Follow by Email

What is it about nice people that attract total idiots?Nice people are martyrs. Idiots are evangelists.


Thursday, June 6, 2013

Communism and Barack Obama for "Dummies" part three.

So this series began with the question- is President Obama a socialist or (gasp) a communist?  Let me assure you, whether he is measured by the Marxist ideal or by the Soviet or Maoist reality, the president is no communist, or at least a piss-poor one.  In no way can you see Obama's policies as leading the nation towards foregoing a government altogether, or as a bridge to a utopian society.  Nor does he seem to be particularly interested in eliminating societal divisions; in fact, he is an expert player off of such divisions to go where he wants.

But that's only half the battle as far as socialism.  So, he's not a Marxist-Leninist type socialist.  But there is a difference between that and the mainstream European socialism that has led to welfare states all across Europe.

There are seven principle declared in 2011 by the Party Of European Socialists.  Let's see how we match up there.

First off, they believe that the welfare state, including universal education and health care, is society's proudest achievement.  And you can definitely see that in the President.  Second, "A strong and just society must ensure that wealth generated by all is fairly shared AS DETERMINED BY THE STATE.  Two for two.

Third, is "collective responsibility" wherein we all pay to see that no one faces poverty or "social risk".  Fourth is government regulating the environmental sustainability of things.  The fifth point I want to save for last, as it is the linchpin of all the rest.  Sixth is that long-lasting prosperity, stability, and peace requires international cooperation "based on democracy, respect, and human rights".  The seventh I shall also save as a postscript.

Number five says that the "market system is driven by greed and can only lead to deeper inequalities and more and greater crises WITHOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL." On the surface, that is true; it's why real communism won't work, and it sticks the fork in this kind of socialism as well.  For socialism to create a good and just system it requires a government that is just and untouched by greed.  The Soviets couldn't develop a government that would hold power in trust without seeking power; and surely we realize that for us to have a government to dole out economic justice without it seeking economic gain is just as silly.  As those in power start to siphon off that "wealth generated by all" in various ways, it has to cover the losses either by running up the debt (like we are doing), raising taxes (as Obama is trying to do), shutting off the abuses (which NOBODY is giving more than a half-hearted effort to do), or farming some of the burden off to private companies.  We already have examples of that.  Here in Indiana, we sold the Toll Road to a foreign concern.  We've farmed out security in foreign lands to private firms.  In Britain, I have read where most of the fraud in their welfare state is coming from private firms getting top dollar (excuse me, pound) to do a half-assed job that the government then has to fix on the public dime.  We have something like that, too; we called it the stimulus and the bail-out.

So we can conclude two things about socialism by this.  Number one, they believe that putting life in the hands of an all-powerful government is the solution to society's ills.  Number two, just like in Marxism, the theory runs aground upon the lack of ethics of fallen Man.

I want to link you to an article by Dr. W.A. Beatty in the American thinker.  A handful of important statistics comparing welfare states in Scandinavia and the US of A.  Assuming you aren't all that interested in dry stats, I can boil it down to two points.  A) Denmark, a cradle-to-grave socialist state, gets 8.6% LESS of their tax income from the richest 30% of population than the US does, and is doing relatively well in meeting obligations.  B), the fact that we aren't doing near as well despite drawing 8.6% more from a much larger and richer 30% tells us that we have a bigger waste, graft, and fraud problem in the US government than Obama (or anyone else) would care to believe.

So is capitalism better?  Yes and no.  The same ethical problem is there. But, if that fair and just government can just manage to pass laws encouraging competition, the market will keep itself in pretty good balance.  And it's a helluvalot easier to legislate competition than to legislate morality.  Just ask Teddy Roosevelt.

So, is Barack Obama a socialist? At least any more than any government since the aforementioned T.R.?  Well, let's take a look at principle # 7:

 A strong state must preserve the public good, guarantee the common interest, promote justice and solidarity and allow people to lead lives rich beyond material wealth, so that each individual’s fulfillment is also part of a collective endeavor. (Forbes, Jan. 22, 2012)

Or in Obama's words, "You didn't build that."

Conclusions?  That's up to you.  Everybody gets an opinion.  But think about this.  American individualism and exceptionalism, the ability to rise as high as our talents and ambition can take us, has given the world everything from safe drinking water to economies of scale to men on the moon.  What did the Soviet Union or Red China ever contribute to the world at large that they didn't copy from us?  Oh, I know.  20 million murdered by Stalin; 30 million murdered by Mao; up to 3 million murdered (out of a population of 8 million) by Pol Pot; and 3.5 million estimated starved to death in North Korea from 1993-2008.  Congratulations on your collective endeavor.


  1. This was very well thought-out and written, BROTHER MARTIN.

    I kind of view things like this...

    1) As I mentioned in our earlier exchange, there never has been a true secular Communist state and never will be. 2) None of the communist leaders ever really believed in Communism. They identified it as the "control-the-wealth" scheme it really is, and they sought to be the controllers of the wealth (i.e., the "communist" dictators).

    So, in a real sense, the Marxist form of Communism never did and never will exist. Therefore, you're right, Barack Obama is not a communist.

    Obama's biological father was no Kenyan goat herder; he was a Communist propagandist. That's where Obama's earliest political influence comes from. And Obama is a communist to the exact same degree that Saul Alinsky was a communist.

    The 'Wizards Behind The Curtain' who are the real rulers (and who largely dictate all the major decisions to presidents, including Obama) are in the process of setting up a Global Socialistic Government. Obama is just a tool, but they can use him because he's a "Communist Dictator" wannabe.

    So I still routinely refer to Obama as a "communist" because "socialism" is such a soft and fuzzy term that it means nothing to a large segment of Americans. But the word "communist" still bothers even some of the more stupid voters; the word "communist" still retains some of its bloody, violent, repressive aftertaste.

    >>... So is capitalism better? Yes and no.

    I say Capitalism is definitely WAY better. But the USA has not been a Capitalist country since the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. So when I say "Capitalism" is WAY better, I'm most definitely NOT referring to the economic system that you and I, CW, have been living under our entire lives.

    Anyway, good work on this series, Bro.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    1. Thank you, sir. I agree, what we are living in is as far from capitalism as Obama is from communism. And like you, I spoke of it in the "way it is generally seen" sense like you do communism. Like we do of the democrat and GOP parties, that aren't really real either.

  2. This has been a well written and very interesting series of articles CW.
    I have no opinion, not being one of your country's citizens.

    1. Thank you, Ma'am. However on the opinion thing, you don't have to be a citizen to have one. My Sunday message this week was based on my perusing one of your guests at the blog party and finding his post about his English opinions of our American scandals. Sometimes we need that outside look, here we are a bit stuck on ourselves.

    2. I confess I am struggling to keep up with our own politicians carry on as we get closer to an election. Right, wrong, for, against, truth lies..on and on. But I am trying.
      It is interesting though to see your opinions as we are fed such short news grabs about you country and its politics

    3. Politics ain't for everyone, I know that. Our problem is, we have too many people for whom politics is too hard voting anyway. If we could clean out the idiots and the "one-cause voters", we might actually get somewhere.

  3. CWM:
    You have laid out those principles in such a fantastic (and simple for me to figure out) manner.
    VERY well done.
    And yes, OUR government has a level of graft and corruption that far supercedes other nations...but we're not supposed to KNOW that...are we?
    This administration makes the GRANT era look serene and honest, and THAT administration has been considered to be one of the WORST as far as corruption goes in our entire history as a nation...and none of it was Grant's fault.

    Excellent exposition.
    You should teach a course on this...seriously.

    Stay safe up there.

    1. First: Well, I did say "for dummies..." IOW, these are best when denuded of intellectual pretention and written in the "vulgate" version.

      Second: Actually, I am a strong believer in leadership comes from the top, and find myself unwilling to absolve Grant (or, similarly, Harding, or possibly Obama), because even if they didn't do the crime, they put in place those who did- and left them there long after they knew what was going on.

      One of my main gripes about GW Bush was standing by "Brownie" at FEMA when everyone could see what a slipshod job was being done by him. If you put the guy in charge, and the guy is in over his head, who's to blame?

      Third: I thought I just did teach a course on this...