Is He Really What They Say He Is: Obama and Socialism

Too often, people use language like "Socialist" or "Communist" to describe President Obama without a full understanding of what they are saying. In early December of 2012, Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, appeared on Fox News proclaiming that, "Barack Obama is a Socialist." Earlier that year, in January of 2012, during a debate in Concord, N.H., Rick Perry submitted his two cents, "I make a very proud statement and, in fact ,that we have a president that's a Socialist." Looking forward a year, in October, 2013, the host of the O' Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly, referred to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), as a form of Communism. He said, "That's a form of Communism because no country could afford those payments without seizing the assets of everyone else." At some point, people have to realize that the labels that they are using to describe the President and his policies are factually incorrect. Obama's presidential conduct suggests something other than what is being said; his words and actions as a president do not imply Socialism in any form.

The goal of this essay is too briefly examine Socialism and to see how political thinkers have defined it over the years. Furthermore, it will compare Obama's presidential performance to several forms of Socialism. It is not meant to be exhaustive and cannot be read as a wholesome description of the Socialist vision. It merely offers a quick glance at several theories, and contrasts them to the Obama's political behavior.

In order to understand why it is inaccurate to use the word "Socialist" in any of its forms to describe President Obama, first one must understand Socialism. Although Socialism has many sub-categories, according to John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher and political economist of the late 1800s, the word Socialism in its broadest sense means,"... any system which requires that the land and the instruments of production should be property not of individuals but of communities, or associations, or the Government" (Allen, P. 38). Mill's definition of Socialism does two things: (1) acknowledges that Socialism comes in a variety of forms, and (2) creates a broad category in which we can fit a multitude of sub-systems that do not necessarily agree with one another. That is, Socialism can come in forms that are inherently opposed to one another, all while being accurately defined as Socialism.

It is here that I emphasize the importance of adjectives. When we use blanket terms like "Socialism" to describe one's ideology, it is important to identify exactly what we mean. More times than not, people who make accusations that President Obama is a Socialist fail to identify what they mean by "Socialist"; other times, they define their use of the word "Socialist", but what they describe is not, in fact, Socialism. Understanding what Socialism is and understanding what it isn't hold equal importance. In order to further our understanding of Socialism, we will delve into some of its sub-categories.

One of the most commonly discussed and heavily scrutinized forms of Socialism is Charles Fourier's Utopian Socialism. Fourier, a French philosopher of the early 1800s, believed that the natural inclinations of man, if properly channeled, would result in social harmony. He theorized that labor could be divided amongst the people of a community in such a way that everyone could perform a task that they enjoyed. For example, he suggested that children should perform any work that involved getting dirty or messy since the natural inclination of children is to be dirty and messy. It is this synchronization between the will of man and labor that would lead to maximum productivity, the elimination of poverty, and a type of "utopia".

It was not inequality that Fourier saw as the root of all evil, but poverty. In his Socialist Utopia, poverty would be extinct, however inequality would not. According to Fourier's idea of Socialism, people would be compensated based on the desirability of the tasks that they preformed. People who preformed less desirable jobs would be compensated more than those who preformed jobs that were more leisurely.

Fourier's Utopian Socialism saw a society free from government. He believed that government was a hindrance to the concept of community and could be replaced by phalanxes. Phalanxes are small communities that consist of a group of people, between 1000-2000 in quantity, who share a communal living quarters and the division of labor. The wealthiest people would live on higher floors while the less wealthy would live on lower floors. Each phalanx would have the capacity to perform all tasks needed to maintain the functionality of the community without government interference.

Fourier's communities are largely agricultural in nature. For him, the most relevant means of production are land and any tool associated with cultivating that land for agricultural purposes. While Fourier didn't scrutinize the idea of private property, the means of production are owned by the community. Twin Oaks, a contemporary community in Louisa, Virginia, closely resembles Fourier's vision. Although it is not a mirror image of Fourier's ideas, it is as close to Utopian Socialism as we will see today.

A much more commonly institutionalized form of Socialism is Democratic Socialism. Unlike Fourier's idea of Socialism, Democratic Socialism relies on a cooperation between a government and a people. Furthermore, it relies on cooperation among economic classes. Its objective is to achieve democratic control of the economy and society. In her work, Democratic Socialism, B. Dattaray explains the theory in part when she says, "It believes in achieving the political objective through parliamentary government and by non-violent peaceful means" (Dattaray, P.22).

The United Arab Republic (UAR) adopted an interesting form of Democratic Socialism during its short-lived existence. For the UAR , Democratic Socialism involved three types of ownership: state, co-operative, and private. Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of Democratic Socialism for the UAR was the participation of laymen in government. Dattaray says, "The United Arab Republic's new constitution declares that the National Assembly is the country's legislative power and at least half of its members should be workers and peasants" (Dattaray, P. 25).

It is easy to see, then, how the alliance-based Democratic Socialism can be contrasted with the conflict-based Revolutionary Socialism. Although Revolutionary Socialism does not entail violent conflict, it does involve a working class v. capitalist class mentality. The goal of Revolutionary Socialism is direct control of the state by the working class. In his work, What Is Revolutionary Socialism, Carl Thompson says, " We mean by 'Revolutionary Socialism' the capture of the political powers of the nation by the working class as opposed to the capitalist class" (Thompson, p. 2). We see elements of Revolutionary Socialism reflected in the work of Karl Marx as he discusses ideas like "the dictatorship of the proletariat".

However, Marx takes his theory of Socialism a step further than most Revolutionary Socialists. Marx sees the total degradation of the class system as well as the state. For Marx, the state is merely part of a superstructure that serves to benefit the capitalist class. For him, once the capitalist class no longer exists, there will be no need for the state. Through the dictatorship of the proletariat, there will cease to be a separation of classes and thus, there will cease to be any social class at all. This is the version of Socialism that that is termed "Communism". When most people think of Communism, they think of state control. Communists disagree.

In his work, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific , Friedrich Engels, a German Political theorist and co-founder of Marxism, says, "The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict" (Engels, Ch. 3).

So when you refer to Obama as a "Socialist", what are you saying? Are you saying that he is attempting to seize the means of production in favor of state ownership? Are you saying that Obama wants eliminate any form of government and divide society into a series of Phalanxes where each person is assigned jobs based their natural inclination, as Utopian Socialism would have it? Are you saying that he is in favor of heightened cooperation between the working class and parliamentary government in an effort for democratic control of the economy, as Democratic Socialism would have it? Are you saying that he is promoting a revolution from the bottom up by which the working class will peacefully take over ownership of the means of production from the capitalist class, as revolutionary socialism would have it? Are you saying that he wants to eliminate all forms of government and capitalism in order to create a classless society as Marx and Engels would have it?

Although America does entertain some versions of public ownership (i.e. public beaches, public parks, public transportation, etc.), Obama's political initiatives have not suggested that he is an advocate of socialism. Let's remember that his first year in office, Obama authorized and $80 billion dollar bailout to Chrysler and GM. That is not the behavior of any type of Socialist. Let's remember that a Socialist would have submitted Legislation to Congress proposing that we nationalize the nation's automobile industry and transfer it into public hands.

Let us not forget the ACA. Obamacare has falsely been accused of being a Communist plot since it came into being.

Richard Rubio, a writer for the Huffington Post says, "This act does not nationalize the healthcare industry, but instead provides government subsidies to private insurance companies. In effect, the nation's health care industry received about 31 million new customers courtesy of Uncle Sam. Furthermore, the legislation does not eliminate the partial anti-trust exemption that the industry benefits from. In effect, it allows healthcare organizations to operate similar to monopolies in the area of consolidation."

Before we use labels like "Socialism" or "Communism" it is important to be specific about what we mean. Furthermore, it is important to define the various types of Socialism in such a way that you understand what it is and what it isn't. When one examines Obama's presidential conduct and contrasts it with the various forms of Socialism, one can't help but to conclude that he isn't what they say he is.

Comments

[politics]

This short article posted only at the web site is truly good.