In 2008, Joe the Plumber correctly identified Obama’s policies as socialistic when Obama responded to Joe’s question concerning the candidate’s small business tax policy by saying,
"when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." This statement is a foundational tenant of socialism straight out of Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
Socialism, as defined by Marx, is what follows capitalism in the transition of a society to communism. Socialism
"advocates the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole." Whereas, ‘communism’ advocates
"the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being
ascribed to the community as a whole or the state."
Since taking office as President in 2009, the US economy has stalled and most of Obama’s promises are now seen for what they always were; untrue. Promising one thing and delivering another is not only common among politicians, but especially among socialists, because socialism only benefits the political elite, not the masses, and socialists need the masses to support their endeavors, so they promise prosperity and deliver the opposite.
Throughout history, since Marx first published his Communist Manifesto in 1848, every experiment in socialism and communism has ended up in an economic disaster. One need look no further than USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Europe and now Obama’s America to see evidence of this.
For those who doubt Obama’s policies are socialist, let us compare them to some of the Ten Planks of Communism from Marx’s Manifesto.
The first plank of Communism is,
"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." In January 2013 Obama passed a tax bill that increased the death tax on estates to 40%, while this is not complete confiscation, it is heading in that direction. Many children of deceased parents are unable to pay this tax without liquidating their parents’ estate, thereby forfeiting property that, in many cases, has remained in their family for generations. This may not be confiscation, but the result is the same.
The second plank of Communism is,
"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." This is nothing new in America, which is evidence of the socialist path we have been following, but Obama widened this gap by raising the income tax rate on the “rich." He has repetitively claimed the “rich" are not paying their fair share. Perhaps bearing over 80% of all taxes in America is not enough, which begs the question,
"What is their fair share?"
The third plank of Communism is,
"Abolition of all rights of inheritance." America has not gotten here yet, but as stated under the first plank of Communism, Obama is moving in that direction with his increase to 40% estate tax.
The fifth plank of
Communism is, "Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." Although, this was done in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act, Obama further increased the centralization of banks in America with his bank bailout, where he picked the banks he would bailout while leaving others to the fate of the economy.
The sixth plank of
Communism is, "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA) would have given the President the power to shut down portions of or the entire INTERNET.
The seventh plank of Communism is,
"Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
the State." Obama’s bailout of General Motors was a thinly veiled move to further implement the seventh plank of Communism. One can argue the government did not maintain control of the automaker, but what Obama did was even worse. Using taxpayer money, he gave 51% control of the company to the United Auto Workers, a main Democrat Party donor.
The tenth plank of
Communism is “Free education for all children in public
schools." Obama has vowed to “Support High-Quality Schools and Close Low-Performing Charter Schools.”2 He has also, on many occasions, claimed America needs to “invest" in education. On the surface, these things may sound good, but why is he only closing low-performing charter schools, why not close all low-performing schools and does he actually think investment in America’s education is the problem?
America has one of the highest per student costs for education coupled with one of the lowest academic achievement rates among developed nations. Public schools in specific and government’s interference in general are the problems with America’s education system, not funding.
In Obama’s first year in office he shut down the highly successful DC charter school while sending his daughters to a private school. This is proof positive he is not serious about improving education in America, he instead is protecting the government’s monopoly on schools.
It is most likely too much to ask for those who believe socialism works to first look around at what Obama has wrought and then look at history to see how socialistic polices have turned out in the past anywhere in the world where they have been implemented. I am not advocating that Republican policies or capitalism is the answer, the latter of which is also a term invented and defined by Marx.
I am instead proposing a true compromise position between 0% government on the right, which is anarchy, and 100% government on the left, which is tyranny. Our only hope is to uphold the original intent of the US Constitution and a genuine free market economy, where government regulation stays within its jurisdictional boundaries by protecting the weak against the strong and punishing unfair competition instead of controlling the means of production and distribution through regulation.
Click here to read full article.