Good article shows why Obama is a Socialist

Obama scorns founders’ vision of freedom

When Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination later this week, he will portray himself as a shining example of the Great American Dream. With his impressive rhetorical skill, he will speak of embracing America’s common ideals and securing them for future generations and continuing on that glorious path established by our founding fathers, yada, yada. And he won’t mean a word of it.
To the contrary, Obama largely rejects the principles of individual liberty on which this nation was founded. His thinking is more closely aligned with Karl Marx’s than John Locke’s.

“In America,” Obama frequently scoffs, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

Or as Marx put it, “Don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc.”

Personal liberty and responsibility are dangerous, according to Marx, because they allow an individual to be “regarded as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself,” rather than one whose responsibility is to the larger society.

Echoing that sentiment, Obama regularly sneers that the right wing “keeps appealing to that old individualistic bootstrap myth: get a job, get rich, and get out. … And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.

“Now we have to take this same language — these same values that are encouraged within our families — of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other — and apply them to a larger society. Let’s talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values.”

Indeed, Obama openly scorns the idea that individual families should take care of themselves. In his speeches he mocks conservatives who prefer “to give everyone one big refund on their government — divvy it up by individual portions — hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.”

Marx denounced the “bourgeois freedom” that permitted “an individual separated from the community, withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interest and acting in accordance with his private caprice.”

That upsets Obama, too. In the canned speech he gives at college commencement ceremonies, he says to graduates, “You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, leave this city, and go chasing after the big house and the large salary and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can narrow your concerns to what’s going on in your own little circle and live life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.”

Marx was more succinct. Explaining why the right to own private property is wrong-headed, he said because it allowed “the right to enjoy one’s fortunes and dispose of it as he will without regard for other men and independently of society.”

Obama doesn’t quote Marx word-for-word--but it’s close. Looks like Joe Biden isn’t going to be the only plagiarist on the Democratic ticket.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/MelanieScarborough/Obama_scorns_founders_vision_of_freedom.html





-- Modified on 8/25/2008 10:46:48 AM

Re: Good article shows why Obama is a Socialist

So by your standards we should scrap the the clause that the founders put in the Constitution to "promote the general welfare" as being too socialistic.

It was 1970, and I was 17. I took a year off college, where I was a three time dropout already, and went to Kibbutz Yavneh, one of the larger communal farms (Kibbutzim) in Israel with some 1200 full time residents and anywhere from 20-150 foreign students on a variety of programs. An orthodox religious kibbutz, they nonetheless operated on classic socialist principles. Everyone who lived on the kibbutz shared in the profits at the end of the year. The Chief administrator received the same as the dishwasher. Occasionally, the cxhief administrator WAS the dishwasher!
Everyone on the kibbutz had two jobs. Their work, which might have been cook, tractor driver, teacher, administrator, etc... and their kibbutz function, which might be floor mopper, chicken plucker, waiter, etc.
Everyone was treated equally, with respect. Everyone shared in the common welfare, the common good, the common effort.

But what they did with their portion of the proceeds was entirely up to them. Individuality within a collective framework. If Yossie Shultz wanted to spend his "chits" on a fancy stereo and electronics, that was his right to do so, and those were HIS, not his neighbors. If Shlomo Ben Rafi wanted to save for years so he could purchase his own car (the kibbutz had a fleet of vehicles, but a few residents wanted their own wheels) that was HIS car, not the kibbutz'.

I'm just giving sample scenarios obviously, but it really wasn't much more complex than that. The kibbutz paid for the outside education of their scientists and doctors and phD's, and occasionally, educators will commute to teach at the schools and universities, earning outside income. IF these functions were done within the scope of their Kibbutz obligations, those salaries earned went to the general pool, but if it was done on their own private time, it too, was theirs to keep.

And everyone serves in the military. No exceptions outside of health restrictions.

It's a system that works very well, and I was fortunate enough for the experience.
Studies have shown, unfortunately, that this synergistic dynamic tends to fracture when the population grows beyond 1500-2000 individuals.

The kibbutz, as a socialist institution, was very unique and its value is hard to convert to other systems.

First, they are voluntary in a small, homogenious society.  They are staffed (ihnabited) by the idealistic members of the society, and are supported by a lot of idealistic, young foreign labor coming in for the experience which will last a year.

Even with all of that, there were many factors that just did not work.  Many (most?) women did not like the communal aspect of child rearing, and wanted to be mothers to their kids, not part of the village raising their neighbors' kids.

As an institution that might be used as a model to be imposed on a society whose members do not fit that mold and are less than enthusiastic, it is probably useless.

It is interesting that no one voluntarily goes from a free society to a socialist one.  Millions beyond the ability to even estimate go the other way from socialism to freedom.  

With all the talk of how wonderful Europe is, and I have been there over 30 times and enjoy it tremendously, it is funny that so few people emigrate from the US to Europe, while Europe's quotas to the US are full every year.  

I think I only know two people in my life (58 years) who emigrated to Europe, and one because she got married.  Everyone in England, France, Italy, etc, knows people who came here.  (I may be off, but I seem to remember in terms of population size and ratio, for every 1 person who emigrates to Europe from the US, 60 come the other way.)

If life is so good there, why do so many leave? If life is so bad here, why do they come here and so few leave?

Re: Good article shows why Obama is a Socialist

The "original intent" of the General Welfare clauses (yes it’s in there twice) is not about socialism or social welafare either as we know of it nor as defined by Marx. Its intent was to prevent the establishment or the promotion of oligarchic classes of citizens. Franklin wrote about it as did George Mason, Madison and Hamilton as well as many others. They wanted a system that did not favor any group over another, any person over another. Freedom was still the corner stone. It was only bastardized beginning in the early to mid 20th century (read as FDR). It was only then that equality of treatment began to morph into equality of outcome.

"Studies have shown, unfortunately, that this synergistic dynamic tends to fracture when the population grows beyond 1500-2000 individuals"

The US is slightly larger than even your own studies say socialism works in. Socialism would work in a perfect world, unfortunatley we don't live in a perfect, utopian world of socialistic ideals.

I would say that if you want to give your own money to those that either can't or won't take care of themselves go ahead, but I know that you have already done that. BTW I don't mean to sound callous, but how's that working out for you?

The one thing I know about you Doc is the fact that you are honest and not a hypocrite, and I did not mean my question in a mean spirited way, but I do think the question is germain.

However large the group, when they can no longer think of themselves as a "family" things begin to fall apart. I would think that the commonality of cultural, religious and heritage aspects allows for the familial size to grow larger than would otherwise be achievable. Socialistic attitudes and actions certainly have their place in any successful society.

-- Modified on 8/25/2008 4:58:43 PM

I am a student of Hillel, GaG. Despite my having chosen a non-religious lifestyle, the essential moral and ethical teachings hold meaning for me:

"I am my brothers Keeper"

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me, but if I am only for myself, what am I?"

I do what I choose to do with those I choose to do it with. If I am true to myself, I do so unconditionally, because it is the correct thing to do. At the end of MY day, it is not about politics, but about being able to look myself in the mirror when I go to sleep at night, and still be able to look myself in the mirror the next morning.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

But FWIW and to get back on point, what Obama espouses is a mutated form of Democratic Socialism cloaked in a veneer of Populism. Not the worst I've heard, but certainly nothing new and progressive. Same old same old but wearing a clean shirt.

I liked his choice for VP obviously, Biden was my guy from day 1. But is it enough for me to hold my nose and vote for Obama? No. Not yet it isn't. But enough for me to contemplate a best case scenario as a baseline from which to dialog.

But if he starts kowtowing to the family values crowd and they obfuscate the real issues, I'll just start the motor and ride off into the distance. Maximum Volume on Maximum Overdrive.


-- Modified on 8/25/2008 5:03:30 PM

just how much weed you have smoked over your lifetime.  I take it you actually did inhale more than once...or twice?

National Football League is yes a corporation and is in the business of making money, but it's founding principles are socialistic. Let me explain. Each team from the Arizona Cardinals to the New York Giants share equally in the television revenue stream. In turn each team must have expenditures i.e. payroll defined with a mininum salary and maximum salary cap level. This concept is called league-think. I call it, social capitalism.

This business model is so successful, it allows for a team to be profitable in Green Bay Wisconsin and hell who needs LA. However, a difference I see between Obama's model of socialism and the NFL's is that Obama is about dividing the economic pie because as he said "it's fair"; whereas the NFL is about making the pie bigger because it's smart.

Gene Upshaw understood the later premise and is why the NFPLA was successful in increasing salaries and pensions.

Then again I always remember the Cowboy's Jerry Jones opinion on income distribution; "If you divide equally all the money in the world, you end up with 20 percent of the people owning 80 percent of the wealth".

Peace brother,

breaker



-- Modified on 8/26/2008 7:58:18 PM

WoW, Cartman, I don't really know. But in this picture, I was driving, so I probably wasn't drinking.
I haven't inhaled anything today yet... though come to think of it, I did have a brownie with my morning coffee.
Lemme see what I've got in the glovebox... if we subtract whats left from what we started with, I can tell you how much I had. Oh wait, I forgot... Raoul had some too, so I really have no idea. And then there's all that beer, booze, and bud stashed in the trunk. All in a Day's work ya know!

All kidding aside, I know we're on opposite sides of the fence Cartman, but what was it about my response to GaGambler that you found objectionable?

-- Modified on 8/26/2008 9:53:42 AM

A valid point, and one of the lynchpins to the success of the Kibbutz movement is indeed the idea that they are all one big extended family.

On the other hand, I speak from personal experience when I tell you that some families will fracture no matter how small they are.

For some of us (like myself), the word "family" doesn't necessarily mean "relatives".

Common bonds, but opposing interests will do more damage than good.

You just seemed to wonder off a bit towards the end. My theory is you were writing a coherent post, paused to take a big bong hit, and then typed the last few lines.

Many of the families that fracture still pull together if the going gets really tough. If there are two brothers that continually fight and an outsider picks on either one, he immediately has two enemies.

I use the term family in the sense that relatives normally share for one another. Two people or a group of people do not necessarily need to be related to feel like family. When the members of a group share that “feeling” there is little that they will not share or little that they will not do for one another. The rate of success is inversely proportional to the size of the group.

Er, I don't do bong loads anymore... too much pressure on the old lungs.

Did have a vaporizer and a vixen distracting me though, so maybe thats it.

Ahh Lucy from Montana, tell me about the rabbits!