In case the Obama Campaign takes it down, the "Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama" discussion group from Barack Obama's official Campaign Website has been quoted below so that you may review it for discussion purposes. The original webpage can be found here.

Quote:

Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama

This
group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the
election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true
Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party
with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though
the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America
may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these
candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will
be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not
Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions
of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist
States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do
they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he
knows what is best for the people!

Capitalism

By The Chalk Graffiti Terrorist - May 26th, 2008 at 1:02 am EDT

Capitalism
presents an interesting dilemma for the white, upper middle class male,
a demographic that, unjustly, has been and continues to enjoy the
ripest fruits of capitalism.  On the one hand, a person like me (or
anyone else who lives in the economically secure class of citizens of a
capitalist nation, especially America) can sit back and enjoy and take
advantage of the limitless opportunities afforded them.  Thousands of
universities, both domestic and international are within their grasp. 
After that, countless occupations with career paths that could lead
them to even greater heights on the social ladder await.

But
on the other hand, this education afforded them (hopefully) enlightens
them to see the reality of the perverse economic system that got him or
her to the position he now occupies.  He sees a system that takes from
those who have less and gives to those who have more.  He sees a system
that rewards unscrupulous rule-bending and breaking, a system that
attacks the family, moral values, the environment, and even exploits
every experience in life itself for money and profit.  And while often
isolated and removed from poverty and the uncertainty and paralyzing
fear that accompanies it, the enlightened and idealistic youth knows
it’s out there and wants that wrong righted.  And so naturally, the
youth attacks and turns against the system that caused the suffering to
begin with. 

For
the idealistic youth, the one as of yet less polluted and less refined
by cynicism, these are the two options: resigning to the crooked
system, or complete rejection (at least intellectually) of that
system.  But history shows us that rejection of the capitalist order
results basically without fail in a lower standard of living for
everyone, or at least most involved.  So how can the socially-conscious
reconcile themselves to reality?

We must first
recognize that in order to lift the poverty-stricken out of their
economic predicament requires more than redistribution of wealth, for
that alone would result in the stagnancy, inefficiency, and violence of
the failed states or states transitioning to capitalism like the former
USSR, the East European satellite states, Vietnam, Cuba, and China.           

Then,
it follows that in order to defeat poverty, we must create wealth.  And
the system that is most conducive to creating wealth is capitalism.  We
must learn to embrace this part of capitalism, just as Nobel Peace
Prize winner and economist Mohammad Yunus has.  He established Grameen
Bank which extended low-interest loans to the very poor of his nation
of Bangladesh.  This application of microcredit finance is changing the
world and bringing the desperately poor, especially women, up out of
poverty.           

But
at the same time, we can’t just accept the evil side of capitalism. 
The nature of capitalism is to maximize profits, and this is often done
by minimizing expenditure—in short, cutting costs.  And cutting costs
means less benefits, less pay, and poorer conditions for the workers. 
But capitalism has more evil in it than that.  The profit motive drives
the destruction of our environment, it has caused the current
foreclosure crisis, and it exploits and basically enslaves those poor
not protected by legitimate representative government.           

So
we march on, analyzing, thinking, and acting.  We must continue to
refine our mixed market and find a balance between redistribution of
wealth (through a progressive income tax, higher capital gains tax, and
property taxes) and creation of wealth through microcredit, good
education, and low taxes for small business. 

Link | Comments (2)

The Role of Government

By The Chalk Graffiti Terrorist - May 24th, 2008 at 5:08 pm EDT

Oftentimes,
liberals will offer you big government as the solution to a problem.
On the other hand, conservatives will assert that less—much
less—government is the sure fix.  Ronald Reagan would have had you
believe that government is inherently evil, that government is itself
the problem.  But neither of these approaches have solved much: witness
LBJ's Great Society and Reagan's social welfare cuts.  America didn't
destroy poverty in the '60s, nor did less government in the '80s cause
us all to develop better morals.  So what is government's role in
solving the socioeconomic problems, and even crises, facing America?
And yes, we do have crises.  What is happening in the majority-black,
crack-ridden inner city?  There's a war going on, and most of America
doesn't care.  The Katrina victims haven't been properly recompensed,
haven't had their homes, their communities, their cities rebuilt.  And
the working middle class is being ravaged.  Jobs are leaving, homes are
foreclosing, and a way of life is being torn asunder in a silent,
faceless genocide.  

Well let me tell you
what's what: it is not the government's job to funnel billions into a
new program, staffed by more out-of-touch, hapless bureaucrats.  But
neither can the government—and the country it serves—preside idly over
humanitarian and economic crises.  We do not have the option to do
nothing—for we would become monsters, desensitized to any suffering. 
Nevertheless, I can understand someone who is hesitant about the
government going out and trying to “fix the ghetto.”  Those that are
hesitant about such things are not hesitant because they believe those
who live in the inner city deserve an opportunity-less, fearful
existence.  They’re hesitant because although we’ve tried, we haven’t
succeeded, and we’ve run out of ideas besides pumping more money in,
money without any organization or resolve behind it.  We must regain
the people’s trust in spending their money, and we must do this by
spending it wisely and effectively.  We don’t need a
federally-administered “War on Poverty,” nor do we need money taken
away from such vital institutions like insane asylums, Social Security,
or Medicare.  Government is not the solution—people are.  But the
destruction of communities because of disappearing jobs and foreclosed
homes cannot be solved by good intentions alone.  The cycles of
poverty, addiction, recession, and bankruptcy are indeed vicious, and
they are also often strong and seemingly endless.  These things cannot
be fought just by nice thoughts if we intend to succeed on a broad
scale.  There must be force behind effort, not just willpower on the
part of a few, but conviction and action by the many.  This is a
sentiment Sen. Barack Obama has been emphasizing during his campaign. 
This action will not succeed if not taken up collectively.

What
I’m saying in short, is that the most effective ways to deal with
poverty, declining economic opportunity, and community rebuilding
originate from within the community.  And the most efficient way of
administering these solutions is by and through the community.  But one
of the unfortunate parts of this approach is that community programs
often lack breadth, their ability to reach many, because they lack that
one important resource that frequently determines whether a program
will last or perish—money.  And that is where we need great
politico-economic innovation: combining the fantastic depth and
effectiveness of community programs with the more-encompassing breadth
and monetary resources of a federal or even state program.

Governments
must cease to be a bureaucratic parasite that takes large percentages
of our income and then swallows it up to be wasted, misappropriated,
and disappear into ineffective committees and useless federal oversight
programs.  Instead, government must be a tool that like-minded
individuals can use to confront—and defeat—a problem bigger than
themselves.  

Link | Comments (2)

...

The Nature of the Proletariat

By Adam Roberts - Feb 27th, 2007 at 5:10 pm EST

According to Marxist doctrine, the proletariat is the only class that
can overpower and vanquish the oppressive bourgeoisie.  The
petty-bourgeoisie was to schismed and could not possibly be organzed
into a revloutionary force.  The peasntry was to far scattered along
geograhpical lines and therefore could also never be orgainzed to
topple the bourgeoisie.  This, however, was in the 1800's.  It would
seem that this is no longer the case. 

In America, the
"pesantry" is not scattered from each other but rather seem to be
isolated in certain high-population areas.  The peasantry, though, has
historically failed as a revolutionary device.  Mao Tse-tung took
advantage of the egregious amount of pesantry for his Revolution, and
all that emergred there was a deformed workers state.  Was this due to
the pesantry though?  Perhaps, but it is important to remeber that the
Red Revolution actually succeded with in the Proletariat Revolution,
and failed due to Lenin's pathetic abandonment of Marxist philosophy. 
Also from here emerged a deformed workers state, unable to even attempt
communism.  So the peastantry may actually be an able mobile for the
Revolution, and Maoism may have only failed due to his adherence to
Lenin and Stalin's corrupted and twisted "marxist" philolosphies.  To
nix the idea of a Peasant Revolution is far from logical.

This then leaves the Petty-Bourgeoisie.  Are they a possible force of a
Revolution?  I believe so.  Not because I think that they could on
there own, but because of the fact that they seemed to have assimilated
with the Proletariat.  It is no secret that the Proletariat, at least
in Marx's defintion of it, is no longer in existence.  Long gone are
the days of Industrial workers organizing themselves against the
malicious Bourgeoisie.  Now, due to the fact that the Bourgeosise have
ascedened only higher since Marx's time, the bourgeoise have abaonded
what little of the petty-bourgeoise that sided with them.  They are far
above the Petty-bourgeoisie, the Proletariat, and of course the
Pesantry.  Because most of America is now apart of the growing "service
industry", the Proleatariat and the parts of the Petty-Bourgeoisie have
assimilated now into the Neo-Proletariat.  This is essenstially the
ever struggling and disregarded middle class of America.  Not the
idealistic 'American Dream' Middle class, but the Middle class that
must struggle each day with its family and lives on a pay-check to
pay-check basis.  Although nothing physical is now 'produced' as the
proleatriat did, service is produced and is exploited by the
bourgeoisie in an eerily similar manner to the near extinct
proletariat.  The middle class is now made up of the laborers who must
face the grueling task of providing the bourgeoisie with power and
capital.  This assimilation only proves that the Revolution is
inevitable.  Eventually, the bourgeoisie controlled government will
fail to keep the evergrowing masses at bay, and the Revolution will
occur.  The Bourgeoisie is locked in an eventual self-destrcution due
to their own greed.  The more they attempt to gain Capital, the more
they reap the fruits of the Neo-proletarians labor.  The more they do
this, and the more society adavances technologically, the more the
classes will assmilate.  This, of course, leads to more and more
dissent until finally the pot boils over and the Revoluiton occurs. 

The Neo-proleatarian is now the bearer of the Revolution.  Thats why I
support Obama.  He helps destroy the paradigm of bourgeoisie
government, which is best for the Proletariat.  In the end, this will
only hasten the Revolution even if the Revolution must come as a
massive goverment reform.

Link | Comments (9)

Content
on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members
and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the
campaign.

End of Quote