(The substance of government and tax policy under the Democrats and Senator Obama is not Marxist.)
I don’t know what planet you’re from that you would confuse (unless you’re doing it on purpose you troll) Obama’s redistribution scheme to Keynesian economic theory. He’s not saying he wants the government to spend us into a recovery, like what Keynes would recommend. His brilliant move is to call redistribution a “tax cut”, and to promise that nobody making under $250K will be affected. However, when you give a tax cut to someone who does not pay taxes, that is called redistribution. Also, most people making over $250K own businesses, and have therefore much more leeway to cut production, or do something with the many business deductions they are allowed, to shield most of their income from the tax man. Most of the money that government can get its paws on relatively easily, is in the middle class. That’s people making over $100K. That’s the real target. Obama wants to tax success and distribute the money to people who have not earned it to buy their vote. If that’s not socialism, nothing is.
Socialism, Marxism, and Senator Obama’s tax policies are substantially different things. I think someone else pointed out earlier in the thread that we are dealing with a redefinition of terms, hybrid policies, and pseudo ideologies. Obama’s scheme for the distribution of wealth lacks the ideological and organizational “dialectics” of Marxism and the deep market controls of socialism. It’s just not a classical example of either.
Look, the preface of Obama’s economic policies is to sit on top of capitalist free-markets, and, in Keynesian fashion, trim those successful bits of capitol from the top and distribute them elsewhere. Calling this socialism is a relativist’s argument; there are definite controls in socialist societies eliminating free markets entirely, not just in theory, and it’s not just in part, but as a complete domination of the market place. Partial intervention is partial intervention and “rounding up” to the next available theory doesn’t make an assertion objective.
Maybe we’re just splitting hairs (or maybe you’re trolling me?).