RE: Obama's Marxism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events >> Election 2008



Message

Jhud -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 9:50:29 AM)

quote:

I'm not sure in what context Obama made his remarks....but I always thought fairness in America meant that any one, regardless of who they are or their background, could advance up the economic latter if they applied themselves (just as Obama himself has done). I thought fairness meant that CEO's would re-invest in their companies and their workers to ensure every one benefits from a company's success. In this age of coroporate greed and the sense that companies owe nothing to their home communities, states or even country, I can see how many people think America is loosing her economic fairness.


CEOs should do what their shareholders tell them to do, and if they are successful, they should be rewarded accordingly. As with most things in our society, what is not needed is more government oversite, but more intelligent participation by our citizens. If the heads of public companies are 'greedy' it may very well be a reflection of the our society as a whole - and I think the desire to acquire funds from wealthier citizens via taxation can be driven by greed as much as the biggest corporate bonus.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 9:53:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben
Maybe not, but the Marxists sure have attached themselves to American liberalism and are having an influence on it.

The fascists have attached themselves to American conservatism and are having an influence on it.

Both Marxism and Fascism as an ideology are dead, for the most part. They are both failed ideologies that don't work, and it is highly unlikely that either will take control of a major western power again.



Jhud -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 9:58:21 AM)

quote:

The fascists have attached themselves to American conservatism and are having an influence on it.

Both Marxism and Fascism as an ideology are dead, for the most part. They are both failed ideologies that don't work, and it is highly unlikely that either will take control of a major western power again.


Who is a fascist in mainstream American conservatism?



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 10:05:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Who is a fascist in mainstream American conservatism?

Who is Marxist in mainstream liberalism? Is there anyone out there that is claiming that the US should become a dictatorial federally-managed economy?

And don't cop out and say, "But there's people who want to raise taxes and strengthen welfare!" If you do that, I'm allowed to point to numerous individuals on the right who believe that abridging constitutional freedoms is acceptable.

I don't think you can point out a mainstream politician who out-and-out advocates turning us into a true Marxist/Stalinist state. The most you can do is find people who want to do things that Marxists might want to do, and if you do that, I'll come up with Conservatives who advocate things Fascists might want to do.



stamper_ben -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 10:23:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben
Maybe not, but the Marxists sure have attached themselves to American liberalism and are having an influence on it.

The fascists have attached themselves to American conservatism and are having an influence on it.

Both Marxism and Fascism as an ideology are dead, for the most part. They are both failed ideologies that don't work, and it is highly unlikely that either will take control of a major western power again.

The fascists are actually attaching themselves to the liberal side of the aisle as evidenced in 400 kids taken into "protective" custody in Texas.



Jhud -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 10:36:47 AM)

quote:

Who is Marxist in mainstream liberalism? Is there anyone out there that is claiming that the US should become a dictatorial federally-managed economy?

And don't cop out and say, "But there's people who want to raise taxes and strengthen welfare!" If you do that, I'm allowed to point to numerous individuals on the right who believe that abridging constitutional freedoms is acceptable.

I don't think you can point out a mainstream politician who out-and-out advocates turning us into a true Marxist/Stalinist state. The most you can do is find people who want to do things that Marxists might want to do, and if you do that, I'll come up with Conservatives who advocate things Fascists might want to do.


First off, Marxism and Stalinism aren’t one and the same – it really has to do with goals and worldview. Part of the reason I recognize this is because I was a Marxist in my youth, and Marxists see things in terms of class, class struggle, and the inevitability of history.

If you read through Obama’s biographies (which I related to actually in a number of ways, when he talks about his disaffected youth and the people he spent his time with) he talks a lot about class, the ‘narrative’ of his life, and his participation in organizations that are devoted to those struggles. Unlike me, he really seems not to have rejected those notions.

I don't think he would at all describe himself as a Marxist, but then again, he claims to be mainstream in his views; and that is quite obviously not true.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 10:39:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben
The fascists are actually attaching themselves to the liberal side of the aisle as evidenced in 400 kids taken into "protective" custody in Texas.

Protecting kids from child molestation is not a fascist principle; it is a moral principle.



stamper_ben -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 10:50:45 AM)

Taking kids away from their families with no proof of abuse is in no way moral.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 11:22:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben

Taking kids away from their families with no proof of abuse is in no way moral.

Dude, some of these "kids" are 14 year-old girls married to 64 year-old men.

It seems the only lobbies that would be annoyed about 14 year-old girls being separated from their grandfather husbands would be NAMBLA and the cult lobby.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 11:25:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
If you read through Obama’s biographies (which I related to actually in a number of ways, when he talks about his disaffected youth and the people he spent his time with) he talks a lot about class, the ‘narrative’ of his life, and his participation in organizations that are devoted to those struggles. Unlike me, he really seems not to have rejected those notions.

So in other words, you're saying he "sounds like a Marxist."

Fascism ultimately boils down to the concept that it's ok to sacrifice personal freedoms for the good of the state, and in all honesty, we see that at work with many Republicans. Sadly, we see many fascist ideas being floated around on these forums on a regular basis. Indeed, people here have advocated the use of torture on detainees who we don't know are guilty. (As a matter of fact, many of the detainees people here wanted to torture were finally released after it was determined they were innocent bystanders picked up by bounty hunters who wanted to make money more than catch terrorists) If this isn't sacrificing individual rights for "the greater good", I don't know what is.



stamper_ben -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 11:32:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben

Taking kids away from their families with no proof of abuse is in no way moral.

Dude, some of these "kids" are 14 year-old girls married to 64 year-old men.

You, some NAMBLA members, and a few cult members are the only people angry about what happened here. Besides that, these marriages were illegal.

I do not want to take the thread off course, but for you to link me with the likes of NAMBLA is beyond the pale and offensive.

I do agree that polygamy here in Texas is illegal and needed to be addressed. But the force brought against these families (for that IS what they are) was fascist in its nature. The social services do-gooders went too far.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 11:35:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben
I do not want to take the thread off course, but for you to link me with the likes of NAMBLA is beyond the pale and offensive.

For the record, you'll note I realized that I worded it badly and changed it before you responded. I didn't mean for it to be interpreted that you had anything in common with NAMBLA.

quote:

I do agree that polygamy here in Texas is illegal and needed to be addressed. But the force brought against these families (for that IS what they are) was fascist in its nature. The social services do-gooders went too far.

This isn't about polygamy. If it was about polygamy, I'd agree that this could've been settled without a raid.

This is about child molestation.



stamper_ben -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 12:25:40 PM)

I accept your apology.
quote:

This is about child molestation.
Not the right thread, but that has yet to be proven.



Jhud -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 12:42:20 PM)

quote:

So in other words, you're saying he "sounds like a Marxist."

Fascism ultimately boils down to the concept that it's ok to sacrifice personal freedoms for the good of the state, and in all honesty, we see that at work with many Republicans. Sadly, we see many fascist ideas being floated around on these forums on a regular basis. Indeed, people here have advocated the use of torture on detainees who we don't know are guilty. (As a matter of fact, many of the detainees people here wanted to torture were finally released after it was determined they were innocent bystanders picked up by bounty hunters who wanted to make money more than catch terrorists) If this isn't sacrificing individual rights for "the greater good", I don't know what is.


I think you are confusing 'sacrificing personal freedoms' with advancing government powers for the protection of the citizens of that state. The fact that the government monitors overseas calls for the sake of preventing terorism doesn't in any way limit my 'freedom'.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 12:50:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I think you are confusing 'sacrificing personal freedoms' with advancing government powers for the protection of the citizens of that state. The fact that the government monitors overseas calls for the sake of preventing terorism doesn't in any way limit my 'freedom'.

Saying there's a difference between advancing government powers and weakening individual freedoms is sort of like saying "We're not making daytime shorter- we're just making nighttime longer."

If the government is bigger than it needs to be, it ultimately reduces civil liberties.



Jhud -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 12:54:04 PM)

quote:

Saying there's a difference between advancing government powers and weakening individual freedoms is sort of like saying "We're not making daytime shorter- we're just making nighttime longer."

If the government is bigger than it needs to be, it ultimately reduces civil liberties.


The last sentence I agree with wholeheartedly...which is why reducing the size of government should be everyone's goal.



HighPlainsDrifter -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 1:11:51 PM)

quote:



The last sentence I agree with wholeheartedly...which is why reducing the size of government should be everyone's goal.


Agree...in spades.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 3:40:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
The last sentence I agree with wholeheartedly...which is why reducing the size of government should be everyone's goal.

Exactly, and the biggest component of government's size is the scope of what it can and cannot do. It's important to limit what the government can do to businesses, but it's even more important to limit what the federal government can do to people.



todd_t -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 5:50:26 PM)

quote:

The last sentence I agree with wholeheartedly...which is why reducing the size of government should be everyone's goal.


Everyone except for Bush, apparently...

I guess he used another presidential signing statement to excuse himself from that classic "small government" Republican ideal.



Jhud -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 5:54:22 PM)

quote:

Exactly, and the biggest component of government's size is the scope of what it can and cannot do. It's important to limit what the government can do to businesses, but it's even more important to limit what the federal government can do to people.


Actually, what the government does best, indeed, what it's supposed to do, is protect us from enemies without and within, and adminster justice to those that would harm us. Beyond that, it should let us be to live out our lives as we best see fit.

Incidentally, I ran across this NYTs op-ed that reflects my feelings vis a vis Obama's 'Marxism'.



henny -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/18/2008 9:20:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, I don't think he reads Das Kapital every night, but I would say on the spectrum of Presidential candidates that ever ran, he is about as close as it gets.


There is nothing distinctly Marxist about him, though. He's certainly a liberal, but again that's quite a different thing than being "Marxist."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Part of the reason I recognize this is because I was a Marxist in my youth,


And?

Youthful vulgar Marxists are a dime a dozen, and it's really the biggest cliche there is. I'm not sure it imparts any special knowledge or street cred beyond being an indicator of naivete and lack of critical engagement in the face of theoretical paradigms. Who claims to be a "Marxist" anymore anyway, it's kind of an archaic term (I'm thinking of mostly academia here, where even people sympathetic to Marx don't usually claim to be "Marxist" without some form of qualifier, just because his influence has morphed into other things and split off into different schools, and the world itself, which Marx was attempting to describe, has changed since).



colliefan -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/19/2008 1:51:34 PM)

quote:

If the government is bigger than it needs to be, it ultimately reduces civil liberties


Then why does Barry want to expand government? Collect wind-fall profits from the evil oil companies. Prevent mortgage companies from foreclosing on homeowmers and force them to renogiate established legal contracts?



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/19/2008 6:49:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

If the government is bigger than it needs to be, it ultimately reduces civil liberties


Then why does Barry want to expand government? Collect wind-fall profits from the evil oil companies. Prevent mortgage companies from foreclosing on homeowmers and force them to renogiate established legal contracts?

I think it's important to note that in many ways, the government can expand on two fronts- those against business and those against individual civil liberties.

A right-leaning libertarian would argue that in the name of having a healthy economy that the federal government isn't managing, advances against business are worse than advances against personal liberties.

However, I would argue that personal liberties ultimately are more likely to affect people more. Also, if the government regulates business more, people can always use their personal liberties to complain. You may be less able to do that if the government abridges personal liberties. So one is much more reversible than the other- though both are bad. So I would argue that Barry is the lesser of two evils.

quote:


Actually, what the government does best, indeed, what it's supposed to do, is protect us from enemies without and within, and adminster justice to those that would harm us. Beyond that, it should let us be to live out our lives as we best see fit.

Incidentally, I ran across this NYTs op-ed that reflects my feelings vis a vis Obama's 'Marxism'.

Locke argued that government exists to protect the rights of individuals, so if the government needs to violate basic human rights to do its job, that kind of governance doesn't make any sense.

I would also mention that this kind of argument may rely on some fascist notions- that the government should do whatever it needs to do to get its job done. It's obvious you're a regular anti-fascist conservative, so I think this discussion serves to illustrate my point- that just because your arguments rely on a certain ideology for rhetoric sometimes (IE: class warfare or "the government needs to be able to do its job") doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with this ideology or want to implement this ideology.

In any case, small government doesn't just mean having a small budget and little regulation; it also means respecting civil liberties. If the government needs to violate human rights or civil liberties to do its job, then maybe we should reconsider the size and scope of its job.



colliefan -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/19/2008 8:06:05 PM)

quote:


If the government needs to violate human rights or civil liberties to do its job, then maybe we should reconsider the size and scope of its job.


But according to both Barry and Hill, the unborn have no rights. Even a near full-term baby can have her skull crushed and killed.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Obama's Marxism? (4/19/2008 8:22:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:


If the government needs to violate human rights or civil liberties to do its job, then maybe we should reconsider the size and scope of its job.


But according to both Barry and Hill, the unborn have no rights. Even a near full-term baby can have her skull crushed and killed.

That's true, but PBA has been legal since Roe vs. Wade, and the recent decision by congress shows that PBA is reversible. The same may not be true about habeas corpus or the right to free speech while the presidential motorcade is passing by.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI