Replies

Obama is FAR more dangerous than Gore or Kerry. He is disarmingly charismatic and has a sophisticated marketing machine like no other selling him to the people. And they are still buying, in spite of the numerous times his true agenda has slipped out. If Springsteen thought for a moment that it would be HIS money and mansion that would be divvied up in fairness to the people, he’d run the other way. But as one of the elite, he has no worries.

sophisticated marketing machine like no other - - MOVEON.org people are running his campaign.

Courtesy Comment:

Somehow Obama and his elitism remind me of Lenin and the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution of Russian.

Way too many people are casting their allegiance to the materialistic side of America and not its traditions.

Obama like Lenin has no use for America's traditions as they only impede his real reasons for wanting power.

Please allow me to post and item snippet from the Internet and see if you to think that it reminds you of what can happen in America and a parallel to Obama and Hillary and liberalism.

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/lecture7.html
Lecture 7

The Aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution

The initial triumph of the Bolshevik Revolution at the end of October, 1917 (see Lecture 6), did not mean that the entire population of Russia had been converted to Bolshevism. Lenin was aware of this. To gather national support, Lenin resorted to slogans for the masses. The most important of them was “Bread, Land, Peace and All Power to the Soviets.”

SNIP

There are parallels between 1917 and the French Revolution. Those who guide the revolution feel responsible for the success of the revolution. They know that their failure is also the failure of the revolution as a whole. The revolutionaries are the prophets and martyrs of social and political change. They bear the responsibility.

SNIP

Those who were not Bolsheviks were indignant when they witnessed this unconstitutional act. Just the same, there was no public outburst. Why the delegates did no more than weakly protest is clear: the Bolsheviks had already taken action on what interested the people most — Bread, Land and Peace. Were the Russian people ready for democracy? Regardless of how we can answer this question one thing is clear — Lenin made it impossible for the Assembly to meet.

SNIP

Meanwhile, the government subjected the countryside to severe requisitioning. It mobilized the poorer peasants against the kulaks (wealthy peasants). Bitter class hatred resulted in the villages and stimulated a civil war in the countryside. Lenin knew he had to act.

SNIP

This much said, what about totalitarianism? This is clearly a 20th century phenomena. A totalitarian regime is one in which the state has absolute power over its people. It does not mean one man rules all. It does mean, however, the absolute and total rule by one group of men or party. Total control in this case is based upon propaganda, the creation of myth and the CULT OF PERSONALITY. What made total control possible was technology, specifically communications and transportation. You cannot maintain total control unless that control reaches out to every individual, whether subject or citizen. Furthermore, whereas fascism sits to the right of right and is therefore considered reactionary, totalitarianism sits to the left of left. In the case of Soviet Russia, this meant communism.

SNIP

Under NEP, the government stopped its policy of requisitioning the peasants’ entire crop and instead began to take only what was needed to meet the minimum requirements of the army and urban workers. The peasants were still forced to pay a heavy tax in kind but they were now allowed to sell the remainder of their crop. They could sell either privately or to the state. In a word, peasant agriculture became capitalist and the profit motive reappeared. With NEP, the earlier policy of war communism was abandoned. In the end, NEP helped the rich peasant at the expense of the poorer peasant, who now became a hired, landless laborer.

SNIP

In opposition to Trotsky, Stalin maintained that socialism was possible within one country. An independent socialist state could indeed exist. This did not mean that Stalin abandoned the idea of a world revolution. What it did mean is that until the world revolution did take place, Russia would have to serve as the world's shining example of socialism. In international affairs, this doctrine allowed the Soviet Union to pursue a policy of “peaceful coexistence” with capitalist states when necessary. Of course, this also meant that the Soviet Union would support socialist revolutions whenever possible. Stalin's idea of “socialism in one country” gave inner strength to those communists who had doubts about the prospects of a world revolution. And while Trotsky continued to argue a western Marxist version of the future revolution, Stalin convinced everyone that the revolution in socialism that he himself had helped to create was a Russian idea, thereby bolstering his overtly nationalist posture.

| Table of Contents |

| The History Guide | Feedback |