Obama's Socialist America
Please note that the following is indeed a work of satire meant to illustrate the absurdity of conservatives' argument that President Obama is a socialist.
I woke up this morning to hear the news that, as of 7:00 AM EDT, President Barack Obama has declared a state of national emergency with martial law in force. He then declared that socialist revolution was the only way to resolve this emergency, and he would use all powers of his office to begin the revolution. After protests from Republicans in Congress as well as many in his own Democratic Party, including Senate majority leader Harry Reid, President Obama declared Congress suspended indefinitely and placed the National Guard on Capitol Hill. He denounced the Congressional opposition as "treasonous capitalist running dogs and the lackeys of Wall Street banksters." He declared himself undisputed head of the Democratic Party, renaming it the Democratic Socialist Party and unenrolled anyone disloyal to him personally or to socialist revolution generally from the Party. The Supreme Court immediately ruled his actions unconstitutional and named Speaker of the House John Boehner as legal successor to the presidency. President Obama had all nine justices arrested for treason and had them replaced with the "Supreme Tribunal of the Revolution."
It sounded like politics as usual in Washington, D.C., so I made my way to work. Upon arrival, I discovered the President had issued an executive order nationalizing the economy. Apparently, workers had been ordered to "break the chains of their capitalist lords" and establish collective ownership of the workplace. The president/owner of the company and his corporate officers had been barricaded into the boardroom, and a Workers' Committee had already been established. All managers, directors, and executives had been suspended from their positions so that new leadership could "be determined democratically, by the workers themselves." Shares of the corporation were to be divided equally among all employees, previous owners forfeiting their claims. We heard that the government would soon be directing us to make "cooperation and peace" agreements with our former competitors and that soon revenues would be outsourced to the federal government, which would determine how much revenue the company would keep to stay in operation, possibly with some funds diverted to other industries the government feels need to grow for the national interest.
When I returned home, I read about other changes. Utilities, including electric, gas, water, and Internet, would be distributed based on "perceived need" from my demographics, residence size, and occupation. Food would be allocated to all households through non-tradeable food stamps. Healthcare and higher education would become freely available, based on need.
President Obama convened a new constitutional convention to bring legitimacy to his revolution and also declared "United Socialist America" as the new name of the country.
Mr Obama may or may not think he is a socialist. He could conceivably have a vague sense of what socialism is.
But he has pretty low capacity to act. For Obama, massive action is walking out of a eeting with the Chinese ambassador because he has a date to work on his golf game.
While some things in your satire were a bit disturbing, the end result of free education and healthcare should be something that a "world superpower" has for its citizens. Another thing I love about concervatives, is that they can stay up in there seats as long as they like, and bash socialism for hours, but when it comes down to it, its they, the rich, uperclass people of america who live in a socialist society. They dont seem to complain too much in the that situation... "I get paid too much!" "I have too many health benefits!" "My house is too fancy!"
That isn't socialism; it's bog-standard capitalism. Sometimes it's said that, in the U.S., we socialize risk (for the well-off at least) but privatize rewards.
That isn't socialism; it's bog-standard capitalism. Sometimes it's said that, in the U.S., we socialize risk (for the well-off at least) but privatize rewards.
Right, but it does come from socialist ideaology. When the uper class needs something, they make it the government's priority to do so, thereby taking money from everyone else to fill that need. We live in a capitalist bureacracy, thats controlled by corrupt socialists... And we're trying to spread this idea across the world?
Sadly, that seems to be the natural order of things throughout history. And nowhere is it clearer than in the case of war, which is generally fought by the poor for the sake of the rich. But even in times of peace, when things go well the rich are the first to benefit, and when things go badly the poor are the first to suffer.
That isn't socialism; it's bog-standard capitalism. Sometimes it's said that, in the U.S., we socialize risk (for the well-off at least) but privatize rewards.
Right, but it does come from socialist ideaology. When the uper class needs something, they make it the government's priority to do so, thereby taking money from everyone else to fill that need. We live in a capitalist bureacracy, thats controlled by corrupt socialists... And we're trying to spread this idea across the world?
How does this come from socialist ideology? It is not uncommon for an elite or ruling class to leverage their wealth and influence to extract greater privilege from the government. In highly non-egalitarian societies, the government makes no pretense of being democratic or "of the people" but exists as a means for the ruling class to extract and concentrate wealth and resources among themselves while maintaining control of the lower classes. The rulers may use a patriarchal narrative to justify the social order: the king being the father of the country or the lords being the protectors and benefactors of the lowly peasants. Democracies and socialist states aspire to the opposite: egalitarianism and the government in support of the common wheal.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
But he has pretty low capacity to act. For Obama, massive action is walking out of a eeting with the Chinese ambassador because he has a date to work on his golf game.
Maybe if wall street convinces Obama there will be shortages and price spikes on titanium, graphite, and exotic foreign rubbers, if he would suddnely be motivated to take the economic problems seriously?
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
But he has pretty low capacity to act. For Obama, massive action is walking out of a eeting with the Chinese ambassador because he has a date to work on his golf game.
Maybe if wall street convinces Obama there will be shortages and price spikes on titanium, graphite, and exotic foreign rubbers, if he would suddnely be motivated to take the economic problems seriously?
if wall street convinces him then yes.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
But he has pretty low capacity to act. For Obama, massive action is walking out of a eeting with the Chinese ambassador because he has a date to work on his golf game.
Maybe if wall street convinces Obama there will be shortages and price spikes on titanium, graphite, and exotic foreign rubbers, if he would suddnely be motivated to take the economic problems seriously?
I think he would spend more despite warnings, then take legal action against the people that warned him.
But he has pretty low capacity to act. For Obama, massive action is walking out of a eeting with the Chinese ambassador because he has a date to work on his golf game.
Maybe if wall street convinces Obama there will be shortages and price spikes on titanium, graphite, and exotic foreign rubbers, if he would suddnely be motivated to take the economic problems seriously?
I think he would spend more despite warnings, then take legal action against the people that warned him.
Well it would fit his track record.
ruveyn
Socialism and fascism are actually pretty closely related to each other.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
That isn't socialism; it's bog-standard capitalism. Sometimes it's said that, in the U.S., we socialize risk (for the well-off at least) but privatize rewards.
Right, but it does come from socialist ideaology. When the uper class needs something, they make it the government's priority to do so, thereby taking money from everyone else to fill that need. We live in a capitalist bureacracy, thats controlled by corrupt socialists... And we're trying to spread this idea across the world?
How does this come from socialist ideology? It is not uncommon for an elite or ruling class to leverage their wealth and influence to extract greater privilege from the government. In highly non-egalitarian societies, the government makes no pretense of being democratic or "of the people" but exists as a means for the ruling class to extract and concentrate wealth and resources among themselves while maintaining control of the lower classes. The rulers may use a patriarchal narrative to justify the social order: the king being the father of the country or the lords being the protectors and benefactors of the lowly peasants. Democracies and socialist states aspire to the opposite: egalitarianism and the government in support of the common wheal.
Study your history, Lenin and Mao were supposedly for the common man. Mao was responsible for the death of thousands if not millions. Socialists claim they are for the common man until they actually achieve power, then come the purges.