Obama the Marxist
Yeah… right. That’s what I said.
But it’s true. In an op-ed for the New York Times, William Kristol compares a statement made by Obama at a San Francisco fund-raiser about the “bitter[ness]” of poor, rural, working-class people to that of Marxist rhetoric about the religion being the opiate of the masses. Obama was explaining the frustration of the economic blight of the rural class when he said:
“It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Apparently, after Kristol heard/read this statement he was hit with a bit of Marxist insight. Even though Kristol admits he hasn’t “read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s,” he claims an Obama-Marx nexus of political ideology. In his op-ed he quotes from Marx:
“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”
Oh, for the love of philosophical integrity, please stop.
First off, if you haven’t read Marx since the late 80s, and you’re a self-proclaimed neo-conservative, you ought to abstain, when at all possible, from the Marxist references. This, lets-scare-them-with-red-language, nonsense has already been politically wasted. McCarthy did this same type of thing, albeit with more vigor and with a broader, more noxious agenda, some 60 years ago. You’re not fooling anyone Mr. Kristol; you’re only making yourself look like you’ve come down with red-fever and in need of immediate inoculation. Communism isn’t all that great of a political structure, thanks Mr. Kristol, I never knew. I better put down my Communist Manifesto.
Secondly, what is inaccurate about what Obama has said? The people he’s describing are those who haven’t much to call their “own,” other than their god, their gun, and their xenophobia. Who wouldn’t be “bitter?” Not to say that religion is necessarily bad; but I highly doubt that this is the “love-all” type of religion. Obama is looking at ways to alter this psychological conundrum induced by years of abject poverty and economic degradation by introducing economic reform. Does Mr. Kristol read it as such? No. Not at all, actually. According to Kristol, “[Obama's] disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America.”
In the last quote, I think Kristol meant the “Proletariat.” If he’s talking about small town, rural workers, they’re anything but bourgeois.
I’ll leave off with a quote from Joe Lieberman, responding to a question given to him about whether or not he thinks Obama is a “Marxist:”
“Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.”
Joe Lieberman on mainstream America, everybody.
Joe Lieberman ticks me off. “I must say, that’s a good question…”
NO! That is actually NOT a good question. That is a stupid question, sir.
What’s wrong with being a Marxist?
I’m not voting for Obama but seriously? Why are we not asking questions regarding important issues to Americans? Why do we insist on pointing fingers over stupid speech lines that even most “bitter” folk would agree? Further proof the windbags of media turn the propellers of the wind farm minds of America!
I don’t think the people Obama is talking about are terribly familiar with “abject poverty”. Their once solidly middle class lives have certainly been upended by economic changes, but they aren’t nearly that poor.
I think the more interesting question here is whether Obama was right or not. Its obvious (and empirically provable) that the anti-immigrant and anti-trade sentiments that have been on the rise can be in large measure traced to the economic problems of the last 30 years in industrial America. The guns and religion question is another one entirely. It certainly plausible (and, I think, likely) that economic conditions play some role in “clinging” to traditionalism, but it hardly seems causal. Gun culture and religion are very important in the newer (and more economically successful) culture of suburbia. Those attributes seem more regional (especially guns) than economic.
There’s nothing wrong with being a Marxist. Unless you want to be President.
Kristol does have a point about the relationship between Marxism and Sen. Obama’s comment. One of the tenets of classical Marxist theory is the concept of false consciousness. Simply put, false consciousness is when the proletariat is either actively working against their own economic self-interest or ignorant to it. You say that Obama is trying to alter the “psychological conundrum” these people are in, but that is not what his comment implied. Rather, Obama’s comments suggest that people are bitter and rather than recognizing their place in relationship to the means of production and working for their economic well-being, they are holding on to religion or guns, symbols of the upper class. Guns and religion are getting in the way of the formation of a class consciousness that when formed will mitigate some of the economic inequalities.
I don’t know, it seems pretty fair to ask about Obama’s relationship to Marxist thought, especially within the context of the relationship to his church because of their long-standing relationship to liberation theology which has roots in Marxist thought.
So what if Obama has a relationship with Marxist thought? Why is that a bad thing? Classical Marxism is nothing more than a materialistic analysis of history and makes a projection of what will happen in the future. Das Kapital is not a call to arms and revolution, it is a prediction that if the current state of affairs at the time continued unabated, the proletariat will end up revolting against capitalism. Marx was a scholar, not an active revolutionary.
Marx may not have been a revolutionary, but liberation theology has a long and storied relationship with many Latin American Revolution during the middle decades of the 20th century.
That being said, your bringing up of the Marx as revolutionary question is a red herring. The point I made was not whether or not Obama is some kind of revolutionary, but that his thought is tinged with Marxist ideologies that privilege one’s relationship to the means of production and economic condition over religion, guns, or other traditional kinds of thought. I think many people would take offense to the statement that they cling to religion because of their economic conditions, rather than it representing some deeper statement of their human condition.
Kolby, unless I’m gravely mistaken, Obama is talking about the poor, rural folk — not the Middle Class. Some of these poor rural folk are indeed facing “abject poverty.” However, I’ll admit, it was a bit over-the-top of me to codify all of rural America in the “abject poverty” category.
JE: First off, thanks for visiting and commenting; I hope you’ll come back and comment so more.
As to your comments, I think you’re misinterpreting what it means to be “class conscious” in the capitalist sense. If Obama is suggesting that the poor, rural folk become conscious of their place in society, through a Marxist lens, then the next, inevitable step, would be to overthrow the bourgeois. I know Das Kapital doesn’t explicitly call for revolution but it certainly implies the possibility of the proletariat awakening and becoming conscious of their place in society; this is inextricably linked to the call for revolution in the Communist Manifesto. I highly doubt Obama had any revolutionary implication in his statement. And when I talk about the “psychological conundrum,” I’m talking about using things such as guns, “god,” xenophobia, etc. used as a conduit of frustration. This is classical American liberalism, not a Marxist class struggle.
“…religion or guns, symbols of the upper class”
I believe that affluence, prestige, and status are the symbols of the upper-class; not the list you’ve mentioned. So, the poor, who have none of the symbols of the wealthy, resort to things within their means of acquisition.
The one key component not being addressed is the facts that if Obama really was speaking through a Marxist lens it would be to point to the possible revolution by the proletariat. To speak in Marxist language, Obama is a “True Socialist.” Obama is seeking class restructuring by peaceful, “bourgeois” means. True Socialist was the type that Marx and Engel loathed, because of the inability to produce real, revolutionary change.
“Obama’s comments suggest that people are bitter and rather than recognizing their place in relationship to the means of production and working for their economic well-being they are holding on to religion or guns, symbols of the upper class.”
The point Obama was making in his speech is that these people are “unable” to work towards economic well-being and have subsequently become “bitter.”
So, perhaps there may be a weak “relationship” between Marxist ideology and Obama’s ideology on the social position of the poor relative to economic condition, but it’s certainly not a parallel; Obama is not a Marxist.
So, if anything, Obama is a quasi-Socialist. Marxist he is not.
Kyle, I have to disagree with this statement, though:
“Marx was a scholar, not an active revolutionary”
I will agree that Marx was a scholar; an outstanding one at that. I would agree that he wasn’t an “active” revolutionary; but if you read the Communist Manifesto you’d have a hard to believing that Marx wasn’t a proponent or instigator of active revolution.
All in all, this is political red herring, not to be taken seriously.
My point was that the industrial working folk that he was referring to were once solidly part of the middle class but no longer are. Rather than the benefit-rich, pensioned middle class lives they lead through the 1970s (an obvious instance of labor overreach) have turned into unstable, paycheck to paycheck, uninsured struggles.
S.C.-The classic definition of the formation of a class consciousness is one’s relationship to the means of production. This relationship overrides all other social/cultural/ideological factors. When a person fails to recognize this relationship, their “class consciousness,” and works against their own class consciousness, then they have achieved false consciousness.
I agree that there is a revolutionary implication implicit in classic Marxist thought. However, Obama does not need to suggest this in order for it to be revealed that he has been influenced by Marxist thought. False consciousness is what prevents someone from realizing their true class concsiousness, or their place in relationship to the means of production. For Marx, religion served as one of these tools that prevented the proletariat from realizing what they needed to do in order to succeed. Marx said that the tools like religion were used by the upper class to control the proletariat. He does not need to call for a revolution in order for his words to be analyzed in this manner.
By his saying that people are embittered economically and clinging to religion, guns, and anti-immigration, he is suggesting that they have achieved this false consciousness and working against their own economic self-interest.
That type of thinking has a lot of serious implications.
Now, of course Obama is not a true Marxist. I think very few of those exist accept outside of Europe. However, there is a strong correlation between neo-Marxian cultural mores and his speeches and words..
I do not think that this is a political red herring. I think when taken in conjunction with his membership of a church that is intertwined with liberation theology, which is grounded in Marxist and Socialist thought, it reveals something fundamental about Obama’s character.
kolby: right, point taken.
Je: Well put, my friend. However, I still disagree that Obama is calling for the rural, blue collar worker to conceive of their true class consciousness, or their place in relationship to the means of production.
If you read the speech, Obama is stating that it’s, essentially, the government’s fault for letting the economy slip, and it’s the government’s fault for leaving these people out to dry. This is sort of the polar opposite of Marxist rhetoric, which calls for a bottom-up solution. Obama’s “implications” are typical of modern America liberal neo-Keynesians.
There’s nothing for these people to awaken to, other than the fact that they should vote for Obama and he will try to raise their standard of living.
There’s a big difference between Social Democrats and Marxists. It’s fair to say that Social Democrats have some traces of Marxist philosophy; but any person who advocates any sort of social security or government intervention does. The difference, which is wide and deep in between, is that Marxists favor revolutionary means to correcting the system; Social Democrats are peace-loving Swedes.
To put in simply:
Marx = Communist
Obama = Democrat
“I think when taken in conjunction with his membership of a church that is intertwined with liberation theology, which is grounded in Marxist and Socialist thought, it reveals something fundamental about Obama’s character.”
That he’s more socialist than the average democrat, that’s all. “Calls of Marx” are indeed a red herring, unless of course you think Obama will instigate some sort of Proletariat revolution.
“However, there is a strong correlation between neo-Marxian cultural mores and his speeches and words..”
How so? I’m sure that someone could stretch and make a soft argument for that, but I would have to disagree with “strong correlation”….or any correlation for that matter.
I’m sure I have some sort of correlation between my personal philosophy and that of Plato, Aristotle, Marx, Engel, Nietzsche, Locke, Hobbes, and all the others. If you pick out a quote from any given sentence, I’m sure you could find some sort of correlation. But as the age-old adage goes: correlation isn’t always causation.
@ Charles
Exactly. this election is about Political correctness more than the issues. It’s ridiculous. The corporate media has made sure that there is no real intellectual debates for all to see. I guess things are so bad, people must be afraid of rocking the boat.
Bill Kristol, son of Irving Kristol, neoconservative= former liberal, Troskyite. An inherent foe of Communism, but supports socialism and internationalism. (Language these days really needs to be defined. I mean come on, neoconservative? They are not conservative. Neo? Sure, But not conservative.)
You’re quoting a man who helped found PNAC. Helped sell “compassionate conservatism” to the American public and media. With friends like Rupert Murdoch, Robert Bartley, and William Buckley Jr….. Kristol, a war hawk who in part has taken control of US foreign policy. Closely allied with ZOA and AEI. Can you say the Irving Kristol Award? His right-hand man is Robert Kagan and close friend of Ellitot Abrams, son in law of Norman Podheretz. Just think: ‘Committee of the Present Danger’ and ‘While America Sleeps’.
My point? Don’t listen to that guy.
Obama, communist? well…
Hope? Hope in what? Government? Must be…because that’s what his plan is: to increase the size and scope of government. Think it will work? I don’t . Sounds like the same old story.
The New Frontier Part II
It’s a continuation of the Progressive/Social Democratic movement that takes what America has and with it will claim to make want and suffering disappear.
What is Obama seeking? Power. And he will use it. Hope? Yeah I am hoping he doesn’t mess up too bad. The only trust I have is in people. Not Obama or the government he intends to run. I say good luck.
Trust Democrats because they are not Republicans?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12092006.html
Obama’s right, it’s time for a change, but I don’t see him bringing it. If he takes office he has big shoes to fill. He has raised hopes. It will be intersting to see how he intends to fulfill them. Because if he doesn’t we may have a much bigger problem on our hands.
When he starts denouncing imperialism in a real principled way and doesn’t repudiate comments that he didn’t even make…..I will take him into further consideration. He is afterall, seemingly, the most dovish of the three top candidates, so if you vote, it’s who I would recommend even though I am not voting for him. Why should I?
Why should I?
If you don’t that’s one more vote that will count for Mr. 100moreyears, right? If you’re so anti-war and dovish, can you not settle for the lesser of two evils? Or is that immoral to you?
(no caustic overtones; It’s a serious question)
its a good question. one that deserves more attention than it gets. people who claim that if you didn’t vote you have no right to claim are not honestly representing the sentiments of many people. like ventura asked, where’s the “none of the above” option on the ballot?
what is representative government if it doesn’t follow its own laws?
mccain won’t win because i won’t vote. he will win because people voted for him, or against someone or something. the same goes for obama.
how many people actually support these people for their policies? how many are voting to play the game? how many aren’t voting?
and those who do vote, what are their reasons?
i think that if one is to be mindful of a democratic process these questions are valid. not voting is a perfectly responsible thing to do when it represents someone’s political affiliation. i.e, none of the above.
McElroy has a good point, Act Responsibly: Don’t Vote!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy37.html
oops, accidentaly hit the delete button as i posted. but i think you should be able to interpret the first paragraph ok.
Well, it is your choice. Apathy, as to who wins, is a political decision. I don’t think it’s a very good one. That’s just my opinion, though.
Perhaps the bigger problem, as you’ve alluded to, is people voting simply to vote, not really knowing why their voting. More than half the people who vote had already caste their ballot long before any particular individual was nominated.
hey, i still have my political opinions even if i don’t vote. voting by ballot is not the only way people vote either. the market is a much more intricate voting system.
you are claiming it is apathy? i don’t see that.
it is not lack of interest, but rather just the opposite.
“people voting simply to vote”
how does that line go?
“what if they gave a war and no one came?”
don’t people realize a third party candidate won’t win? aren’t they throwing their vote away? why not vote for someone who could actually win? then they are not throwing their vote away! why wouldn’t they want to be on the winning team?!
It’s not about being on the winning team. It’s about making sure the better of the two win — since it’s safe to say that one of them will win.
I don’t really want to argue over this, though. If you don’t want to vote, that’s fine by me — it’s your choice.
Apathy was perhaps the wrong word. By you not voting for a particular candidate you essentially give more votes to the other, since you don’t cancel out a voter of that candidate. That’s indirect participation; just like all the people who voted Perot. You’re right.
i don’t want to argue either, but the arguments are debatable.
when each person raises a new point the opposition should represent a new counter.
we’re not fighting, we are representing different viewpoints, both of which are held by many people on many sides.
i won’t claim to know of all the ammo at my disposal, but i am trying.
(any help would be much appreciated)
“it’s safe to say that one of them will win.”
again. considering my own political views I couldn’t vote ‘for’ something that I ‘don’t agree’ with.
ever heard of people getting the government they deserve?
“By you not voting for a particular candidate you essentially give more votes to the other”
there is no way to prove this. if I voted for someone then that person gets one more vote. that’s all. you have no way of knowing what other people are doing or who they might vote for if they decided to.
(also, i have been promoting a republican candidate while bashing another republican, in this sense I may have been indirectly helping the democrats anyway, there is no need for me to actually vote on top of it all)
how about just making voting mandatory? this would solve this current debate.
you could have the de facto direct democracy that would ensue if everyone voted. of course, this will just create a new problem.
are we any better off?
if the whole world voted in a direct democracy who would be in charge? the chinese and indians maybe?
considering my own political views I couldn’t vote ‘for’ something that I ‘don’t agree’ with.
Right, I tried to acknowledge that earlier. I concede that point.
“By you not voting for a particular candidate you essentially give more votes to the other”
there is no way to prove this.
If you voted this year, I am predicating you’d vote for Obama. In that case, a vote for McCain would be nullified. If you don’t vote, that vote for McCain stands as is. This scenario is, of course, ceteris paribus, right after you caste your vote. It’s just a simply hypothetical time freeze analysis.
how about just making voting mandatory? this would solve this current debate.
It would, except for people who’d rather pay a fine.
and such is the inherent problem with government (force) and voting.
consider donations and charity. if i give money to one cause…does that mean i have done anything at all to another?
i wonder how many people have read anything like anthony gregory’s “our enemy, the presidency”. it’s time more people start talking about secession, or delaying the election process…something….
if the majority of people are not satisifed with the choices, let alone who the president will be…what’s the point of having an election
can you really believe 60 million people voted for bush. and why?
it’s hard to believe that somehow one man is able to represent 300 million people. it just seems ludicrous.
maybe it would help to look at the ten planks of the communist manifesto and match them with what we now have in America and then contrast this with what Obama proposes. Where does he stand? Will he empower the system or prohibit it?
oops, here’s the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#10_Planks_of_the_Communist_Manifesto
you will see the economy is the most important subject.
Yes, Jesse, true. He has some “similarities” to a Marxist proponent. That’s it. He ain’t Marxist; he’s an American Liberal (the most Liberal, by the way).
Of course being a Marxist is a problem. Marx based everything on a ridiculous concept called the “labor theory of value.” Throughout his life, he promised to explain how this theory was not a fallacy and he finally died not having tried. The labor theory of value is ridiculous and, even worse, it leads to the “slavery theory of labor,” which history has taught us is true.
It is scary that there are people who are Marxists and have driver’s licenses. It makes me want to drive more defensively.
“It is scary that there are people who are Marxists and have driver’s licenses. It makes me want to drive more defensively.”
Amen to that, Robert. Marxist Motorists scare the living hell out of me. You never know with those people.
So, with that being said, you can imagine the suffocating fear that overcame me when I found out that Barrack Hussein Obama was a Marxist.
Marxist behind the wheel and behind the desk in the Oval Office? Are you freaking kidding me?
God help us……
that’s exactly it robert.
not only is the labor theory of value flawed due to false premises, but marx wasn’t even consistent in his definition of capitalism!!
reminds me of this article, “rothbard on war”
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rothbard_on_war.html
(speaking on the progressive period)
“So what you have is the so-called commodity sections – the government boards selected from the biggest businessmen in the industry and they fixed prices and production and priority and everything else with other committees set up by the same big firm, and everyone loved it. Big businesses loved it, the government loved it and the Progressive intellectuals – as they were called then – said, this is a magnificent third way, a “middle way” as they called it – to battle the old laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand, and the new Proletarian Marxian socialism on the other.
They didn’t like the idea of Marxian socialism because it was messy, emphasized class struggle, and led to a revolution perhaps. What they saw here was a new order – and this was a vision held by Baruch and Hoover and all sorts of Progressive intellectuals from the universities and so forth – they saw a beautiful new order with big government controlling the economy, regulating it, subsidizing it, largely staffed by big businessmen in collaboration with unions, which were deliberately encouraged as disciplinary agents for the labor force, and which were practically created by the war labor system. All this of course was staffed and apologized for by the Progressive intellectuals, who acquired prestige, power, and a great sense of accomplishment pushing people around in their government bureaus.”
a few good bumper stickers
(warning: some bad language)
http://www.libertystickers.com/left_and_right.htm
“Wall Street Funded Lenin and Trotsky ”
“Rockefeller Foundation: Funding Revolutionary Leftists Since 1913″
“Republican: A conservative who still hasn’t figured out that his leaders are a bunch of ex-Trotskyite Commies”
“Does it Count as an Abortion If a Republican Drops a Bomb on a Pregnant Woman?”