Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and Obama

“I don’t get it,” my friend said, shaking his head. “Obama is supposed to be so smart and such a brilliant politician … ”

“So everything he has done or wants to do is a disaster! It’s all opposed by the majority of the American people. Even Democrats are running away from him as fast as they can. If he’s such a great politician, why does he keep doing things most people hate? And that’s not the worst part. When people complain, he calls them too dumb to appreciate what he’s doing for them!”

Why indeed. The answer is deceptively simple: Barack Obama, the president of the United States, is a committed, doctrinaire socialist, and because Marxist philosophy is the foundation of socialism and communism, a Marxist. Many Americans are reluctant to accept this idea, despite overwhelming evidence, for two primary reasons: they don’t want to accept that they helped to elect him, and they’re not really sure what socialism and communism are, or what all the fuss about communism was about.

...When socialists accept that any means are justified to achieve their ultimate goals, they have become communists, and purges of those less-educated and unenlightened begin.

Armed with this knowledge, it’s easy to see why so many are alarmed about Mr. Obama. A brief, by no means all-inclusive, list of his alarming behavior:

(2) The communist cult of personality built around Mr. Obama from his campaign to the present.

(3) His vow to “spread the wealth around” (income redistribution is a hallmark of socialism/communism) to Joe the Plumber.

(4) His blithely uncaring flaunting of public opinion in living very, very large on the collective dime, with posh parties, command performances, golf excursions, frequent flights for “date nights,” and pricey vacation spots worthy of a member of the Politburo.

(5) The unashamed praise of Mao Zedong, a mass-murderer who made Hitler look like a neophyte, by Obama advisor Anita Dunn.

(6) The appointment of 9-11 truther, black racist, and avowed communist Van Jones as “Green Jobs Czar.” Let us not forget the cooing schoolgirl longing from Obama advisor and slumlord Valerie Jarrett in describing Jones.

(7) Obama’s seizure of the means of production in taking over two-thirds of the domestic auto industry, and his lawless dispossession of the shareholders of those companies to the benefit of corrupt unions.

(8) Obama’s reckless and unnecessary shuttering of countless auto dealers, which threw all of their employees and many in related, supporting industries out of work — done, no doubt, to help “the workers.”

(9) Obama’s constant meddling and thuggish tactics in dealing with the financial and insurance industries, and other business, and Republicans, and Democrats, and doctors, and everyone else who disagrees — or looks like they might be thinking about disagreeing — with his policies.

(10) Mr. Obama’s assertion that “at some point, you’ve made enough money,” and his ceaseless class warfare against the arbitrarily chosen “rich” class of those making $250,000 a year or more.

(11) Mr. Obama’s statement to journalist Bob Woodward that America can “absorb” another massive terrorist attack because 9/11 made us “stronger.” (One of the hallmarks of any socialist/communist government is a great deal of lip service paid to “the people,” but no caring whatsoever about individuals. A second is their willingness to expend the lives of millions of their citizens to achieve their goals.)

(12) HHS Secretary Sibelius’ comment that Americans were in for “reeducation” over their obvious lack of appreciation for ObamaCare (communists have “reeducated” untold millions to death). Let’s not mention the grossly false propaganda her agency has released on that topic — blatantly false, big lie propaganda being another communist hallmark.

Why doesn’t Mr. Obama behave as the brilliant politician he is supposed to be? Why doesn’t he move to the center when it’s obvious that he is collapsing his faux Greek-columned temple around the ears of himself and his party? He’s a socialist. He’s a Marxist. Virtually all of his associates, mentors, and friends have been one or the other or both. Who would even think, let alone say and do the things he has done and that he is absolutely dedicated to doing unless they were a single-minded, dyed-in-the-wool, committed socialist?

Socialists and communists always take the long view, which is a result of their unshakable belief that their beloved philosophy cannot possibly fail, and that the only prescription for what others might mistakenly see as failure is more, and more fervent, socialism or communism. Thus public outrage over discovering that every feature of ObamaCare used to sell it was a lie is merely a failure of “messaging.” The proper message delivered to the masses will convince them! The underlying policy cannot be wrong, nor could the masses fail to appreciate it and “The One” if they were only smart enough to understand the proper messaging.

Mr. Obama cannot move to the center. For him, the center is always wherever he is, in that mythical worker’s paradise he so diligently labors to perfect despite the inability of those far less intelligent than himself — everyone — to understand or appreciate his labors.

From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.