributed, racially speaking. Additionally, Obama's cap & trade would severely limit our ability to commute. This has a very high potential for forcing people to live in urban hubs. 10. The purpose of this point in Marx's Communist Manifesto was to control what people think. Don't you believe that is what Common Core is all about? In his State of the Union Address in 2012, Obama called for more funds and new federal education programs, and talked about mandatory federal schooling for everyone under 18. Also, what purpose does Obama have for wanting to give Associate degrees away for free? Did that answer your questions? In conclusion, I never said that Obama implemented all of the Marxist problems we now have. I simply said, and proved, that he supports Marxist ideals. Just because we have had other Marxists in our country's leadership before now doesn't negate the fact that Obama is indeed a Marxist. This isn't a talking-point. It is simply a fact.
- innocentoldguy 11y ago
  Let me further refer you to Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. THE MARXIST PROFESSORS and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." In other words, by his own admission, he sought out and aligned himself with Marxist professors. It is surprising to me why smart people who can read can't see this ideal in Obama's policies, politics, and governance.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > In other words, by his own admission, he sought out and aligned himself with Marxist professors. By his own words that you quote, this was done as political cover to avoid certain labeling. That quote does not support your argument.
    - innocentoldguy 11y ago
      Perhaps not, but all the things in my other post do. This is just further evidence. You don't seek the company of Marxists, have a communist as a mentor, align your presidential campaign with documented communists, and not have that ideology rub off on you. I'm not really sure why you're having a hard time accepting that Obama leans towards that ideology. The evidence is all there.

mullingitover 11y ago

Ah, this explains why he's constantly advocating for the elimination of private property and for the state to own all means of production. Of course.

innocentoldguy 11y ago
Yes, mullingitover, because that is the ONLY thing Marxism is about. Since you, and those who down-voted my posts, are so smart, please explain how Obama's attempts to increase state control over our energy, health care, economy, finance, and education are not Marxists ideals and leading us down that socialist path. Please explain how Obama's blocking of domestic energy supplies via the assertion of government ownership and regulation over massive amounts of acreage isn't Marxist. Please explain how Obama's maniacal zeal for progressive income taxes specifically targeting the rich is not Marxist. Please explain how Obama's desire to reinstate estate taxes isn't Marxist. Please explain how Dodd-Frank wasn't a giant leap towards the centralization of the U.S.'s financial system into the hands of the federal government. Please explain Obama's appointments of self-proclaimed Marxist Van Jones and his relationships with his mentor, and documented member of the Communist Party, Frank Marshall Davis, and the links of David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to the Chicago Communist Party. Instead of down-voting my posts, why not read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, for yourself and see exactly how Obama's policies align with that document's 10 steps. No, we're not to the gulag stage yet, but that is certainly the path Obama has us on. Read and see.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  You seem to be confusing state ownership and management of industry with regulation of private industries. The state regulating and industry by banning various things or putting various requirements on the exploitation of common resources isn't anything like Marx's discussion of the state owning the means of production. > domestic energy supplies If you want to drill for oil on public land, your fellow citizens would like you to not fsck-up the land while you exploit it. Only in childish pure-capitalist fantasies does a business get to exploit common resources without without any social responsibility. > progressive income taxes Again, you apparently don't understand the difference between Marx's ideas of state ownership and modern economic theories, only some of which is even considered socialist. You tax the rich because they are the people with the money. Trying to squeeze it out of the poor with a flat tax is not only wildly socially irresponsible, it also creates social unrest. It also fails a producing revenue for the government. Oh, and you did know that progressive income tax started a loooong time before Marx was born, right? Even the ancient Romans had a progressive income tax. > estate tax Nothing specific to do with any of the economic suggestions discussed by Marx. Like the progressive income tax, limiting the dynastic accumulation of "old money" with an estate tax is a lot older than Marx. It's not like it even affects many people, contrary to the lies spread by many right-wing pundits. Are you leaving more than $5,430,000 to your kids? You did know that the estate tax exempts that amount, right? ... Ok, I have better things to do than to point out the errors in your fairly stereotypical GOP-propaganda-based view of the world. Obama has done more to continue Republican policies than any other modern president. You might want to take note of that - and do more reading about the history of politics on all sides. Obama and our current government have done some very worrying things (the Patriot Act power grabs that are the subject of this thread are a good example). I suggest focusing on these real problems if you want to accomplish something useful. Retreading old, easily debunked GOP is a waste of time and distracts from the actual problems that need to be addressed.