Is Obama a Socialist?
I’d like to answer a popular question about Barack Obama. It’s not whether or not he’s really an American citizen (he is), whether or not he is Muslim (he’s not, but honestly, why the hell would it matter if he was?), but rather the broken record repeat question: Is Obama a Socialist?
Well, let’s define Socialist really quickly. Socialist is a very broad term, and it includes people like me (who are syndicalist/socialist), people who are market socialists, and full on “normal socialists” (those who believe that all the means of production should be publicly owned). As such, defining the boundaries can be a little tricky.
There are three things that need to be briefly defined in order to really answer the question of whether Obama is a socialist. First, Capitalism. Second, mixed government. Third, socialism.
My goal is to define, not to critique. For critique, see previous entries on “Normal Business Functioning.”
Capitalism states that individuals should be able to own the “means of production” (company ownership, including but not limited to factories, machinery, and so on). It states that individuals should be able to hire other individuals for a wage that both parties agree to. “Full” capitalism (libertarians like this) says that the market will resolve the problems of society on its own, balancing itself out effectively. It states that individuals should have the right to “Capital gains,” or profit from the ownership of a company, which they can use to establish new business.
Capitalism doesn’t exist in and of itself, anywhere in the world, nor has it historically existed on its own anywhere in the world thus far. There have always been socialized aspects of Government, and thus all Governments have been…
Mixed Governments
A mixed Government allows for Capitalism as the standard means of production, with individuals generating and using Capital to create new businesses, own and run the means of production, and so forth. It also adds certain publicly owned aspects of Government. For example: public education, public roads, public law enforcement, public transportation, and public libraries. The Government, in a Mixed Government scenario, may step into the picture when private businesses are harming the public good (generally as democratically decided) – thus a ban on monopolies and regulations on certain industries, including but not limited to the banking and finance industry, health care industry, and so forth.
If you favor this sort of Government, you do not favor “Capitalism,” but a mixed government. Most people who declare themselves Capitalist actually belong to this group, with notable exceptions being the more extreme libertarians and the purist anarcho-capitalists. The balance between privately owned production and publicly owned aspects is very different than…
Socialism
Socialism can be provided with a blanket definition that states that the means of production will not be owned by individuals (“Capitalists”) but by some other group (in Syndicalism, that group is all the workers in a given company – in more pure Socialism, everything is publicly owned). It also features a larger number of social programs, where more aspects of life are readily available for individuals – for example, health care may become a guarantee for all individuals, and would be publicly owned. Higher education (college) may become a publicly guaranteed opportunity for all people.
Additional things that may or may not be a part of Socialism include the elimination of privately held banks (all banks would become publicly owned), inheritance, housing, exploitation through wage labor, or any private property. Communism, which can be seen as a more extreme and republican version of Socialism would, by its nature, include full public ownership of property, elimination of inheritance, elimination of wage labor, and elimination of private ownership.
Market socialism provides a notable exception to this definition, allowing for individuals to own the means of production in much of the market, but provides public ownership of “key portions” of the market (with key portions being only loosely defined). There is some debate as to whether this form of socialism is really socialism (as it can also be seen as a mixed government with the balance of the scales tipped more toward socialism).
So, there are our definitions! Back to the question at hand:
Is Obama a Socialist?
What would make Obama a socialist?
He believes in increasing regulation in certain industries (health care, finance, etc.). Regulation is a mixed government philosophy. Public ownership is a socialist philosophy. In this respect, he believes in amixed government.
He believes in more opportunities for individuals in lower income to receive an education and SBA (as well as other Government subsidized or granted) loans. Subsidization is a mixed government philosophy. Egalitarian opportunity (where it would become guaranteed for all regardless of income level) is asocialist philosophy. In this respect, he believes in a mixed government.
He believes in what we call “re-distribution of wealth” (increased taxation of the wealthy, decreased taxation of the poor, for social programs primarily benefiting the poor). This is a liberal view in mixed governmentphilosophy. Welfare programs and other social programs (including publicly owned programs like public education) are a mixed government ideology. Socialist philosophy takes a more preventative carephilosophy which eliminates the need for expansive welfare systems by eliminating the social constructs which create the poverty which requires them. (As far as most socialists are concerned, liberality is an attempt to medicate symptoms that fails to cure the disease). In this respect, he is a liberal individual within mixed government.
Obama’s foreign policy does not protect big business interests as well as previous administrations may have, but the presence in foreign nations (which many socialists, including myself, would declare an imperialist presence) indicates that he is not looking to truly defeat these actions which support Capitalism. The fact that regulatory principles are being introduced rather than real change, reformist principles rather than systemic alteration, and so forth, all indicate that what we see with Obama is simply a more liberal view on Mixed Government, which places the balance more on the “socialist end” of the stick – more reform, more social programs, and so forth.
In summary, while Obama may be introducing more socialist aspects and regulatory principles into the US Government, he’s far from Socialist. More publicly owned aspects doesn’t indicate a publicly owned means of production (i.e., socialism), but rather, a shift in the exact balance of the mixed government.
Tags: Education, Policy, Socialism, socialist
Leave a Reply