The latest volley between conservatives and socialists over whether or not President Obama is a socialist appeared in a March 14th opinion piece by Billy Wharton in the Washington Post. Billy Wharton is editor of the bimonthly publication, “The Socialist”, which is put out by Socialist Party USA. Wharton’s article examines Obama’s record, point-by-point, and determines, “Obama’s no socialist. I should know.” Wharton further concludes that Obama is only a socialist, “in the imaginations of an odd assortment of conservatives.”
Wharton’s article is in part responsive to news from Feb 27th that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a prominent Republican with conservative credentials, called President Obama “the world’s best salesman of socialism.”
Indeed, some socialists, such as Brian Moore, the Socialist Party USA 2008 presidential candidate, have nearly teased that some of Obama’s proposals – such as a cap on executive pay – are a step towards socialism. (See post/press release here. ) Though, most socialists tend to disagree that Obama is a socialist, and disagree with Obama’s overall program for the country.
In a September 2008 article at the website Human Events, David Schaich, Socialist Party Campaign Clearinghouse Coordinator, said it quite bluntly, “The idea that Barack Obama is socialist, or quasi-socialist, or semi-socialist, or socialist-light, or anything of the sort, is far-right nonsense. Barack Obama, like John McCain, is very much a ‘politician as usual,’fully committed to the continuation of the capitalist system and the expansion of its empire.”
In the Washington Post, Billy Wharton says:
…A New York Times reporter recently pinned Obama down with the question, “Are you a socialist, as some people have suggested?” The normally unflappable politician stumbled through a response so unconvincing that it required a follow-up call in which Obama claimed impeccable free market credentials…
…The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat — one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.
The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system…
…The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us [socialists.] That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy — health-care bills. Obama’s plan would do the opposite…
[Obama would leave troops in Iraq and expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.] A socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops…
…The president has, however, been assigned the unenviable task of salvaging a capitalist system intent on devouring itself. The question is whether he can do so without addressing the deep inequalities that have become fundamental features of American society…
52 responses so far ↓
1 Nemo // Mar 15, 2009 at 11:05 am
Obama is not a socialist. The author put it best with saying that Obama is simply a politician with the goal of expanding and protecting America.
With elements of socialism already in the U.S., like social security, unemployment and welfare – Obama has not done anything outside of the bonds of those policies.
It’s been reported that they want the IMF to print some sort of currency that would balance the books a bit – maybe that might be the closest thing to socialism – but again – it’s not a direct policy change.
This whole socialist thing is quite silly. People need to look at 100% socialist societies like Cuba & North Korea. Is this what the U.S. is on the ‘brink’ of?
I think not.
2 Rose // Mar 15, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Of course the people who perpetuate the false accusation don’t care if he is or not — and they are too ignorant to know what socialism is. They equate Sweden with Communist China in their tiny NeoCon minds. They merely hope to brand Obama as something most Americans will fear. Since the first accusers come from trailer trash roots, they use trailer trash politics to fight things they don’t understand. They don’t understand a word Obama speaks, and they are Newt Gingrich/Sarah Palin fascists themselves, even though they consider their treason patriotism. Oh well, lucky for America they are self-destructing before they can cause more harm than during the last 40 years under Nixon-Ford-Reagan-Bush1-Bush2-Cheney Axis of Fear & Hate for the Constitution that they swore to protect and serve. Instead, every one of them subverted it. Thanks to our built-in recall mechanism — “elections” — we are off the old road of liars and headed along the road to recovery.
3 mscrib // Mar 15, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“This whole socialist thing is quite silly. People need to look at 100% socialist societies like Cuba & North Korea. Is this what the U.S. is on the ‘brink’ of?”
I think a lot of socialists would take issue with your characterization. Cuba and North Korea are “100% socialist societies?” How is the looting of a country by the ruling family “socialist?”
4 libertariangirl // Mar 15, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I equate Socialism with the redistribution of wealth , which Obama is definately proposing.
5 Ross Levin // Mar 15, 2009 at 1:20 pm
If you’re taxing at any level, you’re generally redistributing the wealth somewhere. That doesn’t mean it’s socialism.
6 libertariangirl // Mar 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I didnt say any taxing was socialism , I said the mass re- distribution of wealth happening now is.
7 Gene Trosper // Mar 15, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I highly suggest taking some time to watch the Vice Guide to North Korea for a real look into how socialism has ruined that nation.
http://www.vbs.tv/shows.php?show=1442318652
8 Floyd // Mar 15, 2009 at 2:32 pm
The wealth was already redistributed upwards over the last 8 years, yet no one cried when that happened. Now that its in theory going to have a slight downward movement people want to whine? I am calling BS.
Anyone who is okay with 99% of the wealth being held by 1% of the population is already arguing from an absurd position. Either that or they must really like fighting the other 99% or the population for the 1% of the table scraps. The wealthy are wealthy because they keep the money, not because they spend it. Wakey wakey, people.
9 Student // Mar 15, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The epitome of Socialism is the care for the worst-off in society and the reorganization of society for the purpose.
Taxation is mass-redistribution of income. If you care, under Eisenhower the wealthiest paid 91% income tax, and the money was used to fight poverty.
Historical wealth-share of the wealthiest Americans:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Share_top_1%25.jpg
Wealth was redistributed by the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the New Deal, Reagan’s 2nd term, and under W. Bush! Bush effectively redistributed wealth in favor of the rich. By the inarticulate definition you gave, that’s socialist. How do libertarians grapple with that?
The New Deal, prompted by a nationwide labor movement, approaches socialism most closely. But, Obama raising the taxes on the wealthiest from 35 to 39.6 % is NOT socialism, it’s not even a mass distribution of wealth.
Obama is too conservative and too restrained by Congress and popular opinion. To be a socialist, he would have to reorganize society significantly: create a national health care system, amend taxation in a historically significant way (say, tax the wealthiest at 50% or more), increase education spending, get rid of homelessness and most unemployment, end the embargo on Cuba, end the discrimination against women and gays through a national campaign etc. Until then, he’s the first liberal president since Carter, charged with countering the Great Recession by getting the government involved… If we listen to fiscal libertarians now, the stock market would crash because they want gov. support, and the lower classes would lack food, clothing, and means of transportation.
10 Trent Hill // Mar 15, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“If you care, under Eisenhower the wealthiest paid 91% income tax, and the money was used to fight poverty.”
Yes, and poverty is gone now–so we can celebrate in Eisenhower’s example….
Wait.
11 Nate // Mar 15, 2009 at 4:26 pm
It’s schoolyard name calling and it’s stupid. Many conservatives and libertarians feel that simply calling anyone they disagree with a socialist somehow solves all the problems in the world. Many socialists respond by calling anyone they disagree with a NeoCon. Eventually both sides resort to calling each other Nazis, which as we all know totally proves your point.
Another problem with the whole socialist concept is it means different things depending on who uses it. The Socialist Party has a rather narrow view, anyone who doesn’t agree with them on most issues cannot possibly be a socialist. I disagree, I feel there are socialists and Socialists, much like many libertarians aren’t Libertarians. But claiming the wish to redistribute wealth makes you a socialist simply puts 90+% of the world into that category, and that seems to me to be spreading the net quite far. The word can mean so many different things that it tends to lose all meaning whatsoever, much as the words capitalist or free trade have no real meaning anymore. Most people are capitalist, free trade loving socialists, and dispise other capitalist, free trade loving socialists. Isn’t it nice to know how similar we all are?
12 Paul Stewart // Mar 15, 2009 at 9:33 pm
The Republicans are trying hard to put a name on Obama that they can denounce. That they can use to seed more division and hate. America is a democracy. Socialism is a totalitarian state. Wake up, this is not a debate. This is a political smear job that is being attempted. It won’t work. Most people that are talking socialism wouldn’t know what it is if it hit them in the face. Indeed there is something that is hitting them and they don’t understand that it is reality. Most sane and normal Americans without a political axe to grind get all this. And the focus should be on how to help Obama and the American people, not how to label him and distract the agenda into the local puddle or saloon. Get on the bus, indeed, get on the shuttle. This thing is going in the right direction. It is simply democracy and capitalism at work. With a social safety net that makes sense for the whole population.
13 G.E. // Mar 15, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Obama is not a socialist; he’s a fascist — just like the National-Socialist GOP… Which is why they won’t use that word.
14 Thomas // Mar 15, 2009 at 10:33 pm
‘mass’ redistribution of wealth? we’re going back to Clinton-era tax rates, you know that right?
it’s a redistribution of wealth just as much as insane tax cuts on the rich, spending a surplus that the middle class helped pay for, was. Was that ‘socialism’ too? Your definition of socialism is pedestrian and ill-informed. ‘Redistribution’ can mean up as much as down or laterally.
15 Gene Trosper // Mar 15, 2009 at 11:14 pm
@9
Your moniker is more apt than you realize. Time to go back and learn some economics.
BTW: I love how you state that under a libertarian economy, “the stock market would crash because they want gov. support, and the lower classes would lack food, clothing, and means of transportation.”
“They” want government support? Who? Libertarians? If you are indeed a student, you surely need a new teacher or a new school because you are being fed some wacked out teachings.
I’m also interested in your statement about poor people lacking food, clothing and transportation. Where is your proof? What about the Great Society programs? Did anyone ever go without food and shelter then? Where there poor people who didn’t own a car?
16 G.E. // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:47 am
Of course, the right wing is oblivious to the fact that Obama’s redistribution is more of the same: from working class to rich… Not the other way around.
Keep fighting over nothing, morons.
17 libertariangirl // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:23 am
exactly what i meant when i said redistribution on a massive scale , like the bailouts to wallstreet
18 Steven R Linnabary // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:45 am
Keep fighting over nothing, morons.
I’m in agreement with GE.
Everyone it seems has a different definition of “socialism”, from the Socialist Party stalwarts to libertarians, and everyone in between.
Heck, we can’t even agree on what a libertarian is! These pages have been the source of numerous rants about whether Bob Barr is “really” a Libertarian!
It appears we are squabbling over semantics. Fighting over nothing, IOW.
PEACE
19 Darryl W. Perry // Mar 16, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Obama is not a socialist; he’s a fascist — just like the National-Socialist GOP… Which is why they won’t use that word.
GE – I agree
Fascist is as Fascist does!
20 Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:04 pm
There’s nothing going on here that isn’t quite well-explained in James Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution (1941) and, so far as I can tell (I’ve only read brief excerpts) The Machiavellians (1943).
21 Ayn R. Key // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Socialism is defined as “more government than we have.” Therefore no matter how much government Obama gives us (or Bush gave us) we never will have Socialism.
22 brandon // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:00 pm
not sure where 21 got her definition. The Socialist Party USA supports worker and citizen control of power systems. Not necessarily governmnet control of the means of production, and certainly not the current situation of corporate control of the government. The issue of definitions is important, if socialism means worker control and citizen control it most certainly doesn’t mean corporate control, or corporate welfare. A planned economy is not necessarily socialist, merely a planned economy. Those looking to N. Korea or Cuba for examples of socialism are mistaken, simply saying they are communist or socialist or democratic means nothing if it isn’t true. Full democracy is implicit in the socialist perspective, anything short of that misses the concept entirely.
23 Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:10 am
Socialism is “worker control of the means of production.” That’s its definition.
Some socialists regard government as possibly a workable custodian on behalf of the workers in exercising that control, but government per se is not an essential element of socialism. There are socialist anarchists, and the argument that their conception of socialism couldn’t possibly work doesn’t change the fact that it is a socialist conception.
As early as a year or two into the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks were already grappling with the problem of “substitutism” — were they genuinely representing the workers, or were they representing their party in a situation which would put them into antagonism with the workers?
By the mid-1930s, the Trotskyites were splitting along factional lines over whether the Soviet Union was a workers’ state, or whether the workers had been superseded/replaced by the Communist Party.
Burnham (one of the leading Trotskyites in America) concluded the latter, about the time he gave up socialism as a bad job entirely. His thesis in The Managerial Revolution was that a new ruling class — the “managers” — was emerging, and that managerialism was superseding both capitalism and socialism (Stalins USSR, Hitler’s Third Reich and FDR’s New Deal being three variant emergent examples).
I have yet to read his The Machiavallians, but my impression is that in it he adopted “managerialism” himself, holding that the best way to forward it was to maintain a nominally free press and a nominally two-party system while bending all policy toward the service of the welfare-warfare state. He went on to press a managerialist agenda both as a founding father of neoconservatism and a heavy influence on Buckley and National Review.
24 Robert Capozzi // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:38 am
GE, ya know people sometimes through that idea that redistribution is UPWARDS, not downwards. But I’ve not seen empirical evidence of the assertion, have you?
Some tax consumers are more affluent. Some are not. Whether in aggregate that’s the case…I’m skeptical, but open minded.
25 Robert Capozzi // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:47 am
Knappster, your definition is the one I use, too.
Particularly in this environment, IF Ls want to differentiate from conservatives, I’d suggest AVOIDING the term “socialist” for Obama. That makes Ls sound like Limbaugh, who has his moments, but is not what I’d want L-ism to be associated with.
“Fascist” is the more accurate term, but is WAY too charged…one thinks of gas chambers.
So, what’s better terminology, especially for the mainstream? Perhaps “big government liberals” and “big government conservatives”. The contrast would be “small government centrists.”
(Anarchists may not like the feel of “small government,” as they want “no government,” but please keep in mind, this is rhetoric for the mainstream, not an Ivory Tower exercise.)
And how about this Tea Party movement? A glimmer of hope?
26 Robert Capozzi // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:49 am
GE, ya know people sometimes (CORRECTION) throw that idea that redistribution is UPWARDS, not downwards. But I’ve not seen empirical evidence of the assertion, have you?
Some tax consumers are more affluent. Some are not. Whether in aggregate that’s the case…I’m skeptical, but open minded.
27 Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:40 am
Bob,
I’m not sure that “rhetoric for the mainstream” is useful.
The “mainstream” is fully locked into the two-party system. Appealing to the “mainstream” is useless. The whole point is to peel people off the “mainstream” and create a new mainstream.
The people who might be peeled off the “mainstream” are the people at the edge of it, open to thinking about leaving it, so they aren’t going to find rhetoric aimed at its center appealing.
I consider the whole “appeal to the center” idea just another “political get rich quick scheme” or faux “silver bullet.”
That doesn’t mean that the appeal must be anarchist, of course, but it must at least include bold departures from the status quo.
If these “tea parties” can break free of the Republican taint, they might accomplish something. Until they do, they’re going to be unpersuasive and seem petulant to everyone who remembers that the GOP was the party of fiscal drunken sailorness for the last eight years.
28 Robert Capozzi // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:56 am
Tom, I guess I disagree that the mainstream is locked into the 2 party system. There is wide discontent with the 2 parties, last I checked.
You misunderstand me if you believe my approach is a silver bullet. It’s not.
I’m unpersuaded that an appeal “must” be “bold.” Obama says he’s “bold,” but, to me, that’s just equals “rash” and “irresponsible.”
Where’s the imperative to be “radical”? Very few want “radical” change, for it’s highly risky…could easily be radically bad!
Here’s my justification for centrism and moderation in the direction of liberty, fyi:
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003726.html
But I do agree that our “low hanging fruit” are those on the edge, those who are MORE open minded.
29 Robert Capozzi // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:03 am
Tom, in addition, have you ever wondered whether “radical” Ls are actually radical? In my experience, they often are quite orthodox, unwilling to engage in REAL radical (to the root) inquiry.
Mises, Rothbard, or Konkin said it, so it MUST be true, has been my experience with “radicals.” How boring is that?! How pedestrian!
Strikes me that a REAL radical thinks for him or herself. This is not directed at you, btw, it’s just an observation of a strong tendency I detect among self-styled radicals, those who prefer to employ Rothbardian shock tactics in the public square.
30 Susan Hogarth // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:12 am
Tom, I guess I disagree that the mainstream is locked into the 2 party system.
I think it may be more accurately described as the 2-party system being ‘locked into’ the mainstream. Like a bloated tick at the neck of American politics. A tick that is not easily removed.
31 Robert Capozzi // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:18 am
Susan, YES!!! well put.
Some (masochists) do protect the tick. Some accept the tick. And some/many would love (intuitively or explicitly) know there’s something very wrong with the tick, and would love to pull the tick off, some way or another.
Cutting off one’s neck, however, seems contra-indicated.
32 Rocky Eades // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:49 pm
@#27, Tom Knapp says: “I consider the whole “appeal to the center” idea just another “political get rich quick scheme” or faux “silver bullet.”
I agreee. So does L. Neil Smith: “Great men don’t move to the center, they move the center.”
33 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 2:52 pm
The author put it best with saying that Obama is simply a politician with the goal of expanding and protecting America.
Only if you equate the regime with America.
With elements of socialism already in the U.S., like social security, unemployment and welfare – Obama has not done anything outside of the bonds of those policies.
It’s a matter of degree.
It’s been reported that they want the IMF to print some sort of currency that would balance the books a bit
How would printing currency balance the books? That doesn’t make any sense.
34 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 2:53 pm
(we’re) headed along the road to recovery.
I don’t think so.
35 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Cuba and North Korea are “100% socialist societies?” How is the looting of a country by the ruling family “socialist?”
Exactly.
36 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 2:59 pm
The wealth was already redistributed upwards over the last 8 years, yet no one cried when that happened.
What do you mean no one? Many of us have talked about it. A lot.
37 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:01 pm
If we listen to fiscal libertarians now, the stock market would crash because they want gov. support
Government support is unlibertarian. If anyone supports this and claims to be a fiscal libertarian, they are deeply confused or lying.
38 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:05 pm
The Republicans are trying hard to put a name on Obama that they can denounce. That they can use to seed more division and hate. America is a democracy. Socialism is a totalitarian state. Wake up, this is not a debate. This is a political smear job that is being attempted. It won’t work. Most people that are talking socialism wouldn’t know what it is if it hit them in the face. Indeed there is something that is hitting them and they don’t understand that it is reality. Most sane and normal Americans without a political axe to grind get all this. And the focus should be on how to help Obama and the American people, not how to label him and distract the agenda into the local puddle or saloon. Get on the bus, indeed, get on the shuttle. This thing is going in the right direction. It is simply democracy and capitalism at work. With a social safety net that makes sense for the whole population.
Excellent job – an entire paragraph without a single accurate statement!
39 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Of course, the right wing is oblivious to the fact that Obama’s redistribution is more of the same: from working class to rich… Not the other way around.
Exactly.
40 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Socialism is defined as “more government than we have.”
Where? I love all these oddball definitions. Knapp has it right.
41 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Not necessarily governmnet control of the means of production, and certainly not the current situation of corporate control of the government. The issue of definitions is important, if socialism means worker control and citizen control it most certainly doesn’t mean corporate control, or corporate welfare. A planned economy is not necessarily socialist, merely a planned economy.
Good point. This is why socialists and libertarians using the two terms as epithets are missing the mark. Here we have some libertarians equating socialism with authoritarianism or fascism, and some socialists equating libertarianism with corporate welfare. Both miss the possibility of libertarian socialism.
42 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:15 pm
people sometimes through that idea that redistribution is UPWARDS, not downwards. But I’ve not seen empirical evidence of the assertion, have you?
Some tax consumers are more affluent. Some are not. Whether in aggregate that’s the case…I’m skeptical, but open minded.
I’ve seen empirical cases made before, but I don’t have a handy link. However, it’s not even as simple as who is a tax consumer directly.
Many of the actions of government indirectly tilt the playing field in favor of the wealthier, better-connected players. It’s the systematic effect that is really the issue.
43 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:21 pm
So, what’s better terminology, especially for the mainstream? Perhaps “big government liberals” and “big government conservatives”. The contrast would be “small government centrists.”
Coercion monopoly maximizers vs. coercion monopoly minimizers. If that’s too complicated, “control freaks” vs. “mutual consent[..ers?]“?
44 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Mises, Rothbard, or Konkin said it, so it MUST be true, has been my experience with “radicals.
I don’t think any of those was 100% correct about everything.
45 G.E. // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Capozi – Of course the redistribution is upwards! Jesus, you are dense. Let’s start with the banking system. From there, let’s move on to the entire body of regulatory law. Both are designed to entrench the elite. You’ve been around enough to be familiar with these truths, but reject them. I’m not going to be your schoolmarm.
46 robert capozzi // Mar 18, 2009 at 4:47 pm
ge, yes, the banking system and regulations tend to entrench and enrich…I get that, of course.
the question I asked is there any empirical evidence that, on balance, redistribution is up, not down,as you asserted.
47 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:57 pm
what downward redistribution can you think of that comes even close?
48 Robert Capozzi // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:07 pm
PC, I can’t quantify OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD how much the banking system benefits the affluent over the less fortunate. How would one prove such a thing?
AFDC and much of SSA are downward. EITC, too.
I’d LOVE to argue that government principally redistributes upwards, but I’m searching for a defensible number, which I’ve NEVER seen.
49 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I’m not sure the exact number is, or can be, known.
But it’s pretty easily apparent that it is massively upwards. I did a blog post about this at some point, I think…I’ll try to find it.
Look through the old posts at Next Free Voice, it might be there.
50 paulie // Mar 19, 2009 at 9:17 am
For starters, see this:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8204
Much more in the “selected articles” at
http://all-left.net/
51 Lauren // Mar 4, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I HATE Economics Class! That’s why I’m here, reading this stuff…on this website.
Also the following is for the person who came up with the idea of an Econ. class for Seniors in High School…
NOBODY cares about Econ.! DEAL WITH IT!
52 Straight .......... // Mar 4, 2010 at 4:56 pm
from real life!
If you do not care or know ’bout econ,
then when ya gets some coin you can
let your financial manager run your
bank account into the ground ……..
Don Lake, whom in 1993, 2000 and 2006
pointed out to property owners
‘hey if your house is now worth twice
as much as just a few, a very few, years
ago, then is it gonna keep on improving
at that rate for ever ?????? No! Hell no!’
and
‘if your stocks are now worth twice as
much as just a few, a very few, years ago,
then are they gonna keep on improving
at that rate for ever ????????? No, hello no!
Leave a Comment