“I am not a Marxist”
Posted by Reactionary“I am not a Marxist.” - Karl Marx
My best friend called to talk about the primaries. He is a Democrat and calls himself a liberal. The Presidential race came up and I stated that I would not vote for Barack Obama, who I described as a socialist with Marxist associations. My friend protested that I was name-calling and that we couldn’t have a serious discussion if I couldn’t get past the labeling.
Yes, unfortunately, my friend is that predictable - Daily Kos, Keith Olbermann, HuffPo, etc. I don’t understand it (the liberalism), because he’s a smart guy and I’ve known him almost my whole life. The labeling argument, or social reaction theory, is a liberal technique used to disarm critics by preventing them from using stigmatizing terms (just like Marx then - he was above it all, and just like Obama now).
Note Obama’s associations with Trinity Church and Liberation Theology (Marxist), his association with Weatherman terrorists (Marxist), his embrace of the New Party (Marxist) in his first State Senate campaign, and his mentor Frank Davis (Marxist), the ‘Frank’ mentioned in Obama’s book Dreams of my Father.
This pattern of associations shows a high level of comfort with radical socialist ideas and people that I find repugnant and dangerous.
Here’s a nice tidbit from the ‘New Party’, on their website Chicago Democratic Socialists of America:
…the NP’s ‘96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude… Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.
It bothers me that many people have been demoralized and brainwashed to the point that they won’t acknowledge a fact if it kicked them in the ass. Like the Old Moor himself said: “I am not a Marxist”.
Related content:
June 5th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I think it is a little presumptuous to compare him to Karl Marx. I know, you only said he had Marxist “associations”, but let’s be for real. By implication, you can’t vote for him because, you say, he is a Marxist. I would submit to you that he is far from a Marxist, and neither a socialist, any more than John McCain is a fascist. Just because McCain thinks he can spy on other because he is president, regardless of the law, doesn’t mean he wants total control. Just because Obama supports nationalized health care, doesn’t mean he is a socialist/Marxist. Simply put, guilt by association.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
TalmadgeEast - note that fascism is national socialism - I don’t like hardly any kind of socialism.
Also note that the National Journal ranked Obama as the most liberal Senator in the US, more liberal than Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. What is more liberal than a socialist?
June 6th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Explain to me how these associations are irrelevant, then you can make a fallacy of guilt by association argument.
I maintain that his Marxist associations are relevant because they are long-standing (childhood to present), repetitive (why do these Marxists keep popping into his life?), and meaningful (mentors, spiritual advisors, friends).
June 6th, 2008 at 5:46 am
You are the company you keep (excluding family). If he did not believe in or hold true the teachings of these socialist / communist groups then he wouldn’t be around them. I don’t hang out with or associate with people who do not believe close to what I do. The only liberals in my circle are 2 I work with and my sister in law. Obama will destroy, or try to, this country much as Hitler blindsided his country.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Reactionary, you might this analysis of Obama at the World Socialist web site amusing.
Also, your friend does have a point, label swapping “marxist - neocon - dhimmicrat - repug” belongs on the play ground. Among adults, all it does is turn conversations into duck speech. Both of you lost the chance to convince the other of the one true way and/or learn something.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
My best friend is a Reactionary!
O.K. I do read Kos, watch Olbermann and voted for Sen.Obama.
I also read Townhall, watch… O.K. I really don’t watch any conservative Pundits. It’s not the commentary I can’t stand, it’s the yelling. And I voted for … O.K. you got me on that one too.
Call me a Liberal. It’s not what you call me, but the way you contemptuously spit it out, in clear pejorative form, that offends me.
What I am is a staunch Democrat.
For two reasons:
1) Social: Just as I believe that the US of A was formed to provide for a common defense, I believe that it is imperative that we also defend our weakest and poorest citizens.
2) Economic: While I studied Economics, at this point in my life I have forgotten much more of that discipline than I retain. So my thoughts on this matter are much more observational, than academic. But I have yet to see the economic policies of a Republican Administration do anything but weaken the overall US economy.
When I talk to my reactionary friend about politics I want a discourse, an exchange of ideas. What I end up getting is a string of epitaphs & pejoratives.
If two friends can’t have a rational discussion without name-calling, what chance does America have?
June 6th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Fascism is a lot different than socialism, no matter what Jonah Goldberg says. Political/economic liberalism is always opposed by the fascists. Socialism is the managing by the state of certain vital functions, as fascism is state control over all aspects of life. The only comparison to be made, is that both use the state to do what they want. The difference, a socialist does it by a vote. This argument aside, most of Obama’s associations you mentioned above, were made out of political necessity. He would never have been elected to the state senate form the district he was in without them. What should be looked at is his record. Has he proposed bringing back the Soviet Union? Well, he does think we should do more with Cuba. Clearly a Commie. Finally, I must respond to Reactionary’s comments on the National Journal. Putting aside that the Journal is not unbiased (it is a trade magazine, but it leans to the right), according to Time magazine there were exactly TWO “scored votes where Obama took the liberal position and Clinton took the conservative.” But you didn’t tell me what difference those two votes made, Clinton was 16th. Apparently those two votes, on completely respectable bills, made a 15 point difference. Plainly speaking, the National Journal’s methodology is always contrite. The fact is they are the only ones who do such a ranking that is not overtly partisan, so they garner some attention. John Kerry WAS NOT the most liberal senator in 2004 and Barack Obama is NOT NOW. If you want to make some political points with him being labeled #1 by the National Journal, go right ahead, but it is hardly a legitimate one. Anyone with eyes knows he is more liberal than Bernie Sanders!!!
June 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Sorry, I meant to respond to Jo’s comments. Jo you made the statement that yo don’t “hang out with or associate with people who do not believe close to what [you] do.” This is a position if ignorance. One should be able to associate with a liberal if they like. Regulating your companions to people that only feel as you do, insulates yourself from contrary opinion and may help falsely validate what you believe, but it doesn’t allow for a change in those beliefs is something you believe is wrong because there is no dissenting voice. There is a reason I read (and comment on their writings) George Will, Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, and did read Buckley regularly. I consider these people intelligent or good sources of information or both. I am open minded enough to challenge what I believe against what others believe. If I come out wrong, then at least I come out more intelligent. In essence, to the “conservative” thing, and submit what you believe to the free market place of ideas. Who knows??? You might learn something.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Since Reagan’s time Republicans have suffered from an articulation deficit. I’ve heard great clips of Reagan explaining - quite concisely - why certain policies were not in the best interest of our country. Since then Republicans have gotten lazy and the discourse has devolved into labeling (something I don’t pretend to be above doing from time to time!).
The modus operandi for Republicans candidates is to incessantly call their opponent a LIBERAL. But what is a liberal (or a Marxist, etc.)? We all have our own definitions that we apply, but the sheer overuse of such pejoratives by and against disparate individuals erodes whatever meaning they once had to the point where they are empty ideological buzzwords. It is no longer sufficient to just call someone a liberal (or a Marxist, etc.) because those terms have been so broadly applied that they don’t convey the desired information to the populace.
Obama’s relationships with certain individuals bothers me. But I personally think there are substantive reasons based on policies to not vote for him. (I could also say the same for McCain, though) Republicans (well, at least McCain) are going to have to be willing to engage Obama directly on topics like universal/socialized health care (see - I tossed in two labels that are equally applicable and vague, carrying more connotation than fact) and convince voters that he is not the best choice for president.
Do I want someone who subscribes to Karl Marx’s philosophy leading our country? Hell no. But, how much does Obama personally subscribe to Marxist beliefs? I hang out with a number of people who like baseball, but I am not a big fan of the sport myself. I have even associated with a few liberals from time to time! Furthermore, what does Marxist mean to Joe Voter? I bet more people know about Karl Rove than Karl Marx. Why are policies based in Marxism bad for a free country?
Does anyone even know what Obama stands for beyond hope and change? That is where you hurt Obama. He’s brought in droves of supporters by preaching those two desires. But what will happen when people learn about what specific changes he hopes to make? Will they be disappointed to learn that the change they believed in is not consistent with Obama’s vision? Will the prosaicness of reality temper the audacity of hope?
Also, to respond to Talmadge. Making unpleasant associations out of “political necessity” translates to lack of integrity coupled with reckless ambition. It is better to feign ignorance of the negative aspects of your associates than to recognize them, but discount them as some kind of rite of passage.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am
To ‘Your Best Friend’s A Liberal’ (if that’s your real name
and walt (I agree with you about the repugs and dhimmicrats).
These people self-identify as Marxists. How is that name-calling? Marxism is a respected and significant political philosophy. Do you both believe that there is some stigma attached to the word ‘Marxist’? How is that my problem? How can one describe the Weathermen without using terms like radical, Marxist, terrorist.
On reasons. Social: the Constitution says “promote the general Welfare”. My best friend and I may disagree on the how, but the why is clear. Economics: Reagan.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Talmadge East - National Journal IS a ‘trade magazine’; the ‘trade’ they cover is politics. NJ self-describes as “non-partisan”, but outside of the fever swamps I’ve never heard them described as ‘right-leaning’.
Here’s a link to the Time blog ’swampland’ to which you refer:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/what_the_national_journal_libe.html
June 6th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Reactionary, name calling is in the ear of the listener. Leftists have learned to immediately dismiss anything following the word Marxist. To them, use of Marxist outside certain confines is as pejorative as the word “gun snatcher”.
If you want to reach them, re express your message, ask them simply why you should support him. This can lead to useful discussion and/or terminal ennui.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
You accidentally get it right when you say:
“The labeling argument, or social reaction theory, is a liberal technique used to disarm critics by preventing them from using stigmatizing terms…”
You’re oblivious if you don’t see that it’s just as much of a “technique” to apply an inaccurate label with a negative connotation to a person in order to discredit them. Calling Obama a Marxist in the way you do here is like calling McCain a religious fundamentalist on the basis of those who know him and support his campaign.
If you want to be clear and accurate, you have to define the term (in this case “socialist”). Then you have to answer two questions: 1) does Obama fall within that definition? 2) Is that a bad thing?
If the definition of socialist is “knowing some people who call themselves socialists” then the answer to question 1 may be yes, but the answer to question 2 is clearly no. If the defnintion of socialist is “believing that workers should control the means of production” then the answer to question 1 is clearly no and the answer to question 2 depends upon whether you are a socialist or not.
In other words, you are wrong to criticize Obama the way you do because you don’t clearly explain what you mean. You might as well say “Obama is arugula.” And when someone objects reply, “I call people who have eaten arugula arugulas, and we have reason to believe that Obama has eaten arugula.” Obama isn’t a socialist because he doesn’t believe in the basic economic principles of socialism. He is a capitalist because he believes in the basic economic principles of capitalism. He doesn’t want to nationalize industries; at his liberalist, he wants health care reform.