President-Elect Obama Marxist?

[Gold Dragon]

Maybe I am a Marxist because I am beginning to think that this government might need to be overthrown. It is no longer a government of, by, or for the people- it has become a self-indulgent monster.

In the US, you have a very effective and accepted peaceful process for doing this every four years. Overthrowing the government that way does not make you a Marxist. If you want someone who will scrap large chunks of the system and start over, it is possible to elect such a person if there are enough Americans who agree with you and have a leader with a plan who can represent them towards that goal. The process of elections allow the people to choose a government of them, by them and for them. And sometimes the people do not necessarily agree with you or me.

 

[JustChristian]

I gave you an answer for both socialism and marxism. 1.

The one policy to define a socialist is espousing government ownership of an industrial sector. You said Obama does that and maybe you are right. Please show it. And even if you can show it, that does not mean a whole lot because I see nothing wrong with being socialist.

The one policy to define a marxist is espousing socialism via violent overthrow of the government by the working class. I do not think you can show that Obama ever espoused Marxism.

But we've seen government take ownership of companies in the private sector in the last two months. We as taxpayers own AIG, an insurance giant, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have provided capital to banks and are considering doing the same to the auto industry. So by your definition, America is already a socialist country. I suppose the question is whether Obama will make us MORE of a socialist country than we already are.

 

[Gold Dragon]

But we\'ve seen government take ownership of companies in the private sector in the last two months. We as taxpayers own AIG, an insurance giant, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have provided capital to banks and are considering doing the same to the auto industry. So by your definition, America is already a socialist country. I suppose the question is whether Obama will make us MORE of a socialist country than we already are.

I agree that any accusations of Obama being a socialist would also implicate the current Republican administration if they were honestly applied.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree that any accusations of Obama being a socialist would also implicate the current Republican administration if they were honestly applied.

Being outside the US you lack info to make this judgment and you seem to lack info about Obama's history.

 

[JustChristian]

Being outside the US you lack info to make this judgment and you seem to lack info about Obama's history.

I have that information. We are already traveling down the Socialist road. It's obvious to anyone who understands what's been going on for the last two months.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Being outside the US you lack info to make this judgment and you seem to lack info about Obama\'s history.

I can read american news sources online just as well as someone whose feet are within the US.

 

[Bible-boy]

I gave you an answer for both socialism and marxism. 1.

The one policy to define a socialist is espousing government ownership of an industrial sector. You said Obama does that and maybe you are right. Please show it. And even if you can show it, that does not mean a whole lot because I see nothing wrong with being socialist.

The one policy to define a marxist is espousing socialism via violent overthrow of the government by the working class. I do not think you can show that Obama ever espoused Marxism.

Sorry Gold,

Apparently you missed my response to your earlier reply so I'll repeat them here:

I'm not asking for a definition of Socialism or Marxism. I asked how many Socialist or Marxist ideals and/or principals regarding government (meaning how they run the government) must one espouse before it is acceptable to call them a Socialist or a Marxist?

I think we can make a pretty good case that Obama and the leadership of his Democratic Party favor [Socializing/Natioanlizing US Industry]. [Likewise, I am not asking if anyone here on the BB approves or disapproves of Socialism.]

This [violent overthrow] is not the one and only way Marxists try to overthrow governments according to the quote by Churchill who is quoting Lenin. They also try to work with an established system to elect weak governments, then work to undermine them, and when the weak government falls snatch absolute power and establish the Marxist state.]

Clearly we can make the case for both Obama and the DNC other DNC leaders being ib favor of socializing/nationalizing US Industries. Likewise, you have limited the Marxist form of government "overthrow" to only on means even though it has been demonstrated that "violent overthorw" is not the only means they use.

So please do not attempt to provide a definition of Socialism or Marxism at this point. We not talking about specifics yet. All I want to know is how many Socialist or Marxist ideals and philosophies regarding government one must embrace or espouse before it is acceptable to call them a Socialist or a Marxist.

 

[Bible-boy]

But we've seen government take ownership of companies in the private sector in the last two months. We as taxpayers own AIG, an insurance giant, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have provided capital to banks and are considering doing the same to the auto industry. So by your definition, America is already a socialist country. I suppose the question is whether Obama will make us MORE of a socialist country than we already are.

This is what I was hoping to avoid discussing until later (not totally avoid discussing). You guys are jumping the gun so to speak. Please let's go back and address the first question (which remains unanswered) that I asked you all.

How many Socialist or Marxist ideals and philosophies of government must one embrace or espouse before it is acceptable to call him/her a Socialist or a Marxist as opposed to a Capitalist?

 

[OldRegular]

There is no political freedom absent economic freedom, therefore, Socialism leads to Marxism.:tonofbricks:

 

[Bible-boy]

Re-posting this to correct a bunch of typos in my previous post after the self-edit time has expired.

Sorry Gold,

Apparently you missed my response to your earlier reply so I'll repeat it here:

I'm not asking for a definition of Socialism or Marxism. I asked how many Socialist or Marxist ideals and/or principals regarding government (meaning how they run the government) must one espouse before it is acceptable to call them a Socialist or a Marxist?

I think we can make a pretty good case that Obama and the leadership of his Democratic Party favor [Socializing/Nationalizing US Industry]. [Likewise, I am not asking if anyone here on the BB approves or disapproves of Socialism.]

This [violent overthrow] is not the one and only way Marxists try to overthrow governments according to the quote by Churchill who is quoting Lenin. They also try to work within an established system to elect weak governments, then work to undermine them, and when the weak government falls snatch absolute power and establish the Marxist state.]

Clearly we can make the case for both Obama and other DNC leaders being in favor of socializing/nationalizing US Industries. Likewise, you have limited the Marxist form of government "overthrow" to only one means even though it has been demonstrated that "violent overthrow" is not the only means they use.

So please do not attempt to provide a definition of Socialism or Marxism at this point. We are not talking about specifics yet. All I want to know is how many Socialist or Marxist ideals and philosophies regarding government someone must embrace or espouse before it is acceptable to call them a Socialist or a Marxist?

 

[JustChristian]

This is what I was hoping to avoid discussing until later (not totally avoid discussing). You guys are jumping the gun so to speak. Please let's go back and address the first question (which remains unanswered) that I asked you all.

How many Socialist or Marxist ideals and philosophies of government must one embrace or espouse before it is acceptable to call him/her a Socialist or a Marxist as opposed to a Capitalist?

I don't think the question "How many" has any relevance. It's more a question of degree. Would you accept the fact that Marxism involves a loss of personal freedom?

Besides, I suppose the only purely Marxist countries in the world today might be Cuba and North Korea. Russia and China have Capitalist stock markets.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't think the question "How many" has any relevance. It's more a question of degree. Would you accept the fact that Marxism involves a loss of personal freedom?

Do you mean like forced community service?

 

[Bible-boy]

I don't think the question "How many" has any relevance. It's more a question of degree. Would you accept the fact that Marxism involves a loss of personal freedom?

You are talking specifics again. We are not there yet. You are losing sight of the original argument that resulted in the OP. In another thread someone called Obama a Marxist (he has also been called a Socialist). Then Martin argued that it is unfair to "malign" Obama as a Marxist (or a Socialist) based upon his associations with people who openly admit to being Marxists (and/or Socialists).

My point in this thread is to determine if it is fair to call Obama a Marxist (or a Socialist) based on the ideals and philosophies of government he espouses and/or embraces. This raises the question, how many Socialist and/or Marxist ideals and philosophies of government one must espouse and/or embrace before it is acceptable to call him/her a Socialist or a Marxist?

So until someone answers this question this discussion cannot proceed any further.

 

[Revmitchell]

Obama is not a Marxist simply by his associations. And to try to frame the accusations that way is disingenuous. Quite frankly everyone knows better.

Obama's association gives evidence of his world view on top of other things. Everyone knows that's what it means. Let's drop the intentional twisting.

 

[Bible-boy]

My point in this thread is to determine if it is fair to call Obama a Marxist (or a Socialist) based on the ideals and philosophies of government he espouses and/or embraces. This raises the question, how many Socialist and/or Marxist ideals and philosophies of government one must espouse and/or embrace before it is acceptable to call him/her a Socialist or a Marxist?

 

[Bible-boy]

Just bumping this one up to see if I can get anyone to answer my question.:wavey:

 

[OldRegular]

Just bumping this one up to see if I can get anyone to answer my question.:wavey:

Yes.:thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[Bible-boy]

My point in this thread is to determine if it is fair to call Obama a Marxist (or a Socialist) based on the ideals and philosophies of government he espouses and/or embraces. This raises the question, how many Socialist and/or Marxist ideals and philosophies of government one must espouse and/or embrace before it is acceptable to call him/her a Socialist or a Marxist?

Helloooo......

 

[JustChristian]

Do you mean like forced community service?

Are you proposing that? Obama isn't.

 

[OldRegular]

Do you mean like forced community service?

Or forced membership in a union? :thumbs: :thumbs: