It looks like the Orlando reporterette’s question on whether Obama is a Marxist is getting closer to being answered–by Obama himself, in this 2001 interview with a Chicago public radio station:
Some comment is in order.
One of the things that has always struck me about the whole “social justice” debate in the U.S. is that it has always centred on everything but economic inequities: race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Yet any real Marxist will tell you that the issue that’s the “only thing” (like winning to Vince Lombardi) is economic, and Marx’s whole system is based on resolving that problem while ignoring the rest.
The weakness of any redistributive system, however, is one that countries organised on Marxist-Leninist principles found out the hard way: it doesn’t matter how a country redistributes wealth if it can’t create it. As Hillare Belloc so eloquently put it:
Without wealth man cannot exist. The production of it is a necessity to him, and though it proceeds from the more to the less necessary, and even to those forms of production which we call luxuries, yet in any given human society there is a certain kind and a certain amount of wealth without which human life cannot be lived…
Therefore, to control the production of wealth is to control human life itself. To refuse man the opportunity for the production of wealth is to refuse him the opportunity for life; and, in general, the way in which the production of wealth is by law permitted is the only way in which the citizens can legally exist. (The Servile State, from the chapter “Definitions.”)
In a country as complex and politically vindictive as this one, such a redistribution would grind the economy to an effective halt.
I should also add that such an economically focused agenda would go against “boutique” causes that favour groups who are in reality economically advantaged, such as the LGBT community.
Obama’s adherence to Marxist principles is stronger than many of us suspected.