Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Could you guys explain these comments to me?

By

Barack Obama sure sounds like a Marxist here.  Redistribution of wealth and all.  Can you explain how these comments aren’t communist or socialist in nature.  Do I have my definition of communism wrong perhaps?

The reporter in Florida at WFTV asked pertinent questions. You can laugh them away.  It is my hope that the American public that you folks have pulled the wool over the collective eyes wakes up in time to stop our slide towards collectivism.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Just as soon as his man George Bush finishes bailing out America’s failed “free market”.  Collectivism comes in red, doesn’t it?  If you’re gonna pee yourself over collectivism EaBo, be thorough!

  3. by actually providing your definition of communism and socialism for us. Then you can discuss exactly why you think this meets the definition. If you aren’t willing to spend time doing that, why should we waste our time responding?

    <

    p>

    • From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?  I know, around here, we call it fairness, but that seems to be a word Biden uses to camouflage the real intent, which is to spread the wealth around, redistribution, government control of markets and people’s money, communist-style.  No one here ever really repudiated Ernie Bock III when he wondered if the Socialists had taken control of the Democratic party, everyone just played clueless and asked what specific vote or program he was referring to, and defended the values of the Democratic Socialists or whatever they’re called.  No one said a bad thing against the idea of socialism or socialist values.  Obviously the specific results of a socialist mindset in this country are going to be mitigated by the fact that they’re happening in this country, but it is the mindset, the loyalty to college days absorbing Redbook values and anti-American values, that EBIII and many others are concerned about, and that the Ayers connection raises suspicions about.

      <

      p>(Btw, I’m a socialist, but not a heathen socialist/libertarian monstrosity like most leftists are.)

      • I must have missed the memo at my last Democratic Town Committee meeting.
        This is just sad. I guess the 21st century bugaboo of “Islamofacism” and the meme that Obama is a “Secret Muslim” just isn’t scary or credible. So now the Republicans have resurrected a 20th century bogeyman. (Hey- a 20th century candidate at the top of the ticket, 20th century smear tactics!)
        Though if that doesn’t work, how much further back should we go?
        ♦ 19th Century- Obama’s a Freemason!
        ♦ 18th Century- No wait, he’s a sans-culotte! (Hey- isn’t that French?)
        ♦ 17th Century- He’s a witch. Burn him!
        ♦ 16th Century- He’s a Heliocentrist!

      • … doesn’t redistribute wealth do some degree.

        <

        p>Ezra:

        <

        p>

        It’s been odd watching the McCain campaign warn darkly against redistribution. Redistribution — which McCain says “means taking your money and giving it to someone else” — is what the government does. It collects taxes and uses them to buy things, or give people money. Put even more simply, it collects revenues and then distributes them. As such, I rather like Jon Chait’s summary of the McCain campaign’s recent message: “McCain: Obama Wants to Have a GOVERNMENT in WASHINGTON!”

        • when the people are taxed by the government to provide services and care and fund projects that are in the public interest, it’s fine, but redistribution the way Ayers-types think of it comes from a different place.  I mean, there must be a difference between our government and a marxist government, right?  You tell me what it is.  Something about who’s money it is, and where rights come from, and the people’s relationship to the state, and things like that.  Trivial stuff I guess.  

          • pre-Bush, because his financial policies and tax plan, well shall we say, sucked.  Is that marxist?  Please explain.

            • and the question is, does Obama “find the ideas in anarchism [and Marxism] appealing”, like Bill Ayers does?  It’s strange you guys can’t understand the difference between tax policy and ideology.  Yes, progressive taxation is quite marxist, but accepting some marxism in a liberty-based capitalist system is not the same thing as being loyal to the ideals of marxism, and believing therefore that progressive taxation is only a small step in the direction toward collective ownership and a marxist system.

          • … who brought up communism.

            <

            p>”…which is to spread the wealth around, redistribution, government control of markets and people’s money, communist-style.”

            <

            p>That means its up to you to defend why it’s communist-style.  Just saying ‘redistribution’ doesn’t cut it.

            • Why is Bill Ayers a Marxist?  What does it mean to him to say that he’s Marxist, given that our system already has progressive taxation, welfare, and even Adam Smith approves of that?  This is pretty discouraging, if no one here knows any significant difference between Capitalism and Communism.

              • to educate you or prove that I’m educated about Marxism.  You are making the assertion about Ayers and communism.  That puts the ball in your court, not mine.  

                <

                p>”…but redistribution the way Ayers-types think of it comes from a different place. “

                <

                p>BTW… the election is about Obama.  You’ll have to explain in what way he is an ‘Ayers-type’ and what that means.

                • Why not call himself a capitalist, and simply cite Adam Smith’s call for the rich paying more than their share in order to have a healthy society?

                  <

                  p>Obama’s association and friendship with Ayers indicates that he shares something with him, and people are wondering if it is a loyalty to marxist ideals, which are NOT capitalist ideals as laid out by Adam Smith and practiced in this country.  No one on this blog seems to think there is any thing wrong with marxism, and yet you’re all very defensive and insistent that Obama is not a marxist.  What would a real marxist believe that Obama doesn’t?

                • You seem to be asking me to write a 500 page paper on marxism, the sixties, friendship, ideological beliefs, worldviews, loyalties, and so on.  “Ayers-types” are people who believe in the values that Ayers believes, and expresses openly.  He says he’s a marxist, and I’m asking what that means.  It can’t just mean he’s for progressive taxation and welfare, because that is an element of Capitalism also, as Ayers surely understands, if he has eyes.  Why is he a Marxist?

                  <

                  p>I’ll try to address another question you seem to have asked, about “redistribution”.  Progressive taxation and spending on the public interest is not redistribution the way marxists think of it, because it continues to respect the idea of private enterprise and property and liberty, even though those that can give more than their share are asked to give more than their share in order to have a solid social foundation on which to stake their future, and also in order to be compassionate to those in need of help.  Redistribution, on the other hand, is based on contempt for private property and the belief that wealth is unfair and people should not prosper beyond their “needs”, and that the needy have a right to the same standard of living, and whatever wealth the able are able to produce.  

                • You’ve finally defined what you are referring to as Marxism and pointed out a defining characteristic.  You still haven’t explained how that characteristic is represented in Ayers teachings (you keep says he is a Marxist… still waiting for a cite).  You’ll now have to explain exactly why Ayers holds a “contempt for private property and the belief that wealth is unfair and [that] people should not prosper beyond their ‘needs’, and that the needy have a right to the same standard of living, and whatever wealth the able are able to produce.”

                  <

                  p>Even after you have done that… to be relevant in any way you must show that when Obama has talked about ‘spreading the wealth’ or ‘redistribution’ what he meant was “contempt for private property and the belief that wealth is unfair and [that] people should not prosper beyond their ‘needs’, and that the needy have a right to the same standard of living, and whatever wealth the able are able to produce.”

                • I linked to something above (to johnk) where Ayers says he’s a marxist, or at least that the ideas appeal to him.  I was under the impression that Ayers is an out, open Marxist.

                  <

                  p>And I was trying to outline the general philosophical differences since you refused to offer any differences between Capitalism and Marxism.  I take it you were offended by my characterization, you are welcome to offer your own.  I’s like to know what Ayers thinks the difference is, and what defenders of Marxism here think the difference is.

                  <

                  p>The point is that even if Obama’s comments by themselves could merely be expressing the Adam Smith-approved opinion that wealthy people should give more than their share to insure tolerable conditions for laborers, in context (Ayers and other Obama supporters, and also the welcoming of self-described Socialists into the Democratic leadership, and everyone here approving of everything socialists stand for), those words scream Marxist.

                  <

                  p>now if someone could try to explain to me what a Marxist or socialist believes that Obama doesn’t, besides something that obviously is safe to be against right now, like “he doesn’t believe we should have a bloody revolution and nationalize all industries immediately”.   I mean, what ideals of Marxism or socialism does he disagree with?

  4. Anyone who uses the words Marxist, communist, socialist and collectivist interchangeably either has no idea what he’s talking about or he just isn’t interested in serious discussion. (Or maybe both…)  Why not just throw in a Stalinist or a Leninist for added effect?

    <

    p>What you see here is a desperate Hail Mary pass from a campaign in its final throes.

  5. Come on, EaBo.  Yes, you have your definitions wrong.  First of all, Obama obviously did not say that it was a “tragedy” that the courts did not interpret the Constitution to require redistribution of wealth — despite the scary yellow headline to the contrary.  What he said is that the Warren Court wasn’t a particularly radical court, and that he thought it was unfortunate (or a “tragedy,” if you like) that the civil rights movement got so focused on winning through the courts that it lost sight of other, potentially more effective, methods of achieving social change.  You’ll get no argument from me on that.  There are times when changes can legitimately come from the judicial branch — ending de jure segregation of the schools, and of the institution of marriage, for example.  But Obama’s absolutely right that other kinds of change are much better accomplished through legislative mechanisms.  I’d think that conservatives would be down with that.

    <

    p>As for redistribution, what we’re talking about is varying degrees of progressive taxation of income.  The argument in the current campaign, as you well know, is over keeping the present degree of progressive taxation (the Bush/McCain 2.0 position), or returning to the level of progressive taxation that existed prior to the Bush tax cuts (the Obama/McCain 1.0 position).  Neither of those is “socialist” or “communist” under any meaningful definition of the term.  

    <

    p>No, the only “socialism” of any significance that is going on in America right now is the government’s taking partial ownership of the country’s major financial institutions.  Your man John voted for that, and your boys W and Hank are all for it.  

  6. I doubt you can. I’ll repeat my comment from the other thread:

    <

    p>How about we stop redistributing America’s wealth to Iraq, Blcakwater and Haliburton, the Oil Giants, AIG, the Auto Industry, Corporate America, etc, etc…?

    <

    p>Also, feel free to actually explain how, in any meaningful sense, Obama is a marxist. You’ll have to provide more evidence than the fact that the guy has the word “redistribute” in his vocabulary. I doubt you’re educated or informed enough to provide such an exegesis, but I’m willing to publicly stand corrected and offer an apology if my assumption is wrong.  

    <

    p>Furthermore, “Marxist”, “communist”, and “socialist” all have very specific and fleshed out accepted definitions and applications. Thus far, you’ve clearly demonstrated you don’t know what you are talking about and that you can’t apply Marxist theory (or communist or socialist theory) to accurately criticize and analyze Obama’s policies.

    <

    p>Put up or shut up. Most of us aren’t so lazy that we think anytime a politician says “redistribute” s/he automatically becomes Marxist. You’ll have to engage in some expository writing to enlighten us as to the legitimacy of your claim or else this amounts to nothing more than 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense. I mean, I can find a YouTube video that quotes W. Bush to prove he’s part of the Illuminati that control the world’s power structure. Doesn’t make it true, though.

    • Apparently all he can do is cut and past other people’s crap.  Don’t ask him for reasoned discussion unless you know where he can go to copy some.

  7. I saw an Obama ad about ending tax cuts for the rich, and giving a break to the rest of us. Didn’t he vote FOR the DEMOCRATIC sponsored $700,000,000,000 bailout bill? Who is paying for that $700,000,000,000? Oh, us.  

    • …and cut taxes for the wealthy by 2012. McCain also voted for the bailout. And McCain’s tax cut will reduce revenues $1 Billion dollars more than Obama’s plan.

      <

      p>?!?!?!?

      <

      p>Is McCain’s plan equally perplexing to you? I find McCain’s economic plan far more fantastic, even before the whole Wall Street meltdown. Anyone who thinks Obama’s proposed policies are irrational can’t seriously consider McCain’s plan remotely realistic.  

Archives