Is Obama a socialist?

[Chris189]

So what do you think? Ive heard this go either way and wanted to hear you all thought on here.

[Don't care]

Given the conversation he had with "Joe the Plumber", it's not hard to imagine.

[RaspberrySurprise]

So what do you think? Ive heard this go either way and wanted to hear you all thought on here.

Does the Pope wear a funny hat?

[ronnyreagan]

Depends who you ask. Most of the people here will say yes. Most of the general population will say no. I'd say he has a few policies leaning towards socialism, but some people would say a progressive income tax is leaning towards socialism and anything less than Ron Paul is Marxist. I'd be curious what people who actually consider themselves socialist would say, but I guess this wouldn't be the place where they would speak up.

[Ron]

Obama is a full blown socialist, anyone that denies it is dishonest or uninformed. He differs from the avowed socialists only in how to accomplish their common goals.

"THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own  control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future - to a real radical democracy from below. The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. We support militant working class struggles and electoral action, independent of the capitalist controlled two-party system, to present socialist alternatives. We strive for democratic revolutions - radical and fundamental changes in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations - to abolish the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. The Socialist Party is a democratic, multi-tendency organization, with structure and practices visible and accessible to all members"

http://www.sp-usa.org/

[roo_ster]

So what do you think? Ive heard this go either way and wanted to hear you all thought on here.

Yes, if you consider seeking a local socialist party's nomination and claiming his victory in his Illinois Senate seat as a victory for the local and national-level socialist party.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=15308.0

Well, I'll be dipped in apple butter.



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021724.php
(Click on link for larger document images)

This may be a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The political, media, cultural and social establishments are determined to elect the pro-status quo, anti-change candidate, Barack Obama, as President. The power and money arrayed behind Obama seem unbeatable. At the same time, it is inconceivable that the American people would elect a socialist President. So, if this report is correct, something's got to give.




So the New Party claimed Obama as a member as of 1996. Progressive Populist magazine agreed in this editorial:

The Democratic Socialist Party of America was slightly more modest in claiming Senator Obama as an adherent:




Still, it appears clear that as of 1996, the New Party and its parent organization the Democratic Socialists of America considered Barack Obama to be their guy--one of a handful of avowed socialists running for office at any level in the United States. It strikes me that Obama has some explaining to do.

[longeyes]

He's a totalitarian.  You work out the rest of the semantic niceties.

[Modifiedbrowning]

where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions;

Does this not make any sense or is it just me? The Socialists want the workers to own the means of production, yet they also want them to form unions and engage in job actions and strikes against themselves? How does that work?

[FTA84]

Does this not make any sense or is it just me? The Socialists want the workers to own the means of production, yet they also want them to form unions and engage in job actions and strikes against themselves? How does that work?

Sounds like the typical socialist feel good policy.

[Tallpine]

Does this not make any sense or is it just me? The Socialists want the workers to own the means of production, yet they also want them to form unions and engage in job actions and strikes against themselves? How does that work?

There you go - thinking logically again  :rolleyes:

You're a racist, aren't you ?

[MicroBalrog]

but some people would say a progressive income tax is leaning towards socialism

'Some people' like, you know, Karl Marx?

[Modifiedbrowning]

You're a racist, aren't you ?

Nope, just don't like socialists/progressives/liberals and their crazy ideas.
You have referred to Bozeman as a little bit of Kalifornia in MT and I can't disagree. I am horrified by the number of Obama signs and bumper stickers I see around here.
Don't even get me started on the town politicians.

PS: I know you are joking with your post.

[wacki]

As mentioned earlier Obama was officially a member of a socialist party (New Party).

So that would make him by definition a socialist.

[slingshot]

Both Hillary and Obama are socialists.  It is all about government running the lives of the sheeple.  I honestly would trust Hillary more than Obama.  At least you know what you get with her.

[K Frame]

Is a bear Catholic?

Does the Pope crap in the woods?

[longeyes]

Socialist is a benign, academic term for something far more ancient: tyranny.

Chicago gangsterism is still gangsterism, even if carried forward by a Harvard JD.

[jad0110]

The question isn't about whether or not Obama is a socialist - as others have indicated, he by definition is a socialist.  The real question is: Is he a socialist, or is he an outright commie in socialist's clothing?

[longeyes]

He's all of those things as well as being Oliver Cromwell redux.  He's the Puritan come back to punish us for our sins and make us do right.

[Iapetus]

Both Hillary and Obama are socialists.  It is all about government running the lives of the sheeple.  I honestly would trust Hillary more than Obama.  At least you know what you get with her.

I've seen a lot of people here (and on THR when political discussions were accepted there) describe any politician that wants to increase government control and/or taxes as "socialist", or spend public money on benefits/public works.

Socialists are not the only people who people who do those things.

(Unless medieval monarchs and Roman emperors were socialist).

[thebaldguy]

Obama is not a socialist. We had a member of the socialist party here explain why he's not a socialist.

[MechAg94]

"THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own  control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future - to a real radical democracy from below. The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. We support militant working class struggles and electoral action, independent of the capitalist controlled two-party system, to present socialist alternatives. We strive for democratic revolutions - radical and fundamental changes in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations - to abolish the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. The Socialist Party is a democratic, multi-tendency organization, with structure and practices visible and accessible to all members"

http://www.sp-usa.org/

That entire paragraph is complete BS double speak.  The key is bolded.  Government control.  Everything else is BS to distract from that and keep the peasants under control. 

I am sure we can all guess how that control is maintained and enforced.

[ArmedBear]

It's amazing how quickly the left's majoritarian ethic evaporates when the majority rejects a left-wing position du jour.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a majoritarian.

Here's what I mean.

In California, in 2000, Proposition 22 was passed 61.4% to 38.6%, requiring California marriages to be between one man and one woman.

Twice, the Legislature passed laws overturning this vote, but the governor vetoed them, because he said the Legislature had no power to overturn a proposition passed by a popular vote. So, opponents went to the Supreme Court, which overturned the law as being unconstitutional since it discriminates based on gender (an interesting decision, because California has legal "domestic partnerships" that are essentially identical to marriage).

So, now we have another proposition in 2008, seeking to incorporate the original law into the state constitution, so it can't be overturned.

Now I don't give two shits about "preserving traditional marriage" in the law; I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, except in that the government is the legal enforcer of contracts. Let everyone who wants to, form a legal "civil union", and let them call it whatever they want, according to their personal beliefs.

However, that's just my opinion. A huge majority voted for "traditional marriage" in 2000. If someone were really a majoritarian, wouldn't they just tell gay couples to shut up and fall in line like good little subjects, since "the people have spoken?"

Seems to me that those on any side who claim to be for "democracy" only support majority rule when they like the results, i.e. they figure they can get 51% of voters to help them take away the property or liberty of the other 49%.

[Tallpine]

Seems to me that those on any side who claim to be for "democracy" only support majority rule when they like the results, i.e. they figure they can get 51% of voters to help them take away the property or liberty of the other 49%.

That's pretty much the way it works among the two most popular political factions. 

The exception is those who don't want to take away the property or liberty of anyone.  These folks are generally known as "nutcases" and/or "wookies"  :rolleyes: