Thursday, October 30, 2008

Ok...Why Obama is not a Socialist

There have been a lot of misuses of the term socialist by the McCain campaign with regard to Obama. I think true socialists are appalled that people are giving the ultimately capitalist underpinnings of Obama's economic package such a lofty and advanced title!

Let's take the bail-out of Wall-Street as an example.

True free-market capitalists are perhaps uneasy about the GOVERNMENT intervention into the capitalist system that Wall Street represents.

Socialists are uneasy about the government intervention into the CAPITALIST system that Wall Street represents. The Bail-out, in the socialist view, ultimately reaffirms the capitalist system rather than truly developing a socialist system.

It is one thing to distinctly disagree with your opponent's economic policies--that is part and parcel of Presidential debate and politics--but it does not excuse fear-mongering by mislabeling (this particular label, I don't particularly see as a negative one, but a great deal of Americans do).

By the way, Ken Schenck has a very nice, thorough post on the philosophical and historical developments of modern economic theory here.


Angie Van De Merwe said...

As soon as I responded to your last post, I recognized that I should've also used the bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Wouldn't these two governmental organizations, which support the poor with opportunities that they otherwise would not have, considered "socialist"? After all, it is the government providing for the poor and not the rich, like the bail-out of Wall Street.

Although socialism sounds good, it assumes that those who maintain the reigns of distribution will be honest and forthright in thier distribution. History does not prove this to be the case, as corruption is bred on the heels of absolute power. And money is power added to the power of "the State". I don't think that this will produce anything other than a depressed economy. Why? Because those who do the investing (the weatlthy) are going to be taxed doubly to provide for the government's charitable programs. I don't see that there will be incentive to give over and above the taxes that will be extorted from them.

I am no economist, so maybe my ignorance needs informing. But, I doubt that the State providing the Church with needed revenue to do charitable service will render any gratitude on the part of the poor. It will become an expected "service of government" distributed by the Church. Then, will the Church be under government't control, as in taxation? What about governmental controls on the Church itself, in form of worship, and regulation?

That is scary, indeed! (and I didn't get it from the McCain campaign)

Angie Van De Merwe said...

BTW, did you know that it is reported that Obama's aunt lives in poverty in Boston. Did Obama provide for her? No, so he is not a socialist, only a socialist when it comes to the ignoramouses of me.