Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Obama’s Marxist Core Shows Through

By Greg L | 17 July 2012 | National Politics | 9 Comments

Obama’s campaign stop in Roanoke may well herald the end of his presidential campaign.  Saying that entrepreneurs aren’t responsible for their own success, success that should be attributed to government instead of business owners, isn’t just offensive to the huge chunk of the population that is building success on their own, it is utterly alien to American values.  Those remarks out Obama as a true-believing Marxist, someone utterly out of touch with American enterprise, and completely unqualified to lead this nation.

Here’s the stunning idiocy, courtesy of a transcript provided by the White House.  Emphasis is mine.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

These ideas of course didn’t just pop up in Obama’s head, they’ve been bouncing around in liberal minds for quite a while.  Just a few months ago Massachusetts Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren — of fauxchahontas fame – was spouting similar rhetoric at her campaign events.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. NOBODY! You built a factory out there – good for you! But I wanna be clear, you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers – the rest of us paid to educate – you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did, now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea, god bless, keep a big hunk of it, but part of the underling social contract – you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

When fauxcahontas made her somewhat reasoned remarks, liberals all over gobbled it up as if this was some sort of bold, new progressive idea.  The idea that you owe a debt to society if you’re successful upset a lot of free market conservatives, but because this was pretty carefully framed as a ’social contract’ (interestingly enough, a ’social contract’ is involuntarily imposed, but that’s another story) where an entrepreneur could still “keep a big hunk” of what they’d earned, it didn’t inflame them all too badly.  This was an argument about the degree of involuntary wealth confiscation, not a discussion of absolute wealth confiscation after all.  It was another bout of class warfare progressive socialism, and not all that novel at that since the same silly ideas that entrepreneurs somehow owe the rest of us something for their success has been floating around in liberal minds since at least the early 1900s.

Obama took this progressive socialism and just ripped off the progressive veneer, demonstrating a decidedly more Marxist philosophy motivates him.  No “big hunk” for entrepreneurs at all with Obama — just a complete rejection than a successful entrepreneur owned any of his success at all.  This philosophy digs way past the social progressivism of the early 1900s all the way back to the foundational core of hard-left liberal thought, conceived in the mid 1800’s by a guy named Karl Marx:

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2

If you as an entrepreneur didn’t build your business, if government is really the entity responsible for the success of your business, it’s not quite that much of a stretch to argue that government should have the power to take that business from you now, is it?  It’s not even yours after all, it was just misappropriated from the proletariat.  You’re just a member of the borgeoise that’s supposed to be “swept away” by the Communist Revolution, anyways.

Contrast that sort of though with something that should be a little more familiar to us:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Someday we ought to have presidents talk about the principles underlying that document.  It would be a rather refreshing change of pace.  Still, it’s useful to see Obama finally draw back the curtains on exactly what his core beliefs happen to be, especially since he’s been in office nearly four years and up until now he hasn’t done anything to explain his philosophy to the electorate.

UPDATE: The American Enterprise Institute makes the same connection between Obama and Fauxcahontas, but hasn’t quite picked up on the Marxist influence evident in this line of thought.  An interesting take, though.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

9 Comments

  1. anon said on 17 Jul 2012 at 7:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    So is he or the government going to share the risk, too? I shouldn’t have anything to lose, then. Where do I get the no-strings-attached government money to start and run my business since, as he says, I am going to be running my business on everyone else’s backs and not doing anything myself? I suppose all of my own past tax payments don’t count for shit so I should be thankful for what he provides in order to run my business.

    What a God damned, clueless idiot.

  2. Steve Albertson said on 18 Jul 2012 at 12:47 am:
    Flag comment

    Nice post, Greg. Unfortunately, you’re all too right.

  3. Anonymous said on 18 Jul 2012 at 5:40 am:
    Flag comment

    He may have been elected, but he ISN’t the president. No president of this country has ever been so negative about this country and the dreams of success that it so inspires.

  4. Anonymous said on 18 Jul 2012 at 6:38 am:
    Flag comment

    How ironic. While on the one hand the president belittles those individuals that have struggled and took the risks to create a business and grow it to the point of success, on the other hand he praises illegal immigrants for their efforts to obtain an education. So for the generations of citizens who have worked and fought to build and support this country he turns his back only to welcome those who have never invested one day in support of this country. Now THAT is a poke in the collective eye of all who have been citizens for generations!

  5. Citizen-Veteran said on 18 Jul 2012 at 9:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, Obama’s ideology - his deep commitment - is there in the public record, despite the shallow personal history and no genuine personal documentation. Obama is a Marxist at heart. He advocates socialist programs but they are only components of a larger Marxist vision. Obama senior, Frank Davis, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Reverend Wright and so many other shadowy figures in his life helped to shape his world view.

    Marxists never build anything except political movements. They do, however, destroy societies, values, culture, and rule of law - replacing it with totalitarianism in the fullness of time. We are on the wrong road.

    If Obama and his Marxist criminals are defeated at the polls on 6 November, just remember that they still control the levers of power in the US Government until 20 January 2013. That includes the FBI, DHS, Treasury, and countless federal programs that the public never track or monitor. By the time the Romney Administration discover the depth of the Obama criminality inside the federal bureaucracy, it will be time for another national election. Watch the federal funds “disappear” to SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Tides Foundation, ACLU, La Raza, and multiple other leftwing anti-American entities inside the USA.

  6. A few Good Reasons said on 18 Jul 2012 at 10:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not that we need more than one, but here is a great list of 1,001 reasons for voting in 2012, if you need to tell your friends/neighbors, etc. With pertinent links to actual news stories.

    http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/06/1001-reasons-to-vote-against-barack-obama-complete-edition/

  7. Anonymous said on 21 Jul 2012 at 6:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    When I listen to Obama’s speech - words, tone and audience response - I hear an insulting, condescending appeal to class envy and class warfare and the insinuation that businesspeople don’t pay their way. The bodega owner on my corner got his education in Korea, and he used roads paid for long ago to buy his fruit at the market at 5 a.m., get to to his store at 7, and drive home at 8 p.m. and he paid city, state and federal taxes and all kinds of licensing fees for years - he’s paid his way. A 7-11 opened a block away and now he’s closing at midnight and his grandson is doing the deliveries instead of the regular guy. Entrepreneurship requires risk and if he doesn’t get enough return, he’ll fire people, and/or go out of business. Don’t tell him to be grateful for the infrastructure he’s already paid for and don’t tell him about all the “help” he got from government - they tripled the fee he pays just to have an awning with his store name on it. To suggest to him or to anyone with a business, that they’re the beneficiaries of largesse from government is ridiculous. It wasn’t free - at least for them. It’s not just ‘you didn’t build that” - it’s the underlying attitude that government should cop credit for entrepreneur’s successes.

  8. Jay said on 23 Jul 2012 at 8:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    . . .the marxist who helped bail out wall street and the flagging american auto industry. ..

    Virginia is a place with great weather yet a real disconnected sense of reality.

  9. Citizen12 said on 24 Jul 2012 at 1:26 am:
    Flag comment

    … the government seizes control of the means of production from the bourgeoisie (the private industrialists) and turns them over to the proletariat (the workers)

    “Obama has turned GM into another state-capitalist enterprise, owned by political buddies who take their marching orders from Washington.

    GM operates little differently from Russia’s Gazprom, Petróleos de Venezuela, or Mexico’s Pemex.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/02/06/american-airlines-shows-the-corruption-of-obamas-gm-bailout/2/

Leave a Reply



Views: 855