January 31, 2014

Obama the Marxist?

By In Blogs

The GOP base will attempt to lambast Barack Obama for being a Marxist and turning the country into a Communist system.  While I appreciate the enthusiasm and the knowledge that something is amiss, like many things the GOP base claims about the Democrats, it is off the mark.  It is off the mark because the GOP base simply doesn’t understand the bigger picture.  Their framework is tainted and thus their interpretation is tainted as well.

It is a similar problem that the non-Christians (and even many professed Christians) have with their worldviews.  Their worldview, their framework, is bad and thus their interpretation of reality is bad as well.  For instance, consider the following.  Premise 1:  Everything that is true must be proven to be true by testing it empirically and using the Scientific Method. Premise 2: God is not physical and can therefore not be proven with empirical evidence.  Conclusion: God cannot be said to exist and to believe in him is irrational and moronic.

But their entire argument rests on the faulty first premise.  In short, their claim about the necessity of empirical evidence is their problem.  This can easily be seen by considering the fact that the premise itself wasn’t even proven via empirical evidence.  Was the premise of their argument the conclusion of a lab study?

You get the point.  The GOP base suffers from a similar problem.  Consider the following.  Premise 1: Democrats lean communistic and Republicans lean Capitalistic.  Premise 2: Obama hates Capitalism and is a Democrat.  Conclusion: He is a big time Marxist.  Such a faulty argument can be seen through movies like Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016.”  The framework is wrong and thus people are going to misunderstand Obama.

I think there is a more accurate framework to use.  And that is starting with premise that the establishment of both parties, the ones that really have the political power over most of the party members, are socialists, but not Communists/Marxists.  Rather, they are socialists of the old Fabian persuasion.  The Fabians use corporate power.  They love big business.  They believe that the State should subsidize its friends and regulate its competitors.  They want total economic domination, though not by radical and forceful revolution like the Marxists.  In a word, this Fabian style socialism is technically Fascistic.  And both parties operate with the same expansionary vision and are more friends than enemies, despite the media’s portrayal of a “divided” government.  So what is the difference?  The only differences are that each party speaks to a different voter base in language that is convincing to them; and each party has slightly different special interest corporate lobbyists.  But other than that, it is big-government, solid tax revenue, higher spending, more world control, more inflationary monetary policy, more militarism, more regulation and bureaucracy, etc.

Obama/Hillary is no Marxist and Bush/Romney is no Capitalist.  They are socialists of the Fascist stripe.  With this framework in mind, to dislike Obama is necessarily to dislike Bush/Romney/McCain/Paul Ryan/Huckabee (all these guys –and yes, I include Reagan here [sorry]).  And to dislike Bush is necessarily to dislike Obama/Hillary/Kerry/Pelosi.

There is a not politician currently that is a consistent libertarian through and through.  But some Republicans are decent, non-Fascists.  But it is important to remember that this is only true in the last several years because of people like Ron Paul (who is a consistent libertarian).  Among these Republicans are Rand Paul and Justin Amash.  Although, as I said here, I’m not 100% thrilled.  They are good conservatives, not as limited government as they should be. But I digress.

Likewise, the Democrat party has its non-Fascists as well.  One of the most prominent of these is Elizabeth Warren.  She is a communist/Marxist.  She hates corporations.  Obama does not.  He is a Fascist.  Want me to prove it?  First, no Marxist would ever — ever– bailout the banks and big-crony-businesses like Bush and Obama did.  Second, what is Obama’s newest effort to create jobs? This:

President Barack Obama met today with chief executive officers of companies from(BAC:US)Bank of America Corp. (BAC:US) to EBay Inc. who have committed to giving the long-term unemployed a better chance in the hiring process.

More than 300 companies, including retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and automaker Ford Motor Co., have signed a pledge to develop initiatives for hiring and recruiting job-seekers who have been out of work for an extended period, according to the White House.

Twenty-three corporate or small business leaders joined Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to discuss better job training and helping people who have been jobless for years to re-enter the workforce. Among today’s participants were Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan, EBay’s John Donahoe, Boeing Co. CEO James McNerney, James Gorman, CEO of Morgan Stanley (MS:US), and Arne Sorenson, CEO of Marriott International Inc.

Marxists don’t do that.  Fascists do.  As for me, I dislike Socialists of all stripes (progressives and marxists and fascists) and am disappointed with true conservatives to the extent that they are not for limited government (sadly, conservatives these days have some socialistic tendencies).  Some conservative are better than others, but rarely is there a perfectly consistent one (like Ron Paul or the late Joe Sobran).

For more on Fascism, I recommend Lew Rockwell’s new book, available for free at Mises.org

 

 

Written by C.Jay Engel

Editor and creator of The Reformed Libertarian. Living in Northern California with his wife, he writes on everything from politics to theology and from culture to economic theory. You can send an email to reformedlibertarian@gmail.com
  • RA Jameson

    I appreciate this write-up C.Jay. If I may quote Marx, it will not take long to see that in a technical sense, both parties are ‘Marxists’.

    From his Manifesto, “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

    Therefore, anybody that argues for the criminalization of drug possession is arguing from a Marxist framework. Most of them just don’t know it, or haven’t really thought their position through well enough.

    Or when those on the right fight for a tax rate above 0%, they find themselves in line with Marx’s second point: 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    Of if they support the existence of the Federal Reserve: 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    Or, and this one hurts, if they support public schools: 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,

    That is why I think it is good that you took the time to introduce the idea of fascism, because our society is so overwhelmingly Marxist, it isnt even a helpful label any longer.

    That reminds me of my favorite Reagan quote (don’t snicker at the irony), “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

    • cjayengel

      Good point on the whole private property issue. I’m convinced that the United States has produced a unique combination of Marxist and Fascist tendencies unseen in previous empires. In some ways it is a mix between the two. I’m just tired of GOP die-hards squawking loudly “Marxist!!” upon hearing Obama and then following it up with: “WE SHOULDA HAD ROMNEY.” Ugh.

      As for your quote, it is right on. Of all the recent Presidents Reagans words were the most accurate. Unfortunately, words don’t limit governments:)

  • Max McGuire

    I read a quote from Clark in A Christian View of Men and Things today that reminded me of your blog post: “Now, if Plato’s theory is a form of communism, perhaps Aristotle could be called a fascist. The important point is that they are both totalitarian.”