What makes Obama a "Socialist"?

Discussion in 'Socialism' started by Aristartle, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    In your view, what makes Obama a "Socialist" exactly?
     
  2. drew5147

    drew5147 Dingledodie

    He is pushing an obscene amount of our money to social projects.
     
  3. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    The same thing that made Bush and every other president in recent history a socialist. It's all based around the idea that there are problems -- problems that were created by government manipulation in the first place -- that can only be solved by even more government. This is how it is sold to the public anyway, often under the name of "liberalism." As time progresses we see a push toward bigger government and more centralized control, all in the name of "solutions." (We have been heading in this direction since at least the 1940s.) It doesn't matter whether it's pertaining to the economy or so-called "terrorism," the outcome is always the same. It's based on the idea that the government is basically a benevolent father figure that's there to guide you through life.

    Socialism has a totally different meaning to those at the top than the people at the bottom, who buy into all the slogans and rhetoric. The people at the bottom are for the most part well-meaning but often gullible people who only want what's best for their fellow man. Those at the top exploit this good intention to further their control and better manage the people. To the people at the top, the bankers who funded socialism into existence, it is all about monopoly control over society.

    Obama is just a frontman like all the other presidents, but his so-called "change" is reallly based around the idea that only government can solve the very same problems the government created in the first place -- the problems needed to be able to offfer these so-called "solutions" (or "CHANGE"), which always further consolidate power in the hands of the corporate-controlled state and its ruling elite. Socialism is elite-driven. It has nothing to do with the downtrodden masses as you have been lead to believe. That is simply the utopian ruse of socialism -- the rose-colored cover story designed to draw you in.

    Through the dumbing down of the masses via the media and public school system, they have created a mentally of perpetual childhood, where fewer and fewer people feel empowered enough to have control over their own lives and their own destiny, and therefore they look to the state to make all their important decisions for them. The state is then more than eager to oblige.
     
  4. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    If he is a "socialist" it will be in a limited way. The issue of funding social security,medicare and medicaid were already big issues before this recent financial collapse. This is largely because of the effects of America's 78 million retiring boomers on both funding and consumption of these programs. Now you can add the bailout money as taking money away from any new welfare programs. So if Barack wants to be a socialist as far as expanding entitelment programs then he will be limited because of funding issues.
     
  5. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    The bailout in itself is socialism... socialism for the corporations and the wealthy. That's what socialism today really is: corporatism (ie. corporate socialism). In the end, the outcomes are the same.

    Funding is never much an issue because they can just keep printing the money up until it's completely devalued, which is what they're going to do. How can funding be an issue when this country is already so deep into debt? The money that goes into funding these programs you speak of comes out of debt. It's not money the government actually has, it's money they print out of nothing via the Federal Reserve.
     
  6. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    What? the bailout isn't socialism. The bailout is a trickle down effect. The top are infused with wealth and the lower echelons collect the rain water dropulets.

    Socialism is about equal distribution of wealth from bottom up mechanisms and institutions .

    What are you talking about? The bailout is classic neo-liberal/neo-con corruption. Politicians meddled with national funds and being the elitists that they are, they've decided without public opinion to give back... to the elites. It's recycled corporatism.

    Maybe some people are waving a giant "socialism" flag as some kind of explanation for misallocating public funds, but that's abuse plain and simple. Nothing socialist about it.
     
  7. RandomOne

    RandomOne Member

    He isn't a socialist, he's a democrat. That's just something used by Fox News to slander him. (not that there's anything wrong with socialism but a certain group of republicans seems to think there is)
     
  8. drew5147

    drew5147 Dingledodie

    now, lets just believe EVERYTHING that we hear and read.... ^^^
     
  9. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    I said socialism for the corporations. I am sick of having to repeat myself to people who don't listen, or simply don't want to listen because it doesn't mesh with what they want to hear.

    Corporate socialism, like every other kind of socialism, resorts in the same thing, which is monopoly control over society. This is and always has been the true aim of socialism as seen by those at the top. It is simply monopoly capitalism and monopoly control.

    And I specifically said it is called corporatism. Corporatism is a form of socialism aimed particularly at openly benefiting the corporations and the extremely wealthy. It is also a form of fascism as it represents a merger with the corporation and the state.

    I even made sure in my post above to make clear that this form of socialism is not the utopian, sugar-coated version that most believers of socialism think of when they hear the term.

    Neo-liberalism is based on a state-managed economy. This is socialism. It is not free-market capitalism in the very least.

    How many times have I heard you mention Paul Krugman, who is one of the biggest proponents of neoliberalism out there?





     
  10. hippiehillbilly

    hippiehillbilly the old asshole

    i agree with what rat is saying. i have said for years, "its easy to be a socialist if your rich".
    look at history and you see what i mean. there is no fair distribution of wealth. there was and always will be those who live in the lap of luxury and then all the rest..

    the Utopian dream of equality for all never in any society existed and it never will..
     
  11. RandomOne

    RandomOne Member

    I form my opinions on my own I don't know where you think I heard or read that.

    Is it wrong to have a popular opinion once in awhile? Once in awhile the majority gets things right (not that I am following the majority anyway. Just the sentiments in your post.)
     
  12. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    Socialism isn't monopoly. It's public control.

    How did the public control anything in the bailout?

    Corporatism isn't socialism. They aren't interchangeable. Socialism does not benefit the wealthy. Corporatism benefits the wealthy.
     
  13. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    Heh. Thing is, Marx used to make fun of utopian socialists. But you'd have known that if you knew your history...
     
  14. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Right. Sure it is.
     
  15. Cherea

    Cherea Senior Member

    The anarchist argument is that corporatism and socialism amounts to the same thing. Don't ask me. :cheers2:
     
  16. hippiehillbilly

    hippiehillbilly the old asshole

    heh,,as i recall, marx lived pretty much most his adult life in what i would call "the lap of luxury",(or since we are talking about marx,shall i say "bourgeoisie" lifestyle) due to a large inheritance,gifts from friends and earnings from his works..but youd have known that if you knew your history..:rolleyes:

    once again,its easy to be a socialist,if your rich..
     
  17. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    Haha. No. He had a lot of money problems, death in the family and he had to borrow money. There was war breaking out in every country in Europe by 1848, so the entire continent was a bloody shithole.
     
  18. hippiehillbilly

    hippiehillbilly the old asshole

    from the mid 1850's till his death he lived a (in his own words i believe) a "bourgeoisie" lifestyle,using his wife and children as a excuse for the extravagances..

    granted im no expert on marx,nor do i claim to be,this is just what i have read.
     
  19. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    He came from a bourgeoisie social upbringing. He was educated and both his and his wife's parents disowned them for a few years when they married. A few of his children died, so they most likely couldn't afford to pay for a bourgeoisie doctor.

    The man came from a bourgeois background and decided to become a philosopher and rebel against his teachers. He didn't have a lot of money as he should have for being in that class.
     
  20. hippiehillbilly

    hippiehillbilly the old asshole

    id say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.. this is what wiki says..

    to me that reads as,he was always broke because if he had money he spent it on luxuries so that his wife could live a "bourgeois lifestyle" ( "in the lap of luxury")..
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice