Monday, October 20, 2008
Is Obama a socialist?
Emphatically, definitively, no.
Over the past few days, I've been flattered that the Republican Party ticket has paid so much attention to my little corner of the world. According to John McCain, Barack Obama's plan to tax those earning over $250,000 a year is "spreading the wealth around" and "redistributing wealth", which makes him a "socialist". Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has been playing up Obama's links with Bill Ayers, former member of the Weathermen, leftist terrorists of the 70s who blew up a few things, including themselves. Accuracy In Media, the right-wing media watch group, finds some convoluted links to the Democratic Socialists of America - the Chicago DSA branch endorsed Obama in 1996, and he in turn called Saul Mendelson, one-time member of the Young Socialist League, a champion of the democratic left.
"My name's Ilyich, and I want to welcome you to this year's Democratic National Convention!"
Two of the most powerful people in the world think socialism is a threat. I'm flattered, really. But I have to reassure some right-wing Republicans (and disappoint some left-wing Democrats.) Obama is not a socialist. Nothing he or his party stands for, and nothing in his platform, is remotely socialist. And I say this as someone who would welcome a socialist revolution. You can relax - we're not taking remedial barricade-building in night school yet.
A blank slate?
What does Obama stand for? We can't ask him. In his autobiography The Audacity Of Hope he writes, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." This is convenient, because Obama has leftist credentials. He was a community organizer in Chicago. 10 years ago he attended a dinner hosted by Palestinian intellectual Edward Said and spoke critically of U.S. foreign policy in the Israeli state. As late as 2004, he told a Palestinian rights activist, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front."
There's something you don't see every day - Barack Obama & Edward Said
Things calm down
Last June, Obama gave a strongly pro-Israel speech at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee dinner, including declaring Jerusalem indivisible and cementing the Israeli occupation. He's since backed away from this position, but it's a good illustration of the 'blank screen'. Liberals - and some conspiratorial rightists - can point to his leftist gestures, while ignoring the obvious: they're 10 years old. As Ali Abunimah writes, "His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: access to people with power alone does not translate into influence over policy." As the leader of the Democratic Party, Obama is under the influence of big money. And that means that right-wing, anti-socialist politics fill the screen.
Right-wing money
These are Obama's top funders, (from Paul Street writing in Znet):
Still.
Those names should sound familiar. They're responsible for the credit crisis: a vast transfer of money from the working class to the ruling class. Stealing from the poor, to give to the rich, is the opposite of socialism. McCain accuses Obama of confiscating wealth in order to spread it around: "After all, before government can redistribute wealth, it has to confiscate wealth from those who earned it." But no one who's wealthy earned it - they simply found a way to steal the labour of someone else. If Obama was truly a socialist, he wouldn't just be taxing incomes over $250,000. He'd be expropriating the banks and corporations and sharing their wealth.
Right-wing politics
The cash Obama accepts has the final say on his policies, like it does for all ruthless pragmatists. Obama has tacked far to the right since coming to national attention. He's supported:
Don't worry, it's well-protected.
Socialists for Obama?
Obama is an imperialist, and an economic and social conservative. Yet liberals still support him (and, tragically, Bill Fletcher Jr, my favourite African-American Marxist.) Why?
The first, and most obvious argument, is that he's a black man running for President in a deeply racist country. The symbolic value of his victory would be significant.
But let's be clear: it would still just be symbolic. Blacks, Latinos and Asians would not suddenly get jobs paying equal to whites or stop being targeted by the police. Immigrants would still face a vicious, racist backlash. The prison-industrial complex wouldn't be torn down. The descendants of slaves wouldn't get reparations. Moreover, Obama's candidacy cuts both ways. He claims to be post-racist: this is very convenient for those in power who say America is a land of opportunity, rather than a state founded on - and thriving off of - racism. The fact that most blacks support Obama - like they support the Democrats - may be a desperate hope for dignity. But it's only desperate because the civil rights movement that won desegregation has collapsed. As Linda Burnham, writing for the Black Radical Congress argues, "The complete collapse of the political into the electoral ill serves a community that has been so ill served by mainstream politics." Over 40 years on, Malcolm X is prophetic:
The second argument is that McCain would be worse. 'Lesser evilism' is a tacit acknowledgement that the Right won the argument. Democrats have agreed that deficits, corporate tax and unions are bad; and that imperialism, cuts to public services and wage stagnation are good. You don't fight a greater evil by adopting its agenda. You fight it by opposing it, something the Democrats and Obama have utterly failed to do. I'd suggest that's because they're right-wing themselves.
(Besides, if you want to vote for a progressive African-American candidate, there's Cynthia McKinney. Note to Republicans: socialists support her.)
The socialist alternative
So don't worry - Obama has nothing to do with socialism. Sorry you were startled, Republicans: I know socialist ideas are powerful. God knows what would happen if the poor and oppressed ever got hold of them. Actually - people are still willing to vote for someone you label a socialist, maybe that says something? Maybe it's about time we found someone for the rich to really be afraid of?
Over the past few days, I've been flattered that the Republican Party ticket has paid so much attention to my little corner of the world. According to John McCain, Barack Obama's plan to tax those earning over $250,000 a year is "spreading the wealth around" and "redistributing wealth", which makes him a "socialist". Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has been playing up Obama's links with Bill Ayers, former member of the Weathermen, leftist terrorists of the 70s who blew up a few things, including themselves. Accuracy In Media, the right-wing media watch group, finds some convoluted links to the Democratic Socialists of America - the Chicago DSA branch endorsed Obama in 1996, and he in turn called Saul Mendelson, one-time member of the Young Socialist League, a champion of the democratic left.
"My name's Ilyich, and I want to welcome you to this year's Democratic National Convention!"
Two of the most powerful people in the world think socialism is a threat. I'm flattered, really. But I have to reassure some right-wing Republicans (and disappoint some left-wing Democrats.) Obama is not a socialist. Nothing he or his party stands for, and nothing in his platform, is remotely socialist. And I say this as someone who would welcome a socialist revolution. You can relax - we're not taking remedial barricade-building in night school yet.
A blank slate?
What does Obama stand for? We can't ask him. In his autobiography The Audacity Of Hope he writes, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." This is convenient, because Obama has leftist credentials. He was a community organizer in Chicago. 10 years ago he attended a dinner hosted by Palestinian intellectual Edward Said and spoke critically of U.S. foreign policy in the Israeli state. As late as 2004, he told a Palestinian rights activist, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front."
There's something you don't see every day - Barack Obama & Edward Said
Things calm down
Last June, Obama gave a strongly pro-Israel speech at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee dinner, including declaring Jerusalem indivisible and cementing the Israeli occupation. He's since backed away from this position, but it's a good illustration of the 'blank screen'. Liberals - and some conspiratorial rightists - can point to his leftist gestures, while ignoring the obvious: they're 10 years old. As Ali Abunimah writes, "His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: access to people with power alone does not translate into influence over policy." As the leader of the Democratic Party, Obama is under the influence of big money. And that means that right-wing, anti-socialist politics fill the screen.
Right-wing money
These are Obama's top funders, (from Paul Street writing in Znet):
Obama's top 20 contributors include Goldman Sachs (#1 at $692,000), Citigroup (#3 at $449,000), JP Morgan Chase (#4 at $405,000), Lehman Bros. (#10 at $371,000), and Morgan Stanley (#16 at $319,000). Note that Goldman Sachs has given three times the amount to Obama it has contributed to McCain and that Citigroup's Obama giving more than doubles its investment in McCain. Obama's #16 contributor - the investment bank Morgan Stanley - gave Obama $20,000 more than McCain got from his top contributor (the investment banker and brokerage house Merrill Lynch).
Still.
Those names should sound familiar. They're responsible for the credit crisis: a vast transfer of money from the working class to the ruling class. Stealing from the poor, to give to the rich, is the opposite of socialism. McCain accuses Obama of confiscating wealth in order to spread it around: "After all, before government can redistribute wealth, it has to confiscate wealth from those who earned it." But no one who's wealthy earned it - they simply found a way to steal the labour of someone else. If Obama was truly a socialist, he wouldn't just be taxing incomes over $250,000. He'd be expropriating the banks and corporations and sharing their wealth.
Right-wing politics
The cash Obama accepts has the final say on his policies, like it does for all ruthless pragmatists. Obama has tacked far to the right since coming to national attention. He's supported:
- the $700 billion bail-out
- death penalty for child rapists
- limits on abortions, continued funding for religious development organizations
- allowing telecom companies continued undercover survelliance
- unilateral bombing of Pakistan
- continued, and intensified occupation of Afghanistan. This despite his apparent acknowledge that it's a war against civilians
- a "phased withdrawal" in Iraq, despite there being popular support for the U.S. army to leave now, in both the U.S. and Iraq.
Don't worry, it's well-protected.
Socialists for Obama?
Obama is an imperialist, and an economic and social conservative. Yet liberals still support him (and, tragically, Bill Fletcher Jr, my favourite African-American Marxist.) Why?
The first, and most obvious argument, is that he's a black man running for President in a deeply racist country. The symbolic value of his victory would be significant.
But let's be clear: it would still just be symbolic. Blacks, Latinos and Asians would not suddenly get jobs paying equal to whites or stop being targeted by the police. Immigrants would still face a vicious, racist backlash. The prison-industrial complex wouldn't be torn down. The descendants of slaves wouldn't get reparations. Moreover, Obama's candidacy cuts both ways. He claims to be post-racist: this is very convenient for those in power who say America is a land of opportunity, rather than a state founded on - and thriving off of - racism. The fact that most blacks support Obama - like they support the Democrats - may be a desperate hope for dignity. But it's only desperate because the civil rights movement that won desegregation has collapsed. As Linda Burnham, writing for the Black Radical Congress argues, "The complete collapse of the political into the electoral ill serves a community that has been so ill served by mainstream politics." Over 40 years on, Malcolm X is prophetic:
The second argument is that McCain would be worse. 'Lesser evilism' is a tacit acknowledgement that the Right won the argument. Democrats have agreed that deficits, corporate tax and unions are bad; and that imperialism, cuts to public services and wage stagnation are good. You don't fight a greater evil by adopting its agenda. You fight it by opposing it, something the Democrats and Obama have utterly failed to do. I'd suggest that's because they're right-wing themselves.
(Besides, if you want to vote for a progressive African-American candidate, there's Cynthia McKinney. Note to Republicans: socialists support her.)
The socialist alternative
So don't worry - Obama has nothing to do with socialism. Sorry you were startled, Republicans: I know socialist ideas are powerful. God knows what would happen if the poor and oppressed ever got hold of them. Actually - people are still willing to vote for someone you label a socialist, maybe that says something? Maybe it's about time we found someone for the rich to really be afraid of?
Labels: imperialism, McCain, Obama, racism, socialist
