No, Obama is not a Socialist, however, relative to...

2009-01-27T01:22:22.916-08:00

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.

haha i didn't read anything about ASKING...further...

2008-12-03T06:53:28.566-08:00

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

Gosh, asking the disgustingly wealthy to contribut...

2008-11-24T20:58:27.701-08:00

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

Comments on Burning Cane: Socialists: Obama No Socialist

No, Obama is not a Socialist, however, relative to...

haha i didn't read anything about ASKING...further...

Gosh, asking the disgustingly wealthy to contribut...