Please explain to me how this ISN'T Marxism?

@ParaTed2k (22591)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
May 1, 2009 9:10am CST
Obama supporters are running around defening him, denying up and down that he is a Marxist. Let's look at the Chrysler "deal", shall we? King Obama wants to hand 20% of Chrysler to FIAT. He's not requiring any investment from FIAT, he is simply taking what never belonged to him in the first place and making a nice Christmas present for the Italian car company. Next, he's taking that same company that he doesn't own any part of and gift wrapping 55% of it for the United Auto Workers. Like FIAT, the employees have not been required to put up a single dime in investment here. Obama is simply waving his exhalted hand and he demands it occur. (in fairness, money is owed to the union retirement fund and that money should be paid back). So what happens to the other 25%? That goes to government control. 2% to Canada and the rest to the US. So where do the investors fit in here? They don't. That Chicago Bowery Bum says "They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none," he said. "I don't stand with them." What do you know of sacrifice Obama? Are you going to sacrifice your lavish Wednesday night parties? I didn't think so. So, please, explain to me again how this isn't Marxism? I've owned Chrysler vehicles.. in fact, I own a Jeep now... why would I EVER buy another?
3 people like this
8 responses
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
1 May 09
If the liberals think this is such a great idea, why didn't any of them do this for Studebaker? Meh. I've already been told that it's a personal attack to put a name to Obama's political ideology. Is he a Marxist? Sure, but the liberals are afraid of being associated with that word so they'll just keep supporting this until it hits the fan and then they'll blame Bush since it started with the bailout.
2 people like this
2 May 09
I can not explain how this isnt Marxism as it sounds to me that it is. Government intervention into business affairs sounds to me that old fashioned Russian policies are taking there place into Western corporations.
1 person likes this
2 May 09
For investors they have to put on a brave face and accept the situation, though I got a feeling that Obama policies are a step in the right direction in that car manufacturers will experience higher sales and better profits at some stage this year.
• United States
5 May 09
I'll never buy another Chrysler product a long as I live. Plants in the US are being shut down and manufacturing is moving to Mexico. Anyone who supports America and American jobs staying in America would do well to boycott 0bama Motors (formerly known as Chrysler).
@suspenseful (40316)
• Canada
3 May 09
It sounds like facism to me. I mean that is how the Nazis worked. The government was in control of everything and gave ownership to their cronies. So if you were a friend of Hitler, you maybe got that shop that had once belonged to that Jewish family. Oh and like Obama, Hitler did not have to make sacrifices. He went around and shook hands with Hitler Youth and his lair with all the luxuries a dictator could have. In fact, when I hear Obama speech, I get that pit in my stomach I get when I listened to the old news movietime World War II broadcasts of Hitler.
1 person likes this
• United States
2 May 09
Marx predicted a violent up-surging of the proletariat masses to overthrow the capitalist land- and company-owners. Obama has never written or advocated for anything like that. Obama wants to bail out some companies (because corporate capitalists are apparently not very good at what they do) to protect millions of American workers, with the proviso that the money is a loan, not an ownership stake. This is nothing like the socialisms of Africa or South America or North Korea, where government directly owns the means of production (or simply nationalizes it at will). Did you complain, under Reagan or Bush, about our socialized Postal Service, our socialized National Highway Commission, our socialized Department of Defense, or our socialized Centers for Disease Control? I think you've been listening to too much Sean Hannity--this is not a nuanced approach to the question.
@ParaTed2k (22591)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 May 09
All of Obama's heroes are Marxists, his plans are all about government control of private enterprise. Look at the Chrysler "deal".. 55% of the ownership of Chrysler is going to the UAW. He abhors private enterprise and personal liberty. The US Postal service has never been run as efficiently as any private delivery service there is. The Freeway system falls under the US Constitution very well. Don't throw blanket statements around implying that I'm against any governmental infrastructure at all. The federal government has a role and it is defined in the US Constitution. Please keep your comments in context.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22591)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 May 09
Marx was a bigot who preached hatred and stereotypes. He had no respect for people and abhored personal liberty.
1 person likes this
• United States
3 May 09
I agree that Marx was a bad political thinker. You agree, I agree, and Obama agrees. Nobody in the 21st century is seriously defending Marx, so take that off the table. You say Obama's heroes are Marxists? Please list them, and we'll see whether or not they agreed with teachings of Karl Marx, one by one. My guess is that they did not. 55% Chrysler ownership is going to the UAW (the people who actually make up that company)? Well, if that's the case, then it's one private enterprise taking over another. The UAW is not a part of the government. It's a private coalition. There is nothing socialist or marxist or communist about one private sector (the UAW) taking over another (Chrysler). I don't love the UAW, and I don't love Chrysler executives either. But, I submit--there does seem to make some sense, if in a democratic society, the thousands of workers who make up a company get some say in that company's affairs. But the real point is that a labor union taking over a company is still a private sector enterprise taking over a different private sector enterprise. My friend, this is capitalism in action. It's alive and well, and I believe in it. I am a strong supporter of capitalism. I don't know enough about the auto industry in particular to have an opinion on the 55% deal, but I do know that two private sector entities in competition are strong proof of capitalism, not Marxism. The U.S. Postal Service is far more efficient than most private enterprises. It is not allowed to operate at a loss (unlike similar European systems). It has done its job well, seamlessly, for I don't know how long, even in the face of stiff private competition. If I want to send something to you over the next few days, there is still no question in my mind: I put a stamp on it, and mail it to you. Done. The Constitution is not at issue here. It's the economic systems we're talking about. The U.S. Constitution allows for, and allows for the absence of, any of a number of different balances of federal, state, local, and private economic structures that we're talking about here. It is not part of this conversation. The Constitution does not mention ownership issues, that I can recall. It was a flexible document, deliberately so. It was about political structure, not economic structure. The word "Marxist" gets thrown around almost like "Hitler": people who don't like the Democratic platforms fly toward exaggerated rhetoric of "Government will take over everything!", despite the obvious evidence to the contrary.
• United States
1 May 09
http://www.marxist.com/history-and-theory/ This is a site that provides some basics to the theory. Namaste-Anora
@ParaTed2k (22591)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 May 09
To embrace Marxism as a national economic system is to abhor indivicual liberty. The two cannot co-exist and was never meant to. Marx was a bigot and a tyrant.
1 person likes this
• United States
4 May 09
A true Marxist cannot condone a Capitalistic society, which is why the US will never be a Marxist or Communist society, or even an anarchist society. Namaste-Anora
@ParaTed2k (22591)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
4 May 09
But a shrewed Marxist will work in degrees to replace Capitalism with Socialism, then the final goal of Communism.
1 person likes this
@murderistic (2279)
• United States
1 May 09
This obviously isn't Marxism because a true Marxist would never freely give anything to a wealthy car company.
@ParaTed2k (22591)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 May 09
Ah, you may have a point there.. that wouldn't be Marxism, that would be Fascism. Thanks for the heads up.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22591)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 May 09
In terms of totalitarianism, not really, but in terms of how to carry out the totalitarianism, there is a world of difference.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
1 May 09
Fascism and Marxism are like opposite ends of a spectrum that comes full circle. The way to get there is completely opposite, but the end result is largely the same.
2 people like this
• United States
5 May 09
I saw on TV this morning how 0bama is blaming everything on the investors of Chysler, people who will NEVER get their money back now. A lawyer for one of the investors was talking about how the White House threatened to bring the "full force" of the White House Press Corps upon any investors who dared to voice opposition to the 0bama Motors plan and RUIN them financially by completely destroying their reputations. This is a hostile government takeover and it ain't gonna stop with the car companies and banks.
@ParaTed2k (22591)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
5 May 09
Press as a weapon used by the president against the people... nice Obama.. real nice.
1 person likes this
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
1 May 09
You're on a roll Ted, huh? I may have to agree with you on this one (don't tell anyone!). Of course, I'll do my own homework on the topic, but at first glance, it doesn't seem right. Maybe I will feel the same way after further reading. I'll let you know!