President-Elect Obama Marxist?

[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.....

 

[Revmitchell]

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/758/

Again can any pro Obama individual who opposes the idea that Obama is a Marxist show me how many ideas Obama does not espouse in the link above?

 

[Bible-boy]

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/758/

Again can any pro Obama individual who opposes the idea that Obama is a Marxist show me how many ideas Obama does not espouse in the link above?

Hello RevM,

I don't think they will answer your question either. I say that because in a thread where we debated this same issue before the election I tried the same approach as you are using here. The response from the Obama supporters then was something to the effect of, "I will not visit a Communist Party website." In that way they tried to make it look like they were taking the high road (so to speak) and were offended by the idea of getting information about communism directly from a communist source. In reality they just wanted to avoid answering the question because the answer will make their chosen candidate look bad. Still another Obama supporter tried to imply that I must be a communist because I went to that website in the first place. I believe the comment was something like, "Bible-boy what were you doing on that website to begin with, looking for the time of the next party meeting?" You see, again they knew that if they discussed the issues and answered my questions they would end up making their chosen candidate look bad, so instead they attacked the messenger and tried to make me look bad instead.

So here we are. If all this talk about engaging in a more civil and Christ-like discussion and debate is to be taken seriously I'd like to request that an Obama supporter give an honest and straight-forward answer to my honest and straight-forward question.

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

 

[Revmitchell]

Hello RevM,

I don't think they will answer your question either. I say that because in a thread where we debated this same issue before the election I tried the same approach as you are using here. The response from the Obama supporters then was something to the effect of, "I will not visit a Communist Party website." In that way they tried to make it look like they were taking the high road (so to speak) and were offended by the idea of getting information about communism directly from a communist source. In reality they just wanted to avoid answering the question because the answer will make their chosen candidate look bad.

They always define communism by past standards and refuse to acknowledge that there is a new communism. It has changed and no longer seeks to effect socialist change by overthrowing government. There truly is little to no difference these days between socialism and communism. Looking at the CPUSA site Obama fits the bill.

 

[LeBuick]

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/758/

Again can any pro Obama individual who opposes the idea that Obama is a Marxist show me how many ideas Obama does not espouse in the link above?

For starters, in the section on Socialism it says "human need replaces greed and private profit as the driving force of the economy". I hardly think changing the tax rate on the top 5% from 35% to 38% fits this description. Asking for an extra 3% on profits is not making human need the driving force of the economy. If that were the case, we'd up the tax rate back to 91% like in the 40's and 50's.

 

[Revmitchell]

For starters, in the section on Socialism it says "human need replaces greed and private profit as the driving force of the economy". I hardly think changing the tax rate on the top 5% from 35% to 38% fits this description. Asking for an extra 3% on profits is not making human need the driving force of the economy. If that were the case, we'd up the tax rate back to 91% like in the 40's and 50's.

So what you are telling me is that Obama did not campaign on this very idea? Or even that you do not hold to that idea?

 

[Bible-boy]

For starters, in the section on Socialism it says "human need replaces greed and private profit as the driving force of the economy". I hardly think changing the tax rate on the top 5% from 35% to 38% fits this description. Asking for an extra 3% on profits is not making human need the driving force of the economy. If that were the case, we'd up the tax rate back to 91% like in the 40's and 50's.

Again, you guys are jumping to specifics without first answering the question I asked in the OP and have asked repeatedly throughout this thread. You all are putting the cart before the horse (so to speak).

So before we dig into specifics please answer my question. How many Socialist and/or Marxist ideals and philosophies of government must one espouse and/or embrace before it is acceptable to call him/her a Socialist or a Marxist?

 

[LeBuick]

So what you are telling me is that Obama did not campaign on this very idea? Or even that you do not hold to that idea?

No, private profit is in no way being sacrificed and the 3% increase in no ways fulfills the human need. The equation falls very short of reality.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, private profit is in no way being sacrificed and the 3% increase in no ways fulfills the human need. The equation falls very short of reality.

Sorry but this falls short of reality:

"I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody"

 

[LeBuick]

So before we dig into specifics please answer my question. How many Socialist and/or Marxist ideals and philosophies of government must one espouse and/or embrace before it is acceptable to call him/her a Socialist or a Marxist?

I don't have an answer to your question which is why I passed it up. You and I both know it's a loaded question to begin with. Espousing idea's of socialism is not the same as becoming socialism. It is just acknowledging there are some parts of the philosophy that may help in this time of crises. I can say this for sure, when all is said and done I'll doubt if we are a pure free market economy. Runaway greed got the best of that concept.

Back to espousing ideas, I see many "good" people working at the homeless shelter, volunteering, feeding the poor and showing much love for their fellowman. Those are Christian ideas but since these folks haven't accepted Christ they are not Christians. Espousing a part of an ideology is not the same as embracing the total philosophy. Like with Christianity, I don't think it is how many of the ideas you espouse. There is generally a true deciding factor like faith in Christ is to Christianity.

Having said that, there are many socialist countries like Canada for example that are doing just fine.

 

[LeBuick]

Sorry but this falls short of reality:

"I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody"

He simply used the term spreading the wealth. That in and of itself is not fully embracing socialism.

 

[Revmitchell]

He simply used the term spreading the wealth. That in and of itself is not fully embracing socialism.

First, yes it is.

Second, you got to keep up with our conversation or there is no use having one. We are addressing this statement:

"human need replaces greed and private profit as the driving force of the economy"

Spreading the wealth certainly plays right into the above quote.

 

[Crabtownboy]

He simply used the term spreading the wealth. That in and of itself is not fully embracing socialism.

Very true LeBuick, very true ... and I would rather have a president spread the wealth than spread the poverty.

 

[LeBuick]

First, yes it is.

Second, you got to keep up with our conversation or there is no use having one. We are addressing this statement:

"human need replaces greed and private profit as the driving force of the economy"

Spreading the wealth certainly plays right into the above quote.

3% increase isn't enough "spreading" to fit that description?

 

[LeBuick]

Very true LeBuick, very true ... and I would rather have a president spread the wealth than spread the poverty.

Which is what would happen if we continued the "do nothing" path to fixing this crises.

 

[Revmitchell]

3% increase isn't enough "spreading" to fit that description?

You and I both know that is not all of it.

 

[LeBuick]

You and I both know that is not all of it.

That's what he said, if you add more then you can't say it's what's Obama's doing. It's then what you think he's doing.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's what he said, if you add more then you can't say it's what's Obama's doing. It's then what you think he's doing.

Nice dance.

 

[Bible-boy]

I don't have an answer to your question which is why I passed it up. You and I both know it's a loaded question to begin with. Espousing idea's of socialism is not the same as becoming socialism. It is just acknowledging there are some parts of the philosophy that may help in this time of crises. I can say this for sure, when all is said and done I'll doubt if we are a pure free market economy. Runaway greed got the best of that concept.

Back to espousing ideas, I see many "good" people working at the homeless shelter, volunteering, feeding the poor and showing much love for their fellowman. Those are Christian ideas but since these folks haven't accepted Christ they are not Christians. Espousing a part of an ideology is not the same as embracing the total philosophy. Like with Christianity, I don't think it is how many of the ideas you espouse. There is generally a true deciding factor like faith in Christ is to Christianity.

Having said that, there are many socialist countries like Canada for example that are doing just fine.

Christianity is about one's relationship with Christ. Either He is your personal Lord and Savior or He is not. Doing the good works of the Christian faith does not make one a Christian. However, both Socialism and Marxism are political philosophies based on certain ideas. When someone espouses and embraces those specific philosophies and ideas it is proper to identify him/her as either a Socialist, a Marxist, or both. Therefore, my question is not a loaded question. Likewise, your example of whether non-Christians working in homeless shelters (doing good things) makes them Christians or not is comparing apples to oranges with respect to the discussion of political philosophies.

I realize that you may not know excatly how many Socialist or Marxist philosophies and ideas regarding government exist, and this makes it difficult for you give a number in answer to my question. However, I said earlier that I would be willing to accept a percentage number. For example, would it be acceptable to you, for us to call Obama a Socialist or a Marxist, if he espouses and embraces greater than 50 percent of published Socialist or Marxist philosophies and ideas of government?

 

[Bible-boy]

That's what he said, if you add more then you can't say it's what's Obama's doing. It's then what you think he's doing.

Obama has said that he will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without renewing them. Therefore, every American will be receiving a tax increase by default when Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire. Then add on top of that his proposed tax increase on the "wealthy" (if you make more than $300,000, no make that $250,000, no make that $200,000, no make that $150,000, no make that $42,000 he and Biden are on record all over the map on this issue).

Now since no one will give a honest and straight forward answer to my honest and straight forward question, I am going to the lay out the evidence before you all. We will see whether or not it is appropriate to call Obama a Socialist or a Marxist based upon his political philosophies and ideas.