Political Punch

Nope. It is Bush's failed leadership, the Republican party and Hillary Clinton that want to over-promote capitalism and then label everybody in the worker "class" as marxists, communists and socialists. Personally, I find that Marx was 100% correct when he said that capitalism was based on exploitation.

Look at the H1b visa issue. Bush, Clinton and the Republicans could have very easily listened to the AMERICAN PEOPLE about whether or not H1B visas are putting AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY WORKERS out of work. Instead, they only listened to the "capitalist class" to create policy over the "working class" in America.

According to Wikipedia, Marx was opposed to exploitation of workers.

"Marx refers to the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another... in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value of their labor, in order to enable the capitalist class to turn a profit. This profit is not however moderated in terms of risk vs. return."

Republicans on the tech "worker" issue:
See techcrunch website article dated 4/21/08

Obama on the same tech "worker" issue: See the "issues/technology" section of Obama's official campaign website.

Edwards:
Google "Edwards and H1-B Visa"

Clinton:
See the "news/speech" section of Hillary Clinton's official campaign website.

Obama '08!

(He's FOR the people no matter the label you want to attach.)

Oh how I miss Tom Delay!

JR-

I do not think we are disagreeing on substantive issues/ideas. And you do a good Buckley; and if he said it, I might have let the comment slide.

If you read my first post again, I said Marx was wrong. You point out the problem again with Marxism/Communism - it is done at the point of a gun. And hence, the objection to the usage of Marxism in this context - it is suggesting a move towards totalitarianism. Obama does not suggest this and has specifically stated that government is not the solution for all of society's ills. That comment is not marxist, communist, or socialist.

So, to me, Obama wants to be a proverbial Robin Hood. The question is where he draws the line and how he spends the money he robs from the rich.

MIGuy,

I’m not sure exactly what you think I’m defending. For the most part what I’ve read on these posts is Obama being “defended” against the “charge” of Marxism. What I’m saying is that I don’t see being labeled a Marxist as being a “charge” against Obama at all, just a description of his political milieu. You stated:

“I do not argue that Obama's positions are advocating wealth redistribution”

Well from what social framework might he have drawn that approach? Something Adam Smith penned? You seem to want to quibble over the use of the term “Marxist” in lieu of ‘populist’ or ‘progessive’. Fine – I just bought a “pre-owned” car; although others might say it is “used”. Essentially - is this any different? So Delay is a shady ex-congressman assailing Obama as an "old school Marxist radical liberal" on a right-wing talk show. Would it have been more palatable if it was William F Buckley being interview on NPR stating blandly that “Obama’s positions belie a philosophy of classical orthodox Marxist ideology”. Would these be separate and distinct claims with different levels of validity? “Used” or “pre-owned”. (FYI I have no idea if Buckley or anyone else said that I’m just trying to make a point).

On your final point – anyone that references Christianity to bolster and defend in imposition of Marxist/Populist/Progressive agenda does have a point that there are similar threads running though both of them in terms of caring for you neighbor. However, they seem to brush off the fatal flaw in that argument: Christianity advocates that these ideals are freely chosen by the individual - Marxist/Populist/Progressive agendas are imposed on collective by the state at the point of a gun.

JR-

Am I being the one defensive, or are you? Please read my post again if necessary - I didn't say that "anyone" doesn't know what Marxism is, but the comments on here certainly suggest it. As you seem to have an idea, the comment is not directed at you. As such, however, you clearly realize that none of the candidates are offering Marxism - it is just a bit of demagoguery on Delay's part (and most of the folks on here).

I do not argue that Obama's positions are advocating wealth redistribution. Over the years, depending on your bend, this goes by many names like 'populist', 'progressive', etc.

Yes, labels matter. I have no problem whatsoever with arguing against what Obama is proposing. I do take issue with blithely using terms like "old school Marxist radical liberal" and agreeing "absolutely" to that as Delay does. The irony is that Christianity, which these hypocrites wear on their sleaves so proudly, professes much of the things they label as radical and liberal.

So, I guess you can count me out as one of the sheep.

MIguy,

You’ve got to be kidding. Really. You imply that Delay’s labeling Obama a Marxist indicates that Delay (or anyone else for that matter) doesn’t have a clue what Marxism is? Where exactly do you think that someone such as Obama who openly advocates policies of broadening forced wealth redistribution and government intrusion on private business falls on the political spectrum? This discussion should not really be about whether Obama is a Marxist – his positions already define him as such. You can call him a “progressive” if that is more palatable to you, but he is what he is in this sense. Given that as a starting point we can fairly discuss his overall pro’s & con’s as a candidate and president. Or even debate the merits of Marxism itself. But to deny that Obama holds an overarching political philosophy that can be rightly cast as Marxist is just ubsurd. I really don’t understand the defensive reaction here from Obama supporters – other than maybe the fear of the stigma attached to the term “Marxism”. But, Marx wasn’t Stalin or Mao. He was a political theorist. It isn’t an attack on Obama to call him a Marxist any more that it would be to call Pat Buchanan an conservative isolationist for example.

It was painful, but I actually read every comment posted here. I counted maybe a handful of posters who sound like they've ever read Marx or even have a clue what Marxism is. Tom Delay clearly doesn't have a clue.

Marx was wrong about capitalism; he felt it was a system incapable of change. In the era he lived, and at its purest, capitalism fueled pollution, child labor and a whole host of societal ills (check out China). What saved capitalism as we practice it is a redistribution of wealth from the rich to maintain a standard of living among the poor enough that they don't revolt. America is fairly unique in its upward mobility as well (the American Dream is a very real prospect for most). Senators Obama and McCain are direct beneficiaries of that dream.

There are many who throw around these labels who don't know what they mean. Much like six year olds who hear and repeat swear words, but don't understand the meaning. We live in the greatest country in the world and these types of attacks demean us all.

Will -

So is Bho, taking money, and giving money for votes, didn't he?

Tom Delay is a crooked politician. He took money for votes. His analysis of Obama's "marxism" is the analysis of economic theory of a crooked bug exterminator who went into crooked politics to make more money.

Delay does not boneheadly know what he is talking about? What is Marxist? Bho is a socialist! What? Are they the same? Delay was right? Cannot be. He is a loser republican. What the world does he know!

Obama couldn't pass an FBI background check with his crazy associations with Wright, Farakkhan, Rezko.

"Makes one wonder how DeLay ever made it to House Majority Leader. But then again, this is the party that produced the worst, most incompetent president in modern history."

Carter was a Republican???

Well, they can try to demonize and legitimize (in the Hardball invited right wing pundit guest sense who didn't even understand the meaning of appeasement) the cultural oddity that the right thinks Obama represents...

Or you can deal with the fact that the philosophical message Republicans came to town with have left most Americans poorer and more hard pressed. You guys screwed up, what is your plan to fix your ideological problems?

Jake, why are you listening to DeLay...don't you know he stepped so far into influence peddling that he broke the law? It is like going to Ferraro so she can teach the racial sensitivity trainings started with symbolic figures. DeLay should talk and highlight what Republicans bringing change to Washington REALLY MEANS especially when you've been in power for 14 years.

If they had investigated Barack Obama
thoroughly, they would find he and Tom Delay have a lot in common. Remember, the investigation is still going on with the Chicago Political Machine. It ain't over yet.

Do I really need to name the positions that would brand Obama a Marxist? Apparently so…

Broader and more progressive taxation for the purpose of forced redistribution of wealth in quest for equality (universal healthcare to name just one program)
Further regulation on companies
Restrictions on free-trade
Price controls (on oil, pharmaceuticals)
Capping CEO salaries
Demonization of “Big Business” (or as Marx would say “the owners of capital”)
… on behalf of “hard working Americans” (or as Marx would say “big business”)

I could link to his website for policy statements but liberals would get distracted by all of the pretty pictures…

Tapper said:

“Is this rhetoric evidence that Republicans have concluded the only way they can win in what looks to be a Democratic year is to say anything, everything, demonize Obama in the most non-factual and unsavory of ways?”

This because Obama was labeled a Marxist?

That makes me wonder if he has no idea what Marxism is, if he is unfamiliar with Obama’s policy position & voting record, is unacquainted with the pillars of the liberation theology on which his (now former) church is founded, or all of the above. Or maybe like so many others he is just so enthralled which the phenomenon that is Obama, that even if aware of these realities he would brush them off or deny them in the face of the facts.

This was not an attack on Obama’s character. In fact it was not an attack as all. It was an assessment of where Obama falls on the political spectrum; based on his policy positions, voting record, and (soaring) rhetoric. It would be no different if Ron Paul had been called a libertarian. Some people reject libertarian values and some reject Marxist values. In this context neither label is meant an in epithet but a descriptor. And in the cases of Obama and Paul for example, the labels of Marxist and libertarian respectively fit almost to a tee. Again this is done by juxtaposing the voting records, policy positions and rhetoric of each of these men with the ideals of the respective governing philosophies.

I can’t disagree that this might have come from the “evil Republican attack machine”. But let’s be intellectually honest here. Obama’s voting record, policy positions, and rhetoric which a manifestation of an underlying political philosophy that is correctly defined as a Marxism.

We have 2 Obamas.
#1: Obama with teleprompter
#2: Obama without teleprompter

Well Certainly obama's friends show a different Obama. and also if you read his first book and you will see a little pro-marxist, Africa first, mentality!

Obama has shown time and time again that he does not have the intellectual capacity for high office YET!

He constantly has to corrects himself and he can NOT articulate any foreign policy or even economy without TELPROMPTER!!

That's what I like to see him more in the interview and townhall meeting.

Can you hear it???

I think in the end his opportunist side will win out. It pays a lot better than Marxism.

It worked well for Obama's campaign to demonize Hillary...she had already been weakened by years of the same from Republicans.

Perhaps McCains campaign can start feeding the memos to the press while he pretends he disagrees....