Obama is a socialist ?

I would answer a popular question about Barack Obama. Is not whether or not it is actually an American citizen (is), although it is not a Muslim (he is not, but honestly, why the hell cares if it was him?), But rather the broken record repeating the question: Obama is a socialist ?

Well, we define socialist really fast. Socialist is a very broad term and includes people like me (who are unionist / socialist), people who are socialist market full of "socialist normal" (those who believe that all means of production should be owned ). As such, defining the boundaries may be a bit 'difficult.

There are three things that must be briefly described in order to really answer the question of whether Obama is a socialist. First, capitalism. Secondly, mixed government. Third, socialism.

My goal is to define, not criticism. For criticism, see previous entries on "normal business operation."

Capitalism says that individuals should be able to possess the "means of production" (owned by the company, including but not limited to factories, machinery, etc.). It states that citizens must be able to take other people for a wage that both parties accept. "Full" capitalism (libertarians like this) says that the market can solve the problems of society as such, balancing himself effectively. It states that people should have the right to "capital gains", or profit from ownership of a company that can be used to establish new business.

Capitalism does not exist in and of itself, anywhere in the world, nor has historically existed alone in the world so far. There have always been socialized aspects of government and, therefore, all governments have been ...

Governments mixed

A mixed government allows capitalism as the standard means of production, with individuals in generation and use of capital for new businesses, owners and operators of means of production, and so on. It also adds some aspects of public ownership of the Government. For example: public education, public roads, the forces of public order, public transport, and public libraries. The government, in a scenario of mixed government may step into the picture when private companies are detrimental to the public good (in general, as democratically decided) - the prohibition of monopolies and regulations on certain sectors, including but not limited to the field banking and finance, health care industry, and so on.

If you prefer this type of government is not favorable "capital", but a mixed government. Most people who declare themselves Capitalist actually belong to this group, with the exception of the most extreme libertarians and anarcho-capitalist purist. The balance between production of private property and public property issues is very different from ...

Socialism

Socialism can be supplied with a blanket definition that states that the means of production will not be privately owned ("capitalists"), but somewhere different group (trade unionism, that group is all workers of a given society - in the purest socialism, everything is public property). It also has a greater number of social programs, where most aspects of life are readily available for people - for example, health care can become a guarantee for all individuals, and would be publicly owned. Higher education (college) may become an opportunity publicly guaranteed for all.

Other things that may or may not be a part of socialism is the elimination of private banks (all banks would become public property), inheritance, housing, exploitation through wage labor, or any private property. Communism, which can be seen as a more extreme version of socialism and republican would, by its nature, including public ownership of assets, the elimination of inheritance, the abolition of wage labor and the elimination of private property.

market socialism offers a notable exception to this definition, allowing individuals to possess the means of production in most of the market, but provides for public ownership of the "key portions" of the market (with key portions is only vaguely defined). There is some discussion that this form of socialism is really socialism (as can be seen as a mixed government, with the balance tip the balance more towards socialism).

Then there are our definitions! Back to the issue at hand:

Obama is a socialist?

What would make Obama a socialist?
He believes in increasing regulation in certain sectors (health, finance, etc..) Regulation is a philosophy of mixed government. Public ownership is a social philosophy. In this regard, he believes in government amixed.

Believes in more opportunities for individuals in lower revenue for education and SBA (as well as other government subsidized or granted) loans. Subsidy is a philosophy of mixed government. egalitarian opportunities (where he would become guaranteed to all regardless of income level) is the philosophy asocialist. In this regard, he believes in a mixed government.

He believes in what we call "re-distribution of wealth" (increased taxation of the wealthy, declined the taxation of the poor, for social programs that benefit mainly the poor). It is a vision of liberal governmentphilosophy mixed. wellness programs and other social programs (including programs of public property as public education) are a mixed government ideology. carephilosophy socialist philosophy takes a more preventive and eliminates the need for expansive welfare systems, eliminating poverty, creating social constructs that require them. (For most socialists are concerned, the donation is an attempt to treat the symptoms that can not cure the disease). In this regard, he is a liberal person in the mixed government.

Obama's foreign policy does not protect the interests of big business and government may be earlier, but the presence of foreign nations (which many socialists, including myself, would declare an imperial presence) indicates that he does not try to defeat these measures really support capitalism. The fact that the regulatory principles have been introduced rather than a real change, principles systemic reform rather than an alteration, and so on, all indicates that what we see with Obama is simply a more liberal view on mixed government, which puts more balance on the "social purpose" of the stick - more reform, more social programs, and so on.

In summary, while Obama could be the introduction of the most socialist and regulatory principles in the United States government, is far from socialist. aspects of public ownership is not a publicly owned means of production (ie, socialism), but rather, a change in the exact balance of mixed government.

I have a final question. Let's say Obama is a socialist. We believe for a second. If this is the case, what are we afraid? What is it about socialism that has you so afraid? Socialism, half of the democratically controlled, without the top 10% of income earners currently have the right to exploit the low 90%. Beyond the corporate propaganda that had the word socialism full of hate and resentment for the last seventy years, what makes it wrong? Think about it