I proposed this exact question in another thread, but I got no answers. As a true red Socialist, I can't take it anymore. These people that have no idea what Communism or Marxism is, keep calling this corporate fraud of a POTUS (Obama) a communist. Here is the 2004 presidential platform of the Communist Party USA. I challenge anyone here to point out any one of these "demands' that Obama has actually tried to push in any legislation or support.
I imagine it's simple illogic. I do not like Obama. I do not like communism. I do not like lavender. Therefore Obama is a communist who smells like scented soap. Bringing policies into it is far too reasonable.
I have to agree. If anything I see Obama as an extension of the Bush presidency. Not much has changed and if anything it's just been along the same lines as what Bush was doing. He has done a few good things, I know he has I just can't think of them off the top of my head. Still we're on the same course we were before: crony capitalism, war, mass deficit. As for the communist party proposals, I have to say I just can't see that working. There are some very good foreign and domestic points but it sounds like they would either run companies out of the nation or into the ground, as in either or per company not one or the other in general.
I agree, I'm no communist, but it drives me crazy when they call Obama a communist. He is nothing of the sort. If anything he's a corporatist like the rest of our politicians.
- End racial profiling. - Repeal the death penalty. - Enforce civil rights laws and affirmative action. lol.
The problem is that liberals don't read Mises. Mises in his essay "On Socialism" claims that Statism is Socialism. Another quote: This definition above, as given by mises, represents the primary definition that Conservatives use for the term "socialism". It is far more nuanced than the ignorant single line defense of "workers owning the means of production". To the ignorant, only if workers are joined in a collective and actively own all the means of production is it "Socialism" which is bull (*)(*)(*)(*) according to modern economic theories by giants like Mises. I don't agree with Mises on alot, but I do agree with his belief that socialists are attempting to slowly, piece by piece, coopt the means of production. If they can't outright take away the private property of the bourgeiosie they will use the State to control the most minimal action of the property owners through regulation so that they have de facto control of the means of production. GM for all intents and purposes has been socialized. The UAW and the Government own GM, not any shareholders of any worth or value or have any significant influence within GM. It is a socialist combine now.
I would say Obama supports almost their entire agenda........as would any Statist..... ......thats probably why The Communist Party USA endorsed Obama for the 2012 Elections. http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/329449/ Communist Party USA endorses Obama for 2012! ......just like they did in 2008. [/end thread]
Just because it's not in his power to pass such legislation, doesn't mean he wouldn't. He's doing everything in his power to push us that way. You think if the senate/house passed a bill enacting that platform he'd veto it?
Well, if Obama doesn't have the power to pass a socialist agenda, then I guess he's not as dangerous as you all make him out to be.
In another thread, on the same issue, according to you: Stalin, MaoTzeTung, Brezhnev, Khruschev, Pol Pot, Castro, etc., etc., etc., were NOT Communists. How does one continue to discuss the issue with a person so far out of touch with REALITY as that ?!? Obvious answer: YOU CAN'T !!! Sayonara.
