Obama's Website Foments Marxist/Socialist/Communist Revolution

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.