(03-19-2009 11:03 AM)shyminer Wrote: he is a demo- socialist at it's best...
Do you even know what socialism is?
Obama is a centist. He has strong corporate interests and firmly stands behinde the free market system. If you actually sat down and read about what he proposes and compared that to socialist ideas, then you'd know that.
Heck, prominent members of SP-USA don't see his policies as socialist
Heck, you could go on Sean Hannity's site and find this post:
An essay for class on obama and socialism
________________________________________
Refutations are welcome of course.
Obama and Socialism
The right wing in America is very critical of President Obama under the premise that his views are reflective of a socialist ideal. The obvious issue that is presented in this particular viewpoint is the need for a definition of socialism, as well as an understanding of Obama’s policies. An obvious difficulty in defining socialism is that most socialist thinkers disagree with precisely what it would look like, as it is merely defined by what is in the rational self-interest of the proletariat. From the collective positions of Karl Marx, Eduard Bernstein, and Karl Kautsky we can quite clearly that Barack Obama does not resemble a socialist, and the accusations of ‘socialist policies’ are weak at best.
The source of the socialist movement as a major intellectual force can be historically attributed to Karl Marx and Fredriech Engels. From their perspective, major changes in production have always been precipitated by revolutionary struggles on the part of an oppressed class. From this conclusion, it then follows that the oppressed class within the capitalist system, being the laborers, would be the ones that would inevitably would revolt and establish the next mode of production. Under this line of thinking, socialism can be defined as the economic and political system that follows from capitalism. As it is the proletariat, or working class, that would establish this order, the socialist system would reflect the interests of the working class. From Marx’s perspective, over time, everyone would be assimilated into the proletariat class, thus eliminating the idea of class altogether, along with the necessity of the state. This final mode of production is known as communism. Extracting a definition of socialism from Marx is indeed a bit tricky, as he doesn’t spend a lot of time talking about the practical realization of socialism. He does, in one passage of The Communist Manifesto, outline a few general things that he feels might be apparent “in the most advanced countries.”
“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction of town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.”
These policies do rest on the existence of a proletariat state, and for Marx they are not universal, they are simply policies that he feels would be in the best interests of the laborers, and are therefore likely to emerge out of a working-class state.
While it’s obvious that President Obama is not calling for the revolt of the working class, and therefore is not a socialist under Marx’s definition, perhaps it can be suggested that his policies resemble the tentative socialist policies that Marx lays out. First it is necessary to eliminate the policies that we have already adopted. We already have a progressive income tax, as well as a public school system. We have also abolished children’s factory labor. The next phase of policies that we can eliminate are those that simply have not been discussed anywhere in America. The abolition of public property, the abolition of the right of inheritance, confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels, the establishment of industrial armies, and the combination of education with industrial production would fall into this category. The centralization of the means of communication and transport can be thought of as falling into both previous categories, as we do have some government restrictions on the media, and a basic system of public transportation, we do not have complete centralization, and this policy is not on the table. The ninth policy of the abolition of the distinction of town and country is simply not in his hands and therefore, his policies cannot reflect this idea. The only policy that is left is the complete nationalization of credit and the banking system. While there has been talk of nationalizing the banks that are currently failing, those banks would still be competing in a free market, thus there would be no monopolization. It can be asserted that within Marx’s definition of what socialism is and what Socialist policies look like, Obama cannot be a socialist.
After Marx, Socialist thinkers generally split into two camps, the evolutionary socialists, and the revolutionary socialists. The premise of the revolutionary socialists is that a true socialist state requires a revolution on the part of the working class. The evolutionary socialists postulated on the other hand, that parliamentary democracy would eventually lead to a Socialist state. Immediately from these premises, it is illogical to suggest that an elected official is a revolutionary socialist. Furthermore, simply based on context, it is illogical to draw comparisons between soviet communism and President Obama. Lenin and Trotsky were very much concerned with the conditions of the Russian people circa 1917, and their theories and policies stem from an examination of Marxism through that particular lens. This knowledge leaves only the evolutionary socialists in the debate.
Eduard Bernstein was one of the dominating figures in the realm of evolutionary socialism, or ‘social democracy’. Bernstein makes the argument that parliamentary democracy is the most realistic avenue for the development of a socialist state. This view is obviously a critique of the method of ‘orthodox Marxism.’ There is also an important shift in the attitude of socialism that is marked by Bernstein. He states, “Social Democracy does not wish to break up this society and make its members proletarians together; it labors rather incessantly at raising the worker from the social position of a proletarian to that of a citizen, and thus makes citizenship universal.” The other shift in consciousness that is proposed by Bernstein is neatly summed up by the proposition “To me that which is generally called the ultimate aim of Socialism is nothing, but the movement is everything.” From these principles, it can be extrapolated the Bernstein is not so much interested in ‘Marxism’ in and of itself, but rather in the betterment of the conditions of the working class. Therefore, in Bernstein’s mind, there is no ‘socialist society’, but socialism is rather a certain quality of particular policies and organizations. That quality may be defined as one that elevates the proletariat into positions of power and therefore will ultimately lead to better working conditions and the gradual weakening of class distinctions within society.
Bernstein’s arguments do seem to harmonize more clearly with President Obama’s than the other ideologues that we have studied. Statements by Obama such as “The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous” would seem as if they were perfectly in line with Bernstein’s ideals, as well as the tax hikes on the wealthy that congress recently passed. It should be noted however that ‘Social Democracy’ is an extremely moderate form of socialism. It seems to me to be more of a synthesis of socialist ideals with those of the classical liberals, who Bernstein defends in his writing. Furthermore, there is nothing in Bernstein that seems to suggest a removal of the idea of private property. If this is the case, he’s not really suggesting a new mode of production at all, but simply imagining a more ‘humane’ form of capitalism. Even if we do accept Bernstein as a socialist, he still argues that the working class and trade unions should be put into political power. If this was the case wouldn’t Obama appoint trade union leaders to his cabinet instead of politicians?
Another important turn of the century Marxist was Karl Kautsky. His arguments are expressed in the form of a critique of the Bolshevik revolution. The argument is simply that capitalism and democracy are necessary to the development of socialism. In fact he goes so far as to suggest that “The more a State is capitalistic on the one side and democratic on the other, the nearer it is to Socialism. The more its capitalist industry is developed, the higher its productive power, the greater its riches, the more socially organized its labour, the more numerous its proletariat; and the more democratic a state is, the better trained and organized its proletariat.” He then goes on to compare Leninism to ‘forcing a premature birth’.
________________________________________
PART II
Putting Obama, or any president for that matter, into this context is a little paradoxical. Under this logic, the furthering of capitalism is in the best interests of Socialism. It is logical to assert that by definition, the furthering of capitalism is in the best interest of capitalism as well. So it can be argued, that for Kautsky, the only difference between a capitalist policy and a socialist policy is in intent. As we cannot ever truly know much about the intent of President Obama beyond his policies, it is virtually impossible to qualify him one way or another. This truth is something of a catch-22 for the argument that Obama is a socialist, as it can be applied to any President that promotes and upholds the free market.
It is obvious that under the examination of the ideals presented by the thinkers that have been mentioned, the argument that Obama is a socialist is quite weak. So the issue then becomes a question of where the comparison comes from in the first place. Obama once said, controversially, that he wants to “spread the wealth around” through taxation of the wealthy with tax breaks on the middle and lower classes. So is the idea of a redistribution of wealth in line with the socialist thinkers? The simple answer is that within the confines of a capitalist mode of production, the redistribution of wealth through taxation is simply not socialist, as it will serve to pacify the proletariat and dilute class-consciousness, thereby actually strengthening the moral of the workers within the capitalist system. If we can reasonably define Socialism as the belief that it is both ethical and inevitable that the working-class (proletariat) control the systems of political power as well as the modes of production, then, as Marx implies, any attempt at outlining the policies or structure of a socialist system is merely an examination of the rational self-interest of the working class. Therefore, it is impossible for a non-working class president to create ‘socialist policies’ as socialist policies can only logically come out of the proletariat. It can be conceded however, that policies designed to help the working class, while not actually socialist, will perhaps look socialist to those who are uneducated as to what socialism actually is. This however is mere mistake of form for content.
It should be further pointed out that there is a logic flaw in the argument that ‘Socialist policies are reflective of the interest of the working class and Obama’s policies are in the interest of the working class, therefore Obama is a socialist.’ Two statements that share a common predicate do not form a necessarily sound connection. This logic flaw can be better illustrated in the argument that ‘apples are red, my car is red, therefore my car is an apple.’