Tag Archives: Marxism


The problem with pure (Marxist) Socialism is it impoverishes the people. The problem with European Socialism is it is not sustainable. The problem with Capitalism is it rewards people according to their capability, which is to say unequally. An additional problem with Barack Hussein Obama’s socialism is it is based on rage not on benevolence.

For a prime example of pure socialist government we need look no further than Russia following the 1917 Revolution. The Revolution was born of rage and led by a man obsessed with power. The people were impoverished before Lenin came to power and remained impoverished for nearly 200 years after. Lenin didn’t debate his political adversaries; he simply killed or imprisoned them. Marxist socialism is only sustainable by tyranny. More recently, consider the need for the Berlin Wall and the desperation of the Cuban boat people.

Socialism can be born of intended benevolence as well as rage. Fidel Castro’s Cuba is a good example. After more than 50 years of Socialism that began with benevolent intent, only Michael Moore and Rev. Wright believe the Cuban people are better off in Cuba than the American people are in America. Pure Socialism, which usually goes by the name Communism, has no private sector to generate wealth and thus it impoverishes the people from the outset.

On the other hand, it can be argued that Western European Socialism which allows for a private sector provides greater benevolence to the people for a time, but only while the money lasts. Then what? The world is about to find out, if not in this European crisis then in the next one.

And what of Obama’s brand of Socialism? It doesn’t matter because he is not going to be re-elected. If we are wrong, tyranny won’t be very far behind. In fact, soft tyranny has already started; ask the former GM dealers who didn’t support Obama.

RADICAL-IN-CHIEF – Chapter 10 – The Obama Administration

This post continues the series of chapter by chapter summations of the book Radical-In-Chief by Stanley Kurtz.

Chapter 10
The Obama Administration
The modern socialist movement in America has abandoned its open and militant ways of that were so evident in the sixties.  That approach might work to bring the sought after revolution and change in an impoverished nation but not in a democratic, free and prosperous country like the United States.  Socialist scholars like Saul Alinsky and Michael Harrington convinced other movement leaders a long time ago that the only workable strategy for transforming the United States into a Marxist socialist government is a combination of stealth and incremental advance.  That’s the course followed by Obama and his administration today.

Stealth was evident in the way the health care plan was handled.  The stakes were high because single payer health care would bring 16 % of the national economy under government control.  That was Obama’s real objective.  Every measure was taken to avoid scrutiny which is why there was such a rush to get the bill passed as rapidly as possible.  The “public option” originally proposed was designed to lead to single payer, government only, healthcare over time…  Obama denied the single payer objective claiming the public would always have a choice; the government would simply be offering an additional option in fair competition with private insurance companies.  It should be obvious to anyone that private industry must remain profitable to survive and cannot compete with government that, supported by taxpayers, can operate indefinitely at a loss.

Barack Obama ran his presidential election campaign on promises of a post-partisanship and an open style administration.  Once in office, it turned out to be quite the opposite.  He stirred controversy, for instance, by attacking the Fox News network, calling them illegitimate and attempting to bar them from press conferences to which the other networks were invited.  He attacked the Supreme Court while speaking as President of the United States before the entire Congress and to the entire nation by television.  These are not steps toward healing; they are overt acts of division.

Naive voters may think the increased partisan hostility is a failing.  But, to a trained community organizer it is an objective.  The generation of animosity and division is the ground work laid for the conditions that prepare people to accept, even demand change.

To a community organizer, polarization is a strategy.  Creating division is the first step in the path to transfer of power.


Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add Comments about the chapter called The Genesis of Tactic Proxy.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled The Genesis of Tactic Proxy
“America’s corporations are a spiritual slum, and their arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society.”

The title of this chapter is derived from the idea of using corporate shareholder proxies to achieve your own goals.  Corporate stockholders have certain rights as to how the corporation conducts its affairs.  These rights are exercised by voting and the voting document is called a proxy. The tactic involves persuading colleges, foundations and churches to vote their proxies in solidarity according to the organizer’s plan of attack.

Alinsky stumbled upon this idea when talking to three business administration college students who were opposed to the Vietnam war, but “recoiled from such actions as carrying the Viet Cong flag or burning their draft cards.  However, they did believe in using proxies.”

The genesis of the proxy tactic is an example of why an organizer should hang loose. When a door opens unexpectedly, go through it. Be not concerned that it takes you off the path you had planned. Do not fall into the trap set by “our alleged educational system” that teaches “order, logic, rational thought, direction and purpose”. These ideas are invalid because they are too rigid. The organizer must be ready to go where the flow leads him.

The author’s statement at the top of this awkwardly named chapter only needs minor editing to be correct.  “America’s corporations Democratic leaders are a spiritual slum, and their Obama’s arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society.”

Saul Alinsky must have been quite proud of himself when he stumbled on this idea.  Here he was, using capitalist corporate procedures to promote a Marxist cause.  He didn’t realize it was never destined to work.  Not many corporate shareholders are going to join in solidarity with any radical causes, let alone socialist ones.


Professor Paul Rahe minces no words in writing More Than a Touch of Malice, an article you can read at Ricochet.  He adds his wisdom to the argument that, far from committing a gaffe, Obama’s riling of the Catholic Church was a deliberate and well thought out step taken to define and solidify his base.

In 2008, when he first ran for the Presidency, Barack Obama posed as a moderate most of the time.  This time, he is openly running as a radical. His aim is to win a mandate for the fundamental transformation of the United States that he promised in passing on the eve of his election four years ago and that he promised again when he called his administration The New Foundation.

In the process, he intends to reshape the Democratic coalition – to bring the old hypocrisy to an end, to eliminate those who stand in the way of the final consolidation of the administrative entitlements state, to drive out the faithful Catholics once and for all, to jettison the white working class, and to build a new American regime on a coalition of  highly educated upper-middle class whites, feminists, African-Americans, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, and those belonging to the public-sector unions. To Americans outside this coalition, he intends to show no mercy.

Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, taught that transforming a nation with a prosperous middle class like the United States into a Marxist socialist society could only be accomplished if approached as a three act play:

Act I – join the crowd, gain respect, acceptance and legitimacy.

Act II – develop the theme, spread discontent, and build a following for Act III

Act III – the act of final transformation which Alinsky says will of necessity, be violent.

Act I is complete.  The Occupy movement opened Act II; there is ample discontent.  It only needs to be channeled, fanned and kept alive.  “Those damned Regressives, now they want to take away your sex life”.  That will do it.  That’s the Catholic flap.

Act III…, there will be no Act III; we will see to that in November.  But if there were, the curtain would open in January with an Inauguration Proclamation declaring, “I, Barack Hussein Obama, am the way, the truth and the light; there is no way out of this mess but by me”.  And America would be on the road to becoming a Marxist Socialist society.

Bob B


When the Tea Party rose on the scene it was no mystery who they were and what they were all about.  Oh, of course there were some who didn’t have a clue.  They were the people about whom we’ve been saying for years “they just don’t get it” and they don’t.  Now, the shoe is on the other foot.  Who are all these people who call themselves Occupiers?  I just don’t get it.

Gradually we are finding out.  At least a few of them are hard line Marxists; at least some of the organizers are.  Los Angeles can be added to Atlanta in the come-the-revolution category.  Here are the videos.  Judge for yourself.

Occupy LA

In this video a young women is leading the group and calling out :”Where’s our bailouts”? Apparently she’s one of the disappointed ones who still have to make their own mortgage payments.  Note the lingo as she speaks; she rails on about infrastructure, healthcare and corporate greed.  “Corporate fat cats have to go”.  Where have you heard that before?  It’s straight out of Obama’s book.  And it’s not just some words he throws out occasionally; it’s a drumbeat he plays in speech after speech. 

“Bloody violence will be necessary and it is coming to achieve our goals, yes a revolution”.  Those may not be the exact words but they are the sum and substance of what the speaker said.  Barack Obama may have no direct connection whatever to the Occupy people, but he held out the welcome sign, opened the door and is holding it for them.  He has given them the words to say and pointed out the enemy he wants them to attack.  Community organizer extraordinaire.  Saul Alinsky must be smiling in his grave.

There have been many claims made recently that Obama is competing with Jimmy Carter for the title of worst president ever.  In reality, there is no competition.  Carter just did a lousy job but he was an American president, whereas Barack Hussein Obama’s administration is, as Pamela Geller declares in her book, A Post American Presidency.

More OCCUPY posts to come.  In the meantime, get a copy of Geller’s book.



We have our answer to the question of whether or not Occupy Atlanta is a Marxist movement.  Here is second video from the same event where John Lewis was turned away. This is the essence of what the facilitator tells the demonstrators.

We say to those of you who are with us, you may disagree with us and you may leave us.  But you should know that if you leave us you will be joining those who want to kill us.  Remember when the battle comes, you will be on the other side.

Then quoting verbatim:

“I’ll say one more thing, as a Marxist student what I am saying here is not out of my own head.  It is out of the history of the revolutionary movement international”.

For some reason the video would not embed. To play it click on this link.

Now the question becomes, is Occupy Wall Street a Marxist operation like Atlanta?  At this point, it appears they are not.  The Atlanta operation is frightening but less dangerous than it appears.  Their methods are too extreme to gain a wide following.

Now the question becomes, is Occupy Wall Street a Marxist operation like Atlanta?  At this point, it appears they are not. The Atlanta operation is frightening but less dangerous than it appears.  Their methods are too extreme to gain a wide following.


Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism or Communism, most rational people would agree the distinctions are not significant. All are characterized by vast government confiscation of private property, severely curtailed personal freedom, low levels of general prosperity and by totalitarian governments. How does Socialism differ from this other set of “isms”?

The hardbound edition of Webster’s Unabridged Encylopedic Dictionary helps us out.

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the theory of holding all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state
2 a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party

1. a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles

Random Thots’ simplification of Webster’s definitions:

a system of total government ownership of all private property (except personal property such as clothing and furniture) and controls all social activity

a system that advocates and may be the transition to Communism