Obama is a Socialist - A Crazy Thought?
Right after President Obama's state of the union address several Republicans, mainly of the Tea Party faction stated that he is a socialist. This isn't the first time the claim has been made. Indeed, based on his early schooling the idea that he may well be one simply cannot be dismissed.
Not that all of us inherit our parents' political views, quite far from it. I myself had a father who was an avid champion of Hitler and a fierce Anti-Semite, whereas I grew up to embrace libertarianism in politics and a refined version of Objectivism in my general philosophy. A great many folks I know don't at all think as their parents did. But there are those, also, who do and in the case of Obama it seems his socialist grandmother had considerable influence on him (judging by his own testimony).
When it comes to the allegation that Obama is a socialist an MSNBC commentator quoted Webster's Dictionary as evidence that he is not. The passage singled out the socialist view of property, namely, that everything important is to be collectively owned, that private property "in the means of production" must be abolished. (Which, by the way, for socialists means, human labor!) The Communist Manifesto makes this clear – Marx and Engels claimed the fist thing toward establishing socialism – the stage of history prior to reaching communism – is the abolition of private property. So it would seem that there is no way that Obama could be a socialist since he has said many nice things about the market place and hasn't ever called for abolishing private property rights, only heavily regulating it and getting in bed with certain big businesses, which strictly speaking isn't the same thing is collectivization.
However, looking a bit more closely, it needs also to be kept in mind that Mr. Obama has often declared his own pragmatism, which is a philosophical stance of not sticking by any firm principles. And such a policy could very well be deployed exactly when one wishes to disguise one's actual political economic philosophy. And then there is this wonderfully instructive passage by Lenin himself, certainly a bona fide communist:
Only one thing is needed to lead us to march forward more surely and more firmly to victory: namely, the consciousness everywhere that all communists, in all countries, must display the maximum flexibility in their tactics.... [Lenin, "Left Wing Communism," 1920].
But this isn't all. What is really central to socialism is the view that we all belong to society, that there are no genuine human individuals at all, that human beings are what Marx called specie beings somewhat on the order of termites or bees that exists as a collective, never individually. The collective ownership of everything that's valuable and important is a derivative doctrine, not a primary one. This is one reason that some socialists are actually called "market" socialists. They recognize that as a matter of efficiency – or at times public relations – it is quite OK to give a nod to certain elements of capitalism.
It is not easy to tell what is in someone's mind, especially not if that someone is convinced that the only way to advance his or her position is to keep its true nature obscure. Indeed, among neo-conservatives this is a prominent theme, learned from the political scientist the late Leo Strauss. He argued that it is only prudent for philosophers to keep their true views a secret, if only because it would scare ordinary folks to be told that brilliant philosophers have come o believe.
Surely this could apply in the case of Mr. Obama, as well: the American public would be very upset if he came right out and said, "Look, folks, I happen to believe that socialism is a sound political economic viewpoint and will do what I can to steer the country that way. I honestly think it is better than capitalism." Not a way to win elections, so much better to keep it under wraps.
Posted by 4irw4y on 02/02/11 01:51 PM
An answer to previous post from Bob is awaiting moderation.
Posted by 4irw4y on 02/02/11 01:49 PM
I'm withdrawing "I think that History is, at least, your hobby" from Posted by 4irw4y on 1/31/2011 2:52:09 AM, in the part regarding ", at least,". An unpleasant change of the original message, as for me.
Whos data is that you cite here at
Click to view link @ 2/2/2011 1:41:06 AM?
You tell novel things to us mortals. Things which may seriously offend some of non-Switzerland citizens. Though, those in CH domain may also well be disagree with some linkless statements in your recent transmission.
It's a tricky stuff, painting the past in clown's colours knowing that the Past will no more get itself revealed to witness you being truthful in heart. What can men and women expect of such kind of Future building and of its builders then?
Another pseudo-propopulous scum. Don't tell me you have no trouble, tomorrow or after it, for it troubles from the Past, and it's obviously and clearly seen, at present and at future days/in one of them.
Posted by Akhil Khanna on 02/02/11 02:02 AM
The politicians around the world are nothing more than auction items which can be sold to the highest bidder. They will do whatever they can for the lobbyist paying them the maximum amount of money or votes, be it the unions, the banksters, the richest corporations or individuals. They are in the power seat to extract maximum advantage for themselves in the small time frame they occupy the seat of power.
The rest of the population is least of their concerns. The only activity they do is pacify the majority of the population using false statistics and promises of a better future so that they do not lynch them and their masters while they are robbing the taxpayers.
Click to view link
Posted by Bob on 02/02/11 01:41 AM
Following the fall of USSR, Mr. Yeltsin, the first post-USSR Russian president who was a drunkard and a thief, released plenty of previously top-secret Soviet documents. This window of truth was shut down very fast but these released documents revealed many serious Russian historians concluded that
- The Soviet Union was preparing to the WWII to conquer Europe starting in mid 1920s. More than 70% of the entire Soviet GDP was going to defense. By the time, on June 22, 1944, when Hitler invaded USSR, Stalin was in a process of a general mobilization of Soviet arm-forces to attack Nazi Germany.
- On its border with Germany, Stalin massed and was in a process of deployment of more than 350 divisions with 20,000 tanks and 18,000 combat aircraft vs 220 divisions on the German side with 2,200 tanks and 2,000 aircraft . Stalin had a huge army with the most advanced for that time military equipment in world. The Soviet attack was planned for early July 1941.
- The German attack was extremely successful. In the first two months, Soviet Red Army lost more that 4 millions soldiers. It did not happen, as Soviet and the West propaganda claim, because naive & peace-loving Stalin trusted to Hitler too much and was not ready for a war. The real reason was the Red Army did not want to fight for sadistic, blood-thirsty dictator and his sadistic Jewish commissars!
German army was met in USSR as liberators from sadistic and murderous communist regime. However, Nazis f--ked up everything. Germans did not take the war with USSR seriously. They thought that Russian people cannot fight and behaved as brutal invaders on occupied territories. On top of it, Nazi military intelligence Abwehr during the entire WWII cooperated with British.
- The WWII gave the legitimacy to the Soviet State and to the present Russian regime in eyes of its own people and the world. USSR lost close to 40 millions people during the WWII but the Soviets won.
- As a matter of fact, FDR was urging Stalin to start a war against Nazis back in 1937 promising money and equipment.
- Soviet were planning to takeover the entire Europe in 1946 but the US nuclear deterrent stopped them. It indeed scared shit out of Churchill.
- The Nuremberg trial was just another Soviet show trial with most of evidences were fabricated.
- At the time of his death, Stalin was poisoned in March 1953, he was planning a radical change of the Soviet system marginalizing the communist party and having a second industrial/technology revolution in USSR.
The West and the Soviets falsified the entire XX-century history. Unfortunately, they both had too much in common.
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 02/01/11 04:56 PM
"I can not, for the life of me, understand why there is always a small group of people on the planet at any given time that NEEDS power. It seems like more trouble than it's worth. Those people are, for sure, a menace"
Women. Ya can't live with 'em and ya just can't shoot 'em.
That was a joke. Really. Women make up more than half of the world population...
In truth, the desire to dominate others has always mystified me as well. I really don't *like* taking responsibility for other people and I always have figured that if I tell them what to do, and something goes wrong, it's my fault. So I don't tell people what to do, it just isn't worth it. Advice is a dangerous gift in my opinion and I need to like somebody a whole lot before I give it away.
With this in mind, my theory is that the authoritarian is by *necessity* a person who lacks any sort of sense of personal responsibility; he is by definition a sociopath.
Hope that helps :)
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 02/01/11 04:24 PM
"Let me tell you that the above is a total BS. It is the Soviet propaganda masterpiece conveniently promoted by Western socialist "intellectuals""
Thank you for the detailed account of the Bolshevik revolution, certainly a view I have not been exposed to before. When you mention that Lenin and Trotsky were deployed as "proletariat lovers" by the British and American elite, what the Bell refers to as the "Anglosphere", you seem to agree with my understanding that that same proletariat were ripe for manipulation; conditioned by a series of debilitating wars they became soft targets for the communist manifesto, or, "Change You Can Believe In".
Perhaps I said it differently but I suspect we might agree on the basic mechanisms. It's my fear that technique is being employed again, which was the only point of my analysis.
Posted by Rog on 01/31/11 06:23 PM
All this talk of socialism, fascism, communism, democracy on and on is really just talk about the methods used to acquire power.
I can appeal to a particular group of people by talking about a world that looks like what we call "socialist." I can convince them to transfer their power to me by simply invoking a "philosophy" they know little about because they haven't thought about it that much or, if they have thought about it, can't of won't see what I'm actually doing. Same can be said of communism, fascism, democracy etc.
I can not, for the life of me, understand why there is always a small group of people on the planet at any given time that NEEDS power. It seems like more trouble than it's worth. Those people are, for sure, a menace.
But, it is the masses that NEED to associate themselves with that small group that worries me. These are the people that embrace all these "isms" in the name of the collective good, as if there were such a thing. Actually, there is such a thing, but the list that describes that "good" is quite small. 10, maybe? It is, for example, good that we don't consider murder an activity that we condone.
Why is it that in the public discourse we must endure talk of endless solutions that seek to impose upon humanity this remedy or that remedy? Socialism will do the trick, no communism is best, no, no, no only democracy can lift the burden.
It is, in the end, about power, or our perceived lack of it that compels us to even the playing field. We identify with those we think have power and we are more than willing to give our power to them, thereby increasing their power, in the hope that they will somehow shower us with benevalent protection, boundless wealth and impose, through their infinate wisdom, peaceful coexistance. It is childish, at best.
The PE are the PE because we give them our power. We give then power by buying in to their schemes to acquire power ie: socialism, communism, democracy on and on. Don't you see? All the "isms" take from you or from your neighbor to accomplish the stated goal.
As per Nash Montana, here in Montana we have had, of late, a rash of takers from other states who indentify with the left, move in to the urban areas and completely change the political landscape.
They embrace theft so that they may have running trails, open spaces (they live in Montana for goodness sake), all manner of services and government programs. They bring their attitude of entitlement with them. They are, in my dealings with them, people who believe, at root, that they have no power. They are cowards when confronted with some one who points out their thievery.
When will we understand that government is a means to power? That political philosophy is, for the most part, a way to acquire power by hoodwinking us into arguing about who gets what? That those who seek power mean us no good. That theft by any other name is still theft?
Sure, Obama is a socialist, or a communist, or a fascist-whatever it takes.
Posted by Mark Humphrey on 01/31/11 02:53 PM
There is one area in which the socialist idea that one's life belongs to the community shines forth clearly: care of elderly people who become ill. The left universally embraces euthanasia, based on the loopy notion that when one becomes old, it is time for one to die. It is important for one to die "properly", because to persist in living supposedly saps "community resources".
Thus socialist "kindness" consists of gently and lovingly, but firmly, helping the elderly to die. Even if the old person has abundant financial resources to provide for his proper care, these may be withheld if the old person had signed a living will that empowers the wrong person to make decisions.
Such mistreatment is morally atrocious, and widespread.
Posted by 4irw4y on 01/31/11 09:20 AM
Wow, DB, what a site you cite! Your post has also appeared just now, as well as mine ones.
If you omit "/the-modern-mythologized-state-of-israel-haaretz-newspapers/" from the address string of Click to view link –
"12. The ancient Greeks called him "Heracles Kharops" ( Heracles the Flashing-Eyed ), "Kekrops", and "Sistosichermes Valiant Hercules." He founded and built Athens, Greece, considered to be the greatest center of culture, academics, art, and the sciences in ancient Greece. This city is credited to being the catalyst for European ‒ based civilization ( the West ) and originated with the black king Sen-Wos- Ret I known as Heracles Kharops.
13. He was the second ruler of the 12th Dynasty, he ruled for 34 years, and built 13 fortresses from Egypt to the Second Cataract. He made use of the harvest from Wadi Hammamat for food supplies.
14. He completed the construction of the Wall Of Princes. He founded colonies in the areas of the Danube River, the Black Sea, Strabo, Book III records that Sen-Wos- Ret I conquered Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Iberia, Colchis, and ancient Hindu writings record his invasion of India".
Re previous DB comment -
"the kingdom of Khazaria -- a huge empire that arose in the Middle Ages on the steppes along the Volga River" –
Ra [Sun] River, by that era. Now, what about "that which I had to say concerning the operation of the Sun is completed"?
Posted by Vauung on 01/31/11 08:58 AM
I think your last comment (on the Khazars) is on the wrong thread.
Posted by 4irw4y on 01/31/11 08:41 AM
Now all two posts are live on the site, lag=7hrs, thanks.
Posted by 4irw4y on 01/31/11 03:02 AM
Two posts were filtered, this is strange/not strange. Luckily, it's a live connection, DB. What has happened to you?
Posted by 4irw4y on 01/31/11 03:00 AM
Seems like History is, at least, your hobby.
"the 21st century may be an era of renewal and even of a new Enlightenment (Renaissance)" -
it _will_ surely be if you stop offending my typewriter.
Posted by 4irw4y on 01/31/11 02:52 AM
could you recommend us any of the sources you take the information from. There might be two contradictory promotions which make one from two... or three (-: I think that History is, at least, your hobby. "Wikileaks @1917". Can't hold a smile.
DB "Enlightenment (Renaissance)" -
Bravo. I wonder if there is Mr. Machan answering.
Posted by Vauung on 01/31/11 01:37 AM
"Nothing else explains the past 300 years of history so well as an ongoing and strengthening conspiratorial history driven particularly by the Anglo-American elite."
I think this does:
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
There remains considerable confusion over the identity of "Jewish" people ...
Last update " 12:06 21/03/2008
Click to view link
And how did millions of Jews appear around the Mediterranean Sea?
'The people did not spread, but the Jewish religion spread. Judaism was a converting religion. Contrary to popular opinion, in early Judaism there was a great thirst to convert others. The Hasmoneans were the first to begin to produce large numbers of Jews through mass conversion, under the influence of Hellenism. The conversions between the Hasmonean Revolt and Bar Kochba's rebellion are what prepared the ground for the subsequent, wide-spread dissemination of Christianity. After the victory of Christianity in the fourth century, the momentum of conversion was stopped in the Christian world, and there was a steep drop in the number of Jews. Presumably many of the Jews who appeared around the Mediterranean became Christians. But then Judaism started to permeate other regions " pagan regions, for example, such as Yemen and North Africa. Had Judaism not continued to advance at that stage and had it not continued to convert people in the pagan world, we would have remained a completely marginal religion, if we survived at all.
How did you come to the conclusion that the Jews of North Africa were originally Berbers who converted?
'I asked myself how such large Jewish communities appeared in Spain. And then I saw that Tariq ibn Ziyad, the supreme commander of the Muslims who conquered Spain, was a Berber, and most of his soldiers were Berbers. Dahia al-Kahina's Jewish Berber kingdom had been defeated only 15 years earlier. And the truth is there are a number of Christian sources that say many of the conquerors of Spain were Jewish converts. The deep-rooted source of the large Jewish community in Spain was those Berber soldiers who converted to Judaism.
Sand argues that the most crucial demographic addition to the Jewish population of the world came in the wake of the conversion of the kingdom of Khazaria " a huge empire that arose in the Middle Ages on the steppes along the Volga River, which at its height ruled over an area that stretched from the Georgia of today to Kiev. In the eighth century, the kings of the Khazars adopted the Jewish religion and made Hebrew the written language of the kingdom. From the 10th century the kingdom weakened; in the 13th century is was utterly defeated by Mongol invaders, and the fate of its Jewish inhabitants remains unclear.
Sand revives the hypothesis, which was already suggested by historians in the 19th and 20th centuries, according to which the Judaized Khazars constituted the main origins of the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.
'At the beginning of the 20th century there is a tremendous concentration of Jews in Eastern Europe " three million Jews in Poland alone, he says. 'The Zionist historiography claims that their origins are in the earlier Jewish community in Germany, but they do not succeed in explaining how a small number of Jews who came from Mainz and Worms could have founded the Yiddish people of Eastern Europe. The Jews of Eastern Europe are a mixture of Khazars and Slavs who were pushed eastward.
"Degree of perversion'
If the Jews of Eastern Europe did not come from Germany, why did they speak Yiddish, which is a Germanic language?
'The Jews were a class of people dependent on the German bourgeoisie in the East, and thus they adopted German words. Here I base myself on the research of linguist Paul Wechsler of Tel Aviv University, who has demonstrated that there is no etymological connection between the German Jewish language of the Middle Ages and Yiddish. As far back as 1828, the Ribal (Rabbi Isaac Ber Levinson) said that the ancient language of the Jews was not Yiddish. Even Ben Zion Dinur, the father of Israeli historiography, was not hesitant about describing the Khazars as the origin of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and describes Khazaria as "the mother of the diasporas' in Eastern Europe. But more or less since 1967, anyone who talks about the Khazars as the ancestors of the Jews of Eastern Europe is considered naive and moonstruck.
Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?
'It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: "We came, we won and now we are here' the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist.
Is there no justification for this fear?
'No. I don't think that the historical myth of the exile and the wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and therefore I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.
In effect you are saying that there is no such thing as a Jewish people.
'I don't recognize an international people. I recognize "the Yiddish people' that existed in Eastern Europe, which though it is not a nation can be seen as a Yiddishist civilization with a modern popular culture. I think that Jewish nationalism grew up in the context of this "Yiddish people.' I also recognize the existence of an Israeli people, and do not deny its right to sovereignty. But Zionism and also Arab nationalism over the years are not prepared to recognize it.
Posted by Vauung on 01/31/11 01:30 AM
Reading is great, but there's also logic. If master planning works for grand strategy, why wouldn't it work in economics? And if it does work in economics, isn't that exactly what the statists have always claimed? It's no coincidence that Mises never went down this road. (although I guess Rothbard did, to a degree).
Reply from The Daily Bell
Master planning does NOT work in economics. Nobody is suggesting it does. You are presenting a simplified version of our argument. We would argue that the elite embarked on a one-world conspiracy as early as 300 years ago and that it has been pursuing this goal single-mindedly for nearly that long. Its preferred tool is mercantilism and in the 20th century it was most successful in implementing its secret vision and manipulating the world's populations.
But the market itself militates against these sorts of "master plans" and the 21st century is gradually seeing the unravelling of much that was constructed in the 20th. This is why we do not believe world government will ever be achieved and why, instead, the 21st century may be an era of renewal and even of a new Enlightenment (Renaissance).
Posted by Vauung on 01/31/11 01:11 AM
There are enough "Evidences on the Internet" to "generate and reinforce" just about any perspective. I love your shtick though. It's just that I can't resist tweaking you on it. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is not a shtick.
Posted by Vauung on 01/31/11 01:04 AM
But the Austro-Hungarian Empire initiated WWI. More precisely, the dominoes went: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (by Serb nationalist), Austro-Hungarian ultimatum, then invasion of Serbia, Russians defend serbs, Germany declares war on Russia and invades France (Russia's ally, through Belgium), then Britain declares war on Germany (to 'defend Belgians').
I'm not seeing how that collapsing sequence was manipulable, but maybe British diplomacy was more ingenious than it looks to me.
I like this stuff, and I'm definitely not averse to the discussion (quite the opposite), but it's worth noting, IMHO, that the reason edgy antisemites are drawn to this site lies in the nature of conspiratorial thinking.
Ingenious purpose is substituted for mess, noise, and fortune. To a certain type of mind, this image of history's hidden masters, manipulating events from behind the scenes with devious brilliance, conforms irresistibly to a long established ethnic archetype.
Far too much Machiavellian genius and concentrated strategic agency is being attached to the bumbling opportunists in London and Washington. If elaborate top-down designs don't work in industrial policy or urban planning, they certainly wouldn't work in long-range geostrategy. That's why the whole intellectual complex here is so intriguingly contradictory at the level of basic explanatory principles.
If markets work, it's because they go with the grain of reality. That suggests Anglosphere dominion has most likely been based on muddling through, whilst harvesting enough of the fruits of freedom to stay ahead (commercially and technologically). 'Black ops' -- yes, yes, there have been a lot of them -- don't produce history. Tidal forces of dispersed complexity do. After all, if conspiracies worked, communism would.
Reply from The Daily Bell
You need to read more.
Posted by Vauung on 01/31/11 12:33 AM
You don't think your perspective can reasonably be described as concentrating historical agency in the Anglo-American PE?
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is not a perspective we have come to lightly but over many years. Nothing else explains the past 300 years of history so well as an ongoing and strengthening conspiratorial history driven particularly by the Anglo-American elite. Evidences on the Internet generate and reinforce this perspective at almost every turn.
Posted by Bob on 01/31/11 12:30 AM
Vauung, you would not believe it. But there was a "Wikileak" in 1917.
Trotsky obtained and published in Russia British diplomatic cables about the secret agreement between Russia and the British Empire that for the Russia participation in the WWI against Germany, British and France would reward Russia with parts of The Ottoman Empire including the Bosporus and Dardanelles pathways.
Russian people did not think that 7-9 millions killed were worth the Bosporus and Dardanelles pathways. Lenin and Trotsky most loyal military "Red Guard" unites were army reserve divisions who did not want to be sent to front-line duties.