Is Obama a Socialist?

Republicans and other conservatives in the media and around the nation have been labelling Presidential candidate Barack Obama as a “socialist” mainly because he wants to reverse the portion of the Bush tax cuts that let the super-rich run away with loads of cash. Is this all it takes to make someone a socialist? Could Barack Obama really be trying to lead our country down the path to a glorious proletarian revolution?

To answer this question, who would be better to ask than a member of the Communist Party? Actually, who would be better to ask than former CPUSA National Chair Gus Hall? The late Comrade Hall wrote an piece called “Socialism USA” which is an explanation of the main vision of the Communist Party as far as what socialism would look like in the United States. In order to determine whether or not Obama is a socialist, let’s see how America under Obama would compare to America under socialism.

I’m going to pull a series of quotes from the text of Socialism USA, which can be found in its entirety here. You’re more than welcome to check out the whole document. First lets see what Hall has to say about economics (emphasis added by yours truly):

Political power would be in the hands of working people. Socialism starts with nationalization of the main means of production – the plants, factories, agri-business farms and everything necessary to produce what society needs. The large monopoly corporations and banks come under public ownership, that is, under the collective ownership of the entire working class and people, who have the leading role in building socialism.

Socialism also means public ownership of the energy industry and all the natural resources. It eliminates forever the power of the capitalist class to exploit and oppress the majority.

Does Barack Obama advocate the nationalization of America’s main industries, particularly energy industries and all natural resources? If he does, it’s news to me. As far as I can tell he’s pretty un-socialist in that department. So far on his “socialism scorecard” he’s got a big goose egg. Let’s move on:

A socialist government draws up plans covering the entire economy. They are drawn up with maximum participation of the people, from the shop level on up. Such plans are achieved because they harmonize the interests of all, because there are no conflicts arising from exploitation of workers and no dog-eat-dog competition.

Production increases much faster than under capitalism, with a planned economy, advancement of science and technology, and the protection and preservation of our environment and natural resources.

Obama seems to fail the socialism test by these criteria also. I’ve never heard him advocate a national economic plan drawn up with the input of workers. However, I think that the government may invest more resources into science and technology research with Obama as President, and do significantly better than McCain and Sarah “Drill, Baby, Drill” Palin in the realm of environmental protection. So let’s give Obama a 1.5 on these three questions. That brings his socialism score up to 1.5 out of 4. On to the next issue…

Full employment will be quickly achieved as production is expanded to satisfy the needs of people. Automation at the service of the working people will lead to both reduced hours of work and higher living standards, with no layoffs.

Has Obama proposed any ways to ensure full employment and eliminate layoffs? Not that I know of. These are key goals of socialism and he hasn’t suggested any way to reach them. More zeroes.

Poverty will be ended quickly with the recovery of the vast resources now wasted in war production, corporate profits and the extravagent lifestyles of the filthy rich.

I’ll give Obama a point here. He has talked about ending the Iraq war and investing the resources elsewhere, and increasing the tax burden on the rich to “spread the wealth around.” So by may calculation, he’s up to a 2.5 out of 6. That’s less than a 50%, which is failing in any gradebook I’ve ever seen. But let’s see if old Barack can pull his act together:

All education will be tuition-free. Every person will have access to unlimited medical and health care without charge. These rights will be realized as rapidly as facilities can be built and the personnel trained.

I’ve never heard Obama say anything about eliminating tuition. Zero there. As far as unlimited health care without charge, I’ll give him half a point. His health care plan would extend coverage for those people who don’t have benefits available through their jobs; but those who stay covered through work would have to pay premiums and co-pays, and by “unlimited” I think Hall means vision and dental, which aren’t mentioned in his policies. That brings Obama’s socialism score up to a 3 out of 8. Not so hot!

The children will reap all the benefits of socialist child care, free nurseries and schools with the very best facilities and teachers.

Free child care? Uhm, haven’t heard anything like that. Zero there. That’s the last point of conention I have to bring to the table, and when we total it all up, Obama has scored three “points” out of a possible 9. That makes him about 33% socialist. I’d think that even John McCain could find a couple things in Hall’s document that he could agree with. Obviously there’s more to the text, so go ahead and read it for yourself and let me know what you think.

This is kind of a bummer for me. I would love it for Barack Obama to be a socialist. I think that would be pretty awesome actually. But, looking at things objectively, I think the Republicans are giving him a little too much credit.

Am I accusing the Republicans of hyperbole? How dare I? Well, Obama naturally agrees with me:

By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”

Granted, I could be mistaken in some of my judgements and I would be more than happy if I was. That would only make me want to vote for the guy even more, so go ahead and point out any ways in which I understate his socialist-ness. However, Obama has a long way to go before he can turn that F into a passing grade in Socialism 101. Maybe I’m wrong. I’d be happy to say I am. But I doubt it.

Racism & Assassination plots

So I’m watching CNN Headline News and thinking to myself that this channel has gotten about as dumb as Fox News. Their new strategy to drum up ratings is apparently to take the inflammatory remarks and attitude of talk radio and Bill O’Reilly and apply it to moderate centrist politics. Has anyone else noticed this?

Well, anyway, on to the point: if you haven’t heard, a couple of Neo-Nazis have been picked up by the FBI for plotting to kill 88 black children, behead 14 of them, and cap their killing spree off by assassinating Barack Obama. The talking head lady on my television — who called these dudes “knuckleheads” — seemed to feel that the two would-be terrorists were the “death rattle” of racism; that these radical elements are making one last stand at the front line of a dying movement.

My view is not so optimistic. Just look at a John McCain rally. We’ve seen over the past month of his campaign that — despite his arguments to the contrary — the kind of nut bags that are hanging on to his campaign’s sinking ship are an embarrassment. People were shouting for Barack Obama to be lynched at McCain rallies before these two guys decided to plan an attempt. They are not isolated.

And while they may be radicals, that only seems to suggest to me that there must be a section of “moderate” racists. The television news will pick up a sensational story about assassination plots, but you have to tune your shortwave radio into Radio Netherlands to hear a middle-aged housewife telling you, and I quote, that “if Barack Obama wins I’m afraid that the blacks are going to take over.”

What does that even mean? Who, precisely, are “the blacks” and how are they going to take over? What’s going to happen when they take over? It’s ridiculous that people have this vague and unfounded fear. But you would be surprised how widespread this belief is. I’m sure that the editors and anchors on CNN have never been on a construction site or a shop floor or they’d know better.

What’s the answer? I don’t have the magic bullet. All I can suggest is a hard struggle against racism in every arena. But the first step is acceptance. We shouldn’t look at this recent plot as a sign that racism is about to die a natural death and we just have to tolerate it a little longer before it resigns itself to the dustbin. We should see this event as an example of just how real and significant 21st century racism is.

Happy Birthday!

If you’ve been following this blog for a while you might be aware that, as of this month, Red Montana has been online for a solid year. It’s hard to believe it’s been that long, but we’ve made it further than a lot of blogs have. So happy birthday RM!

Looking back, we’ve had some ups and downs, but I’m impressed that I’ve been able to keep this project going more or less continuously for a year straight. I think there are supposed to be something like 300 million blogs on the internet but only about 15 million that are updated on a weekly basis. So aside from some periods where things have gotten slow due to personal stuff in my life, I like to think that means that this blog is somewhere in the top 5%.

Anyway, on a semi-related note, I’d like to mention that our recruitment efforts in the Butte area is starting to bare fruit. For those of you over 30 — too old to be in the youth league — there is some interest in starting up an official Communist Party club in the Butte area. I’ll keep you posted on whether or not this actually comes to pass, but the first requirement is to round up a couple more members. So if there are any other Red Montanans out there who are being shy or something, let me know, and I can give you more information and point you in the right direction as far as getting your red card.

That goes for people who aren’t in the Butte area, as well. The Party has launched something recently called the “Club At Large” which is for members who don’t have an active club in their area, so even if you don’t have other Party members in your town you can stay in touch with the organization and get your “directives from Moscow”, as I like to call them. Besides the Club At Large, our Butte/Helena club would be happy to add any comrades to our club mailing list and keep in touch with others around the state so that we can expand our area of influence. So, even if you’re in one of the far-flung reaches of the State, speak up! We’d love to have you on board.

Anyway, that’s all for today. I’ve got a few beginnings to drafts in the works but nothing promising yet. When something comes to maturity I’ll be sure to post it up.

Marx was Right

It was only yesterday that “free market” ideologues were dancing on Karl Marx’s grave with scornful shouts that “greed is good” and “TINA” — “there is no alternative” to capitalism. These fat men guffawed contemptuously at Marx’s warning that capitalism is built on wage exploitation, that workers never earn enough to buy back what they produce, creating “overproduction” and periodic crises — some deep and long — that can only be solved by socialism.

These ideologues cling to delusions that capitalism is the “best of all possible worlds,” blindness expressed as recently as two weeks ago by John McCain when he asserted that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.”

But just the other day, economist David Macke surveyed the financial collapse spreading like a thermonuclear chain reaction. Asked what was needed to stop the destruction he replied, “At the end of the day, if you socialize enough of the financial system, it has to work.” Suddenly “socialism” is needed to stave off catastrophe! And who is Macke? An economist for JPMorgan Chase, one of the world’s biggest transnational banks.

But Macke’s “socialism” bears no resemblance to Marx’s version, in which working people own the means of production, including banks, and operate them in working people’s interests. Macke would “socialize” bad debt, forcing working people to bear the burden of rescuing Wall Street. Profits would continue to flow into the coffers of the rich. Left behind would be millions who have lost their homes, their jobs and health care as well as their 401(k) retirement accounts.

We should demand that any bailout work for us.

A coalition led by leaders of major unions has laid out just that approach in “A Call for Common Sense.” Use the federal government’s bank equity, paid for with our tax dollars, to force Morgan Chase, CitiGroup, etc., to agree to a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions. Require the banks to invest in a “green” jobs program to jumpstart the economy and retool our nation’s factories, farms and infrastructure to sharply reduce greenhouse gases. Make the banks invest in rebuilding the Gulf Coast, especially New Orleans. Such a program is not socialism, but it is a step toward socialism’s democratic principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”

Reprinted from the People’s Weekly World Newspaper.

Revolt with a Vote

One reason that many on the left don’t vote is that they believe it “accomplishes nothing”. The truth is that there is much to be accomplished “within the system”. One good example: the Employee Free Choice Act. Without the Republicans blocking it, it would be law today, and it would greatly increase the ability of workers to form unions. If Barack Obama is elected President, and them Democrats pick up a few more seats in Congress, it will almost certainly become law. Is organized labor not an important part of the class struggle? Or are unions just part of “the system” too?

Maybe we don’t have much to gain, but we certainly have a lot to lose. The ultra-right has been at the forefront of an intense attack on the American worker since the 1980’s. Barack Obama is no Vladimir Lenin,  but it is vitally important that we defeat the ultra-right and that we do it now.

I disagree that it is impossible to bring socialism via the ballot box. Look at Venezuela! Hugo Chavez came to power through the ballot box. Of course, I realize that we’re a long way from an American Chavez. But so what? You can’t be bothered to take five minutes out of your busy life of posting pictures of Stalin or Trotsky on internet forums to go to your polling place and fill in a couple bubbles on a Scantron card because there isn’t a place on the ballot to vote for “proletarian revolution”? That doesn’t mean you’re a revolutionary, it just means you’re lazy.

I understand that a lot of people who abstain from voting think they’re sending some sort of message; that the act of not voting is a political act in itself. Just today I received a MySpace bulletin that someone sent me, reposting an article by Linda Averill from the Freedom Socialist Party: “100 million nonvoters send a stinging message of disenchantment”. Yeah, right. The only message nonvoting sends is nothing. Do you really think that John McCain or any of the other ultra-right candidates would win an election and say, “You know what guys, I just don’t think our victory is legitimate because if everyone had voted we probably would have lost. I guess I’d better just resign!” That’ll be the day!

The powers that be have traditionally tried to keep the voters in this country to a minimum. The original intent of the “founding fathers” was to keep the vote limited to only white land-owning men, and keep democracy out of the hands of workers, women, and people of color. It took nearly two centuries of struggle to make sure that every adult citizen of the United States had the right to vote unmolested.

If the ruling class really cared whether or not their rule was legitimized by a truly popular vote, why would they have resisted universal suffrage so hard for so long? And why would they continue to launch voter suppression campaigns, like they recently tried to do right here in Montana? If they wanted you to vote, why would they try so hard to keep you away from the ballot box? If you’re not going to vote for them, the ultra-right would rather you just stay home, which is exactly what many youth on the Left are doing. The last thing they want is a bunch of rebellious youth exercising their right to vote!

Still yet, many on the left are afraid that by voting they will be seen as endorsing “the system”, and that it will undermine the argument for radical change. I, myself, am not conceited enough to think that the masses look up to me as a role model and will be confused by my apparently contradictions. But for many people that doesn’t matter, because they would have to deal with their own inner contradictions. To me, that is even more foolish. A true revolutionary would use every means available to them to further the cause. The ballot box is one arena of the class struggle; a “communist” who avoids the vote simply to take some sort of moral high ground is no communist at all. If you get more satisfaction out of patting yourself on the back than you do from actually engaging in the class struggle, then go right ahead. Just don’t call me your comrade.

The choice is yours: you can take five minutes to do your duty and go vote, or you can stay home and feel like you’re the coolest because you’re clean and pure of “the system”. Only one of those options has the potential to accomplish anything.

Immaculate conception: an un-miraculous truth?

While browsing Yahoo! News during a few minutes of free time between studying and class, I came across a story which talks about scientists discovering “virgin births” in sharks. There are some really interesting points to this, which I thought I’d take a moment to explore. From the article:

Virgin birth has been proven in some bony fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, and has been suspected among sharks in the wild. The scientists who studied the Virginia and Nebraska sharks said the newly formed pups acquired one set of chromosomes when the mother’s chromosomes split during egg development, then united anew.

This leads to some interesting questions, in my opinion. Before I delve into them I just want to say that I have little knowledge of the science behind this and that obviously there is a big difference between fish, birds, reptiles, etc. on the one hand and mammals — specifically humans — on the other.

That being said, I can’t help but wonder if it is possible — not common, but possible — for this to occur in humans? And if it is, would it not be possible for the Biblical story of the “immaculate conception” to be both true and at the same time not require an act of God? In other words, could one of the main pillars of the Christian religion be an extremely rare yet perfectly mundane event that was misconstrued as a miracle?

That wouldn’t surprise me at all; looking back at very ancient religions we can see how yesterday’s faith has been replaced by today’s science. For example, the Milky Way galaxy got its name from the ancients who believed that it was milk squirted across the sky from Hera’s breast. Anyway, it’s way too soon to draw any conclusions from this but I just think that it’s an interesting idea.

YouTube!!!

I’m not usually on the whole YouTube bandwagon. In fact, when it comes to my internets, I usually hate video. But my friend from high school in Alaska made a Sarah Palin video, and it’s pretty funny, so I just have to share it:

And what the hell, while I’m at it, I thought I’d throw in another good one. This one’s on the Employee Free Choice Act and goes straight to the funny bone.

GOP backs off Montana voters

A couple days ago I posted an article detailing the efforts of the Montana GOP to hassle potential Democratic voters by challenging their voter registration. Well, good news: thanks to public outcry over their schiesty maneuvers, the Montana Republican Party has ceased its campaign. From the Montana Standard:

In a letter to Vicki Zeier of the Missoula County elections office, Jacob Eaton, executive director of the Montana Republican Party, wrote that the group no longer wished to challenge thousands of Missoula county voters or any other voters statewide.

…

“As a disabled combat veteran who has fought Al Queada to defend this country and our democracy and who has voted absentee en route to a war zone, I regret that my actions have been perceived as [an effort to suppress voter turnout],” Eaton wrote.

I included that last paragraph because it made my stomach turn. I don’t mean to take anything away from any disabled veteran, Eaton included, who has sacrificed their well-being for our country. But to hide behind their military service, as though we’re supposed to say “oh well he’s a disabled vet, I guess that means he isn’t a slick weasel after all”, is almost as deplorable as his underhanded tactics are.

But hey, let’s not kick him while he’s down. Good work to everyone who helped reject this obvious case of voter intimidation.

The history of Afghanistan according to John McCain

Watching the Presidential debates, it’s obvious that John McCain either has a very poor grasp of history, or wants to deceive us so that we don’t notice the contradiction of his beliefs. Or maybe he deceives himself to reconcile his inner contradictions. Either way, I noticed that his version of the history of Afghanistan is a little lacking. Here’s what he says happened:

1) In the 1980’s, we helped Afghan “Freedom Fighters” drive the USSR out of Afghanistan.

2) We thought we had won and took off.

3) The Taliban government and Al Qaeda popped up out of nowhere after we had turned our back.

4) Today we’re involved in Afghanistan because we didn’t “finish the job” in the 80’s.

BULLSHIT. Bully bully bullshit. Here’s what John McCain either doesn’t realize, or doesn’t want you to realize: the “freedom fighters” and the Taliban/Al Qaeda are the same people. Ideologically they are exactly the same. Some of them are literally the exact same people.

Let’s take a look at the real history of Afghanistan during the 70’s and 80’s. The April 1978 “Saur Revolution” led to the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. This government was apparently communist but was hardly a carbon copy of the Soviet Union; its ideology was more of an Islam-influenced social democracy. The Afghan government then committed its most terrible sins: banning forced marriages, giving women the right to vote and be elected to office, teaching women to read, replacing Islamic law with secular rule, promoting the cultural revival of ethnic minorities, and providing electricity and infrastructure to the countryside.

The Afghan “Freedom Fighters”/Terrorists preceded the presence of the Soviet Union. So did “Operation Cyclone”, the massive campaign of support that the United States gave to the Afghan rebels. The movement that eventually led to the Taliban government, which would become the protectors of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, was launched in response to the secular and modern policies of the People’s government. They did not arise as a response to a foreign occupation. Likewise, the United States did not have to wait until the Soviet Union stepped on Afghan soil; the establishment of a Soviet-ish government was reason enough to back some very unsavory elements.

Naturally the young government of People’s Afghanistan did not have the might to fight off US-backed insurgents. The only recourse they had was to ask for help. So it came to be that the Soviet “invaders” — invaders who were invited — entered Afghanistan to help the legitimate Afghan government fight a US-backed radical Islamist insurgency. At first the Afghans, with the help of their Soviet comrades, were successful in turning back the terrorist rebels, but as US aid poured in the war became costly at the USSR eventually pulled out. The extremists did not stop at “liberating” their soil from the “invaders” though, they continued to fight a three-year civil war against the People’s government until they succeeded in establishing their own radical theocracy: the Taliban. That government, which we helped to establish, gave Osama bin Laden’s terrorists safe haven to train and plot the September 11th attacks.

I have no problem with the principle of our war in Afghanistan because we’re responsible for making the mess over there in the first place. If we had just let the Soviets take care of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban movement in the first place we wouldn’t have to go in there and fix it. But to suggest that we’re back there because we didn’t “finish the job” is a complete and total lie. We finished the job alright. We got exactly what we wanted. In the eyes of our leaders during the climax of the cold war, an extremist, fundamentalist theocracy was better than a workers’ state. Our government wanted the Taliban to take power and they got their wish.

In the midst of this bloody conflict, in 1983, John McCain was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. You’d think he’d know a thing or two about it. Sadly this latest example of his trademark “straight talk” is about par for the course.

Montana GOP’s voter suppression

The Montana GOP has proven once again that they’re a bunch of dirty, cheating douchebags. This time they’ve gone through the Postal Service’s list of people who have had their mail forwarded in the last 18 months for several Democratic strongholds in the state and, a mere 30 days before the election, challenged all voter registrations on the list on the grounds that they may be registered in the wrong location.

Apparently, many people whose registrations will be challenged will have to jump through hoops in order to get their right to vote back. According to the Helena Independent Record, “Voters who are challenged likely will receive a letter from the county, asking them to verify their current address with a notarized statement.” (Emphasis added)

So in other words, you have less than 30 days to receive your letter, go get a notarized statement, and get it back to the department of elections or risk not getting to vote. When the Montana GOP accuses you of being incorrectly registered to vote, apparently you’re guilty until proven innocent! The party says it just wants to make sure everyone is registered in the right district and that there’s no “monkey business”, but I call bullshit.

The fact that they’ve waited until the eve of the elections to drop this on us, and that they’ve targeted traditionally Democratic-leaning counties, makes me a little suspicious. It’s not inconceivable that for a lot of people it would be highly inconvenient, perhaps restrictively so so, to wait to see if they get a letter in the mail, go find a notary public to notarize their statement, and return it to the department of elections in time for the election. I think that the Montana GOP wants to take some of the thunder out of the Democratic Party’s drive to mobilize first-time voters — which the GOP is apparently failing to do — by throwing one more hurdle between them in the ballot box. Even if they manage to scare off a thousand or just a few hundred people, that’s a fairly significant chunk of voters in a state like Montana where the total population is less than 1 million.

What’s even worse is that, according to the GOP, “this is only the beginning”. The Republicans apparently plan to keep challenging more and more voter registrations, meaning that they hope to hassle even more voters and give them even less time to “prove their innocence”.

The good news is that Forward Montana has put together a resource you can use to see if you’re on the list, and take action to restore your right to vote. If you have had your mail forwarded in the past 18 months I highly recommend you check out this website! http://www.montanavotersuppression.org

Don’t believe they’re really that shitty? Check out the Helena IR article.