• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Do you believe Barack Obama is a socialist?

Do you believe Barack Obama is a socialist?


  • Total voters
    11

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
Do you believe Barack Obama is a socialist? For the sake of this thread, please use your own definition of socialist.

Thoughts?
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
I really don't think people should use their own definition of a Socialist, because it's something that's hugely misunderstood. I think you should have found an accurate definition of Socialism and included it in the OP.

But no, Barack Obama is far from a Socialist. Socialism means the workers control the means of production and have a say in the allocation of resources. He supports wocial welfare policies, true, but social welfare - the state providing a social "safety net" for its citizens who need it - does not equal socialism.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
I really don't think people should use their own definition of a Socialist, because it's something that's hugely misunderstood. I think you should have found an accurate definition of Socialism and included it in the OP.
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com
But no, Barack Obama is far from a Socialist. Socialism means the workers control the means of production and have a say in the allocation of resources. He supports wocial welfare policies, true, but social welfare - the state providing a social "safety net" for its citizens who need it - does not equal socialism.
Interesting that you don't think that people should use their own definition, then you do. Most words have multiple similar, but unique, meanings.
------
So sure, Obama is a socialist, among many other things. You know: radical, progressive, liberal, democrat, ideologue, etc, etc.
 
Last edited:

Sim

Registered Member
Jeanie points exactly to the problem: People on the right do no longer care about established definitions, but instead use their own definitions and thus are no longer connected to what the rest of the world considers reality.

Obama is not anymore a "socialist" than George Bush is a "fascist". Calling Obama a socialist is just as appropriate as calling the Tea Party "Nazis".

Yet somehow, some people, brainwashed and fearmongered by a radical far-right media machine that doesn't care for facts anymore think the former is anymore acceptable than the latter.

That's what wrong with America's right at the moment: The last bit of connection with reality has long gone, in a time that's dominated by Fox News and Glenn Beck. It's completely rabid.

If this trend continues, it won't take long until we'll see blood on the streets.
------
But no, Barack Obama is far from a Socialist. Socialism means the workers control the means of production and have a say in the allocation of resources. He supports wocial welfare policies, true, but social welfare - the state providing a social "safety net" for its citizens who need it - does not equal socialism.
In Germany, it was monarchist-conservative Chancellor Otto von Bismarck who introduced public welfare in the 1880's, including unemployment support, health insurance and public pensions. Don't mind that he made laws to persecute actual socialists, to put them into prison and make their agitation illegal. Bismarck's welfare programs were much more far reaching than anything Obama proposes.

By Tea Party standards, von Bismarck was a socialist! :lol:

(But I guess this amount of ignorance that touts around political terms without the slightest knowledge of what they actually mean shouldn't surprise us, since these people even believe Hitler was a socialist, no matter how much you want to band your head against a wall and bleed your eyes out, when you hear such idiotic statements.)
 
Last edited:

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
I think that the negative connotations that are (wrongly) associated with the word "socialist" is why it's so often bandied about and used as a pejorative, whether it's a correct application of the term or not. It's a way to deflect attention from the real issues and prevent people from thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions - "Obama is a Socialist? Well then I don't like him!"

Barack Obama is neither radical, progressive, nor a socialist. Did you know for example that the current income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans - Obama having "rolled back" the Bush tax cuts - is still significantly lower than they were under Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower?
http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449

That chart makes me wonder what the Tea Party members are really so angry about, but that's another topic for another thread.

The lack of understanding of different political ideologies and economic systems - Socialism is an economic system, not a system of government - is clear evidence that American schools are failing.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ Sim: Do you mean definitions like those found here?: Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Please note #3

Just because Obama hasn't implemented every aspect of socialism does not mean that he doesn't promote the socialist principle of collectivism. His continued and repeated calls for the government forced redistribution of wealth is a good example of his socialist tendencies.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
You need to back that up with some examples and proof. Obama is a devoted Capitalist and has no interest in collectivism or redistributing the wealth. (See the link I just posted as evidence).
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
You need to back that up with some examples and proof. Obama is a devoted Capitalist and has no interest in collectivism or redistributing the wealth. (See the link I just posted as evidence).
In his own words:

YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

Whether the use of the term is pejorative or descriptive is a matter of perspective. Those on the marxist left see it as that guy isn't a real socialist, those on the conservative right see it as that guy is too much socialist. I don't see either perspective as not thinking for one's self and drawing conclusions. Although either position could be demonized by the other as based in ignorance.

As for your tax chart, something that you may not have considered is inflation. Of course someone who made $250K when Reagan was president was much wealthier than someone who makes $250K in 2010 dollars. The point being that the "super rich" as defined by the rhetoric surrounding the "Bush tax cut" aren't the comparable with the super rich of Reagan et al.

But I do agree some of our schools are failing, but that is the topic of another thread too! :lol:
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
That video interprets his words in such a way to make it frightening to those who are already afraid of Obama. I interpret his words as saying that the civil rights movement has not gone far enough in terms of providing economic opportunity to minorities. He mentions schools, and nowhere is it more evident that the economic opportunities in this country are vastly different for inner city minorities and upper class white kids. Just take a look at Detroit's next-door neighbor, Grosse Pointe. The principal of Grosse Pointe North tells transfer students that their college applications will be placed in a separate pile for consideration because of where they went to high school.

That doesn't mean he's a socialist who believes in collectivism.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Again, perspective. You interpret his words one way, others may intrepret his words as saying the tragedy of the civil rights movement is that it didn't pursue a course of court ordered redistribution. His comment to Joe "the plumber" is evidence that he does, in fact, support redistribution through government intervention. His rhetoric demonizing the "wealthy" furthers this point.

I understand your point, he is not a socialist according to your perspective. My point is he is a socialist according to a different perspective. He is not "pure" socialist any more than either Bush was conservative. But from the perspective of many on the left they were too conservative.
 
Top