Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Lieberman: It’s ‘a good question’ to ask if Obama is ‘a Marxist.’

From Think Progress courtesy of Eschaton:

In his New York Times column today, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol claimed that Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) now-infamous “bitter” remarks sound like Karl Marx’s “famous statement about religion.” On the Brian and the Judge radio show today, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano asked Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) if Obama is “a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case?”

“I must say that’s a good question,” replied Lieberman, before stepping back to say that he would “hesitate to say he’s a Marxist”


Listen to the exchange here.

Anybody who knows anything about Marxism at all wouldn't hesitate to categorically and absolutely deny that Obama is a Marxist. I mean, the term essentially has no meaning these days in American political discourse, except as a kind of pejorative meaning "liberal." So, if "liberal" means "Marxist," which it doesn't, then Obama's a Marxist. But then, so would millions and millions of Americans be Marxists, too, in which case the whole fucking country would have a big fucking problem: we'd be on the verge of a very real and major revolution--obviously, that's not the case, either.

But just to be sure, this is from the Wikipedia entry on Marxism:

While there are many theoretical and practical differences among the various forms of Marxism, most forms of Marxism share:

* a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of capital

* a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects material conditions and relations

* an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations

* an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable

* a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change

The main points of contention among Marxists are the degree to which they are committed to a workers' revolution as the means of achieving human emancipation and enlightenment, and the actual mechanism through which such a revolution might occur and succeed.
While one might be able to play fast and loose with some of these already fast and loose tenets of Marxism in order to find some similarities with Obama's rhetoric, it would be a big stretch. Obama would probably never describe the relationship between capital and labor as exploitative. Obama is religious and clearly believes that an individual's self-consciousness is about much more than material reality. Obama is clearly anti-poverty, but I have yet to see any rhetoric, either spoken or on his website, which would indicate that he believes that social or economic class is a function of "differing relations of production." Obama probably believes that "material conditions and social relations" are "historically malleable," but then, who the fuck doesn't think that? To the best of my knowledge, Obama has never said anything to the effect of history being driven by class struggle.

And finally, Obama has absolutely no intention of fomenting a workers' revolution: he wants to run the government, not destroy it.

He's just not a Marxist--indeed, I'd probably be voting for him if he was.

Actually, very few Americans are Marxists. I mean, one might be able to fairly categorize
me as a Marxist, and one would be wrong, but it would be about a billion times more fair to brand me that way than to do so with Obama.

Anyway, this is bullshit. Lieberman's a fucking moron. The best thing the Democrats have done in a decade was to drive that bastard out of the party. Motherfucking red baiter. Aren't we over this shit yet?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$