Barack Obama: Marxist Snob
Posted by Political Pyro in 2008 General Election June 20, 2008In an earlier post I described Barack Obama as a Marxist. A reader left a comment so irritating, I had to make a new post…
You are so off base. Obama is just trying to help the little guy. This has nothing to do with Marxism. There is only so many resources in the world and the corporate fatcats are making a profit off of all of our backs. As Michelle said: “someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more. — Mike K
Mike — You say I am off base, yet you provide a quote by Michelle Obama that pretty much sums up the typical Marxist mantra. Unbelievable.
The Marxist/Socialist premise is that success should be punished while the non-producer heaps the rewards. I can’t think of a single country in history that has succeeded by governing with those low standards. I can’t think of a single person who has grown one ounce of pride by living “up” to those pathetic standards.
Have another latte, Obamabot, and wake up to reality.
That’s like telling a child to aim for a “C” in school rather than an “A”. Wonderful advice. Why not encourage someone to strive to do better in life? Why not push the boundaries of our potential rather than just tolerate mediocrity?
As far as the typical scapegoating of unnamed corporate fat cats you describe from your anti-capitalist playbook, why not use a name we can all match a face to? The Marxist/Socialist/Liberal insistence on using these phantom figures reminds me of Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs: “It puts the lotion on its skin.” As long as you don’t humanize your victims, they are easy to destroy.
Let’s try something new. Let’s put a face to these fat cat enemies. Let’s use Oprah Winfrey as an example, she’s worth well over a billion dollars…
Michelle Obama and her Marxist husband want Oprah to “give up a piece of her pie”. The first problem I have with that statement is that it’s not a piece of pie that Michelle wants from Oprah, it’s more like half of it. But why stop there? As long as someone is allowed to decide how much of our money we are allowed to keep, why not take more? 500 million dollars is still more than any one person deserves to have, right? Why not take 90% of her “pie” and leave her with 100 million? As long as you Marxists insist on allowing government to take control over our lives, given unlimited power, I would not be surprised if one of you tried to take that much and more…
But not from Oprah, and not from Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs, or even Tiger Woods. You Marxists will never demonize these people because you approve of the services they provide YOU. That’s the key word to your Marxist movement: YOU. Unnamed corporate fat cats don’t provide YOU with any special services, so YOU choose to demonize them.
Have you ever considered the fact that the CEOs of these unnamed corporations are actually as valuable to their companies and stockholders as Steve Jobs is to Apple? Or Bill Gates is to Microsoft? Of course not! Because it has nothing to do with YOU.
Concerning the so-called windfall profits of Big Oil, George Will revealed: “…with the regard to the excess profits of Exxon, the fact is that in terms of profit relative to total income, Coca-Cola made more money so I want to hear first a windfall tax on Coca-Cola”. However, Marxists aren’t concerned with percentages, only dollars. Unless it’s Barack Obama’s $845 billion dollar Global Poverty Act. No problem!
I don’t doubt you have a kind heart, Mike. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be concerned about the unemployed or the uninsured — even though I bet you have a pretty fat paycheck yourself. The problem is that the remedy to the social ills that keep you up at night will never be resolved by government redistribution of wealth. I know it sounds nice, but just look at your own leader of the Marxist cause, Barack Obama, and think: Did he get where he is through handouts and mediocrity? Or did he work hard and strive to be #1?
If your own leader was able to maneuver through the current system to achieve success, why doesn’t he think you can? Maybe because he thinks he’s superior. Maybe because he, like you, uses the term “little guy” when speaking about proud HUMAN BEINGS…
You Marxist snobs.
You hit the nail right on the head!
Great post!
Keep up the good work!
Ed
Comment by Ed — June 20, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
It is actually rather easy to prove that Obama is a Marxist updated for this century. Look at his economic policies. He wants to tax capital, and use the tax to increase government spending. Attacking capital and increasing the size and scope of government is standard Marxism. How often does he talk about fairness, leveling the playing field, and a new regulatory framework. All of these things are standard Marx. His policies and his statements speak for themselves. That is why I wrote this piece…
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-karl-marx-with-twist.html
Comment by Mike Volpe — June 20, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
OK, maybe you can understand this: Obama would not take the money from people like Oprah, Spielberg, Jobs or Tiger Woods, they entertain us, are artists. We support artists right? The National Endowment for the Arts gives away $160 million in public funds each year! So of course you do.
The fat cat executives at Exxon Mobile Rex Tillerson and Lee Raymond take home $160 million between the two of them! And they do it with their foot on our necks - we NEED oil. Just like we need food and shelter and healthcare. Those people who provide needs shouldn’t get rich at our expense. - Mike K.
Comment by Mike K — June 20, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
“I don’t doubt you have a kind heart, Mike. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be concerned about the unemployed or the uninsured…”
Errrr….not so fast. After reading what Mike said I don’t think you can assume that he is concerned with just *any* little guy….typical liberal Marxist is concerned with HIMSELF….
And that’s why they love BHO…..they want a handout at the rest of our expense….
Comment by christmasghost — June 22, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
I enjoyed hearing the comments of everyone and if I was very wealthy I too may indeed have a cause of concern towards giving away what I have earned. I would like the author and all those in favor to think about what would the end result be if we had our way and retained our hard earned wealth and forced those under us to get their own. What kind of America would we have? I think we would spend more of our dollars to defend our wealth because the truly wealth represent a very small fraction of the country and I believe the masses of uneducated, unexcited, under-achievers would rather try to rebel and take what they do not have. Look at the populations around the world in chaos for not giving crumbs to its people. I reconsidered my view and now feel that i wouldnt mind giving up a few crumbs in order to keep those without the effort in line. Peace to both parties.
Comment by who cares — June 23, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Who cares, we would have something known as capitalism. Capitalism is founded on the principle of competition, In competition there are no points for second place. As such, those at the top are overwhelmingly rewarded. Guess what, ultimately that competition favors everyone because it builds overall wealth. That’s why our economy has a GDP that is greater than the next four countries COMBINED. Talk about fairness and giving away to the little guy all you want, but once you punish those at the very top, you also give less motivation to get there. Once you do that you stunt the spirit of innoavtion and competition that is the foundation of a capitalistic system that has blossomed our economy so much.
Comment by Mike Volpe — June 29, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Mike K, did you just say in your comment that we NEED oil? Yep, I guess you did. Does that mean you are for drilling here in the U.S. (ANWR, North Dakota, Gulf of Mexico and off the west coast), developing shale oil in the western mountain states, and building more refineries? You see, it’s the so called “environmentalist” groups that have blocked every attempt to harvest our own energy supply, which has made us dependent on foreign oil and run the price to a record $147 per barrel today. If you do support opening up domestic oil and natural gas production, there might be something we would agree on. Probably the only thing, but it’s something.
Comment by Johnny Freedom — July 12, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
You clearly don’t know the first thing about Marxism. All Obama is proposing is the mildest form of Keynsianism. If he was a Marxist he would be proposing the violent overthrow of the American state and a world wide revolution from below against the ruling classes everywhere. All he’s talking about is slightly altering the system of taxation.
Also, lumping “Marxist/Socialist/Liberal” shows that you don’t actually have the first clue about what these terms actually mean. As a Marxist myself, I can categorically state that Barack Obama DOES NOT REPRESENT US! I’ve never once heard him talk about the international proletarian revolution, Comodity fetishism, Bourgeoise and Intellegensia or any other Marxist terms. Importantly he doesn’t talk about surplus value or the inherently exploitative nature of labor under capitalism.
Really your analysis boils down to “The guy wants to tax rich people, HE’S A COMMIE! FEAR!”. You’re weak. Your analysis is weak and the system you support is weaker still. Just look atwhats happening to capitalism right now. All these years of de-regulation and instead of the “Hidden Hand” of the market gently guiding us all into a new utopia actually the system is collapsing in on itself and is having to be bailed out by, guess what, the state. You’re an idiot and I hope you get fucked by the credit crunch.
Comment by Conor McV — September 21, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Fantastic Comment Above ^^^^ Conor McV. had me laughin so hard. First when I read the POS article and second, when I found the response that afforded me some piece of mind. Thanks for not making me tell him off myself!
Comment by BHenny — October 14, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Conor McV (comment#8): You state you are a Marxist. Who will you be voting for? Will any Marxists you know of vote for McCain?
Comment by cindy n. — October 26, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Conor McV says he’s a Marxist. He must know then that moderne Marxists (Odinga of Kenya, Chávez of Venezuela, Morales of Bolivia, Correa of Ecuador, etc.) take over through elections (by infusing them with propaganda, lies, manipulation, intimidation and fraud). If that fails, they try force, as Odinga tried to do.
Please remember that Obama used his elected office—and taxpayers’ dollars—to support his Kenya’s relative Odinga, self touted as “Your Agent for Change,” a violent Marxist thug who made a pact with the Muslims to institute sharia (Islamic law) in Kenya. Odinga’s followers killed some 1500 people and burned 800 Christian churches, including one with 50 people, many of them children, inside. As Odinga’s supporter, Obama contributed to the massacre.
Here’s Odinga’s pact with the Muslims to institute Sharia: https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/MOU_between_Ralia_Odinga_and_Muslims.pdf
Conor McV does not deserve to live in the U.S. He deserves to live in Cuba, North Korea or Iran.
Comment by Antonio Sosa — October 27, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Briliant respose to mike.While I don’t belive Obama is a Marxist he is definatly a hardcore socialist of the worst kind. Obama and the lemings that belive the way he does are the part of our society that (although say otherwise)do not belive in the human spirit and drive for achievment or are unable to be free thinkers. Either way socialism marxisim or the new “Obamunisim” is the path of the weak unmotivated and envious. This comming from a former leftist/socialist turned realist,turned Marine (combat wounded) Iraq war vet, turned pro capitalist conservative free thinker. It was along road but I finally saw the light and I hope America does not fall for Obama’s plan for true economic INJUSTICE and the loss of free will for the masses. Winston Churchill said it best in one line speaking of socialism.”Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” So to all those who support Obama think about your dreams and what you would like to achomplish and remember that Obama dose’nt belive you can acheive those things and if you already have achomplished them, he belives you do not deserve what you have and it is his duty to let the do nothings have what you have or hope to build! Just my say in the matter.
Comment by Scottie — October 28, 2008 @ 9:47 pm