Monday, October 20, 2008

Socialists: Obama No Socialist


An image making the rounds in the rightwing blogosphere


By Rex W. Huppke
Chicago Tribune staff reporter
October 20, 2008

These are hard times to be a socialist in America. And not just because there's a bourgeois-bloated Starbucks on every other corner, thumbing its capitalist nose at the proletariat.

No, it's tough these days because you've got politicians on the right, the same guys who just helped nationalize the banking system, derisively and inaccurately calling the presidential candidate on the left a socialist. That's enough to make Karl Marx harumph in his grave.

Local communists, rarely tapped as campaign pundits, say Sen. Barack Obama and his policies stand far afield from any form of socialism they know.

John Bachtell, the Illinois organizer for Communist Party USA, sees attempts by Sen. John McCain's campaign to label Obama a socialist as both offensive to socialists and a desperate ploy to tap into fears of voters who haven't forgotten their Cold War rhetoric.

"Red baiting is really the last refuge of scoundrels," Bachtell said. "It has nothing to do with the issues that are confronting the American people right now. It's just a big diversion."

Of course that's just one man's opinion. (And everyone knows you can't trust a communist.)

The "s-word" bubbled up from the McCain campaign after Obama said, in his chat with Joe the Plumber, that he thinks "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Well, that certainly sounds like the words of a Red Menace. But is it socialist?

There are about as many definitions for socialism as comedian Jeff Foxworthy has for the term "redneck."

So, how do you know if you're a socailist?

Generally, it involves espousing government control over a country's basic industries, like transportation, communication and energy, while also allowing some government regulation of private industries.

"Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "I think it's hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks."

And this from Bruce Carruthers, a sociology professor at Northwestern University: "Obama is like a center-liberal Democrat, and he is certainly not looking to overthrow capitalism. My goodness, he wouldn't have the support of someone like The Wizard of Omaha, Warren Buffet, if he truly was going to overthrow capitalism."

Bottom line: pure capitalism and socialism can be a difficult mix.

Which hits at the heart of the problem. Right now, with the economy in the tank, the idea of a little wealth sharing doesn't sound so bad to people whose 401k plans are worth less than the contents of their coin jars.

"The idea of closing that wealth gap, I think, is a concern for many, many Americans," said Teresa Albano, editor of the Chicago-based People's Weekly World, a communist newspaper. "I don't think people are going to respond negatively to the idea of spreading around the wealth."

Which is not to say that, by electing Obama, the country will gamely head down the path of socialism.

"The whole point of his policies don't really represent the political economy of the working class," said Robert Roman, who edits the newsletter of the roughly 250-member Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. "Obama's going to be a person who represents all of us, he's going to be representing the interest of the capitalists as well as the working people. He's not really talking about transforming society beyond capitalism."

But don't worry, Sen. Obama. You're still likely to win the vote of avowed socialists.

"Having Obama as president would be greatly superior, from our point of view, than having McCain as president," Roman said.

And you can expect to see that quote in a McCain ad in 5, 4, 3, 2....

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gosh, asking the disgustingly wealthy to contribute a relatively insignificant percentage of their income in order to help the poor is just WRONG. Right... ;\

Anonymous said...

haha i didn't read anything about ASKING...furthermore it's their percentage who are we to take it from them? lol

Dick Savage said...

No, Obama is not a Socialist, however, relative to anything we've seen for a long time, he is rather "socialistic." By which I mean he will probably take us farther in that direction than we've been since the late 30s.

I myself am about 2-3 clicks to Obama's left, but I see him as our best, well, hope. I think that real Socialists should take advantage of the situation and make some strategic inroads into the electoral system, like achieving serious campaign reform, and arranging for equal coverage in the press, and to participate in electoral debates, so that they can get their message out, and in some not too far in the future election, elect somebody. Socialism would also benefit by spreading its message coached in terms that will best ingratiate itself to a brain-washed population which has lived almost a century under anti-Communist Capitalist propaganda, and so cannot tell on which side its bread is buttered. If you explain Socialism to people, without using the name, they tend to like it! People LIKE getting something for their money! Don't scare them away!

I am very friendly to Socialism, yet, writing constructively and politely critical letters recently to reps of a couple of branches of the Socialist Party, I got completely ignored (read "dissed") by one, while the other replied that he positively wasn't interested in anything I had to say! Now THAT'S no way to cultivate members! It's no wonder they are utterly failing to make a dent, much less a revolution.

The problem I see is that Socialism is sclerotic. It is so bound up in it's language and rhetoric and history, that it can't even discuss politics with anyone else.

I would LIKE to see the range of incomes reduced to 1:10 (in the USSR it was 1:5), in a society where even the poorest are guaranteed decent food, shelter, clothing, jobs, transportation, education, medical care and retirement, and I don't care what the system is called. The rich, being at the top of a narrow scale, could STILL afford the best, basically, while even the poorest could afford every essential, because all goods could be priced as such along that 1:10 scale. And the majority of the wealth of society, i.e. the financial product of labor, formerly co-opted by Capital, would be redirected to pay for it all. And the POWER of society would be redirected to Labor, while the Owning Class would be redirected to administering the economy, according to the dictates of a Social-Democratic government. There would be provisions designed to prevent the Owning Class from re-taking power (limiting their incomes to 10X that of the lowest paid member of the Worker Class would do much in that respect); they would have to settle for prestigious jobs, with some advantages, but without the obscene wealth and power they enjoy today. And I don't care what it is called.

Socialism has to evolve. It has to reinvent itself if it is to ever do the working majority any good at all. Until the Socialist Parties begin to listen to reason, begin to flex a little, deign to at least discuss fitting themselves to modern society, I'll have to throw my chips in with someone who DOE'S understand something about practical politics. Right at the moment, until as good a man arises among Socialists, that man will have to be Barack Obama.