Obama’s Brand of Marxism
Tea Party Economist
by Gary North: How
the Council on Foreign Relations Controls Conservative Republicans
you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result
of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for
every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know
neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
— Sun Tzu, 5th century B.C.
There is an
old rule of war, which includes politics. If you misunderstand your
opponent’s philosophy of life, you will misunderstand his
goals. If you misunderstand his goals, you will misunderstand his
strategy. If you misunderstand his strategy, you will misunderstand
his tactics. This will place you at a disadvantage.
the international betting site, has Obama’s odds of a
win at about 58%. It has not been below 50% since November 2011.
Intrade is rarely wrong in bets on political outcomes. So, if this
really is a crucial election, what is your personal fall-back position
if he wins? What is the Republicans’ fall-back position? After
all, if the Republican Party gets out the Republican voter base
by telling them that this is yet another “election of the
century,” and Obama still wins, despite a rotten economy,
which should doom his chances, what can they tell the troops? “Oh,
well, we won the House of Representatives. We can block every bad
law he proposes.” That will be the truth. Intrade bets are
90% that Republicans will win the House. If they win the Senate,
too — now about 50-50 — they can even block his Supreme
So, that would
mean that this isn’t the election of the century.
need a philosophy, goal, strategy, and tactical plan to deal with
an Obama victory in November. Anything which in any way raises non-issues
in dealing with Obama is a smoke screen.
I am now going
to blow away some smoke.
MAKES BARACK/BARRY RUN?
I contend that
Obama’s Right-wing opponents have generally misunderstood
his philosophy, his goals, his strategy, and his tactics. So have
his Left-wing supporters.
The key to
understanding Obama is not Marxism. The key is that he and his wife
both lost their licenses to practice law in Illinois.
were both social climbers from early in their lives. They are good,
old-fashioned liberals, and they learned a crucial social skill
as teenagers: how to work white academic liberals’ racial
guilt. They are both bright, so they were perfect for academia.
Their presence on campus allowed liberal academia to fill its mandated,
self-imposed quota system. They are both a lot like Al Sharpton,
but their original market was academia, not the media.
They got to
the top socially by getting certified by way of Columbia University,
Princeton University, and law school. They had it made. And then
. . . whammo! No more certification. They had learned to manipulate
academia, but they failed to manipulate the Illinois Bar Association.
First, it was Michelle in 1994. Then Obama in 2008. The mainstream
media have of course covered this up, but Google
From the day
that he surrendered his license in January, 2008, his handlers had
him on a tight leash. They still do. He has a deep-set need: to
keep concealed the reason for his retroactive de-certification.
There is widespread
speculation on the Web, which I regard as plausible, that this is
why he refuses to release his undergraduate transcripts. His grades
were fine. His problem is this: the name on these records cannot
be successfully altered retroactively. It was not the name he told
the Illinois Bar Association was his. He was asked if he had ever
used a different name. He said yes. Academia did not care. The Bar
KIND OF MARXISM?
Web, I read that Obama is a Marxist. I think it’s worth considering.
The best place
to begin our search for an answer is the Communist
Manifesto. It was written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
in 1847. It was published anonymously in German in London in February
presents the case for proletarian revolution: the working class.
It does not describe the future communist paradise that will emerge
from the revolution. The revolution will not initially bring the
final communist state, the document said. But it will bring the
first stage, when the proletarians take charge. We read the following.
We have seen
above that the first step in the revolution by the working class
is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to
win the battle of democracy.
will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital
from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production
in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized
as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces
as rapidly as possible.
in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic
inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois
production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically
insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement,
outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old
social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing
the mode of production.
will, of course, be different in different countries.
in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally
of property in land and application of all rents of land to
2. A heavy
progressive or graduated income tax.
of all rights of inheritance.
of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national
bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
of the means of communication and transport in the hands of
of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement
of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies,
especially for agriculture.
of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition
of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable
distribution of the populace over the country.
education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s
factory labor in its present form. Combination of education
with industrial production, etc.
of property in land and application of all rents of land to public
purposes.” Has Obama called for this? No. Has any Democrat
elected to Congress called for this? If so, I do not recall it.
Do Democrats vote for subsidizing agriculture in the name of the
small farmer? Yes. Does the money go to small farmers? No. Where
does most of it go? To huge agribusiness firms. Do Republicans support
the farm subsidies? Yes.
low-interest loans for housing? Both parties vote for this. Does
the Federal Reserve promote home ownership by subsidies? Yes. It’s
called “Operation Twist.” The FED buys the bonds of
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the government’s mortgage agencies.
Private investors buy these bonds, too. This lowers mortgage rates.
It subsidizes home ownership for the masses.
GRADUATED INCOME TAX
progressive or graduated income tax.” Obama probably wants
this, although he has not pushed for it. Does he want top rates
at (say) 90%. No one in the Democratic Party has called for this.
Yet it was 91% under Eisenhower. Kennedy’s most important
law lowered this to 70%. Reagan got it to 28%. Democrats voted for
this, so great was the public demand. So, there is no evidence that
Obama wants to return the top rate to the Marxism of the older Republican
Party, which controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House,
of all rights of inheritance.” No Democrat President has called
for this. I know of no Democrat at any level who has called for
this. Obama is not a Marxist on this issue.
OF EMIGRANTS’ PROPERTY.
of the property of all emigrants and rebels.” This means everyone
who leaves the country. There
are taxes on Americans who renounce their citizenship if they are
worth over $2 million. They pay a capital gains tax on everything
above $600,000. The Democrats passed this it 2008. But there had
been a similar tax on people worth more than $2 million that was
passed by the government as part of Bush’s American Jobs Creation
act of 2004. So, is Obama
a Marxist on this point? No more than most other legislators in
of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank
with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” The Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a government agency.
The 12 regional banks are not. So, it is a hybrid. It surely is
a monopoly. The FED has had bipartisan support ever since 1913.
Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, was the
president of the New York FED, the most powerful of the 12 regional
banks, prior to his appointment. Is Obama a Marxist on this point?
You bet he is . . . just like everyone else in Congress except Ron
COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT
of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the
state.” There is no national politician in the USA who is
a Marxist on this point. There never has been.
the rest of the article
North [send him mail]
is the author of Mises
on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.
He is also the author of a free 31-volume series, An
Economic Commentary on the Bible.
2012 Gary North
Best of Gary North