Is Obama a socialist?

The best way to start here is to define, first: What Is a Socialist? (The following is a rehash of a previous comment I made in another debate, because I’m lazy)

To answer, who better to ask than the Socialist Labor Party (SLP) of America? This party is the oldest socialist party in America, and the second oldest in the world. It was founded in 1876. According to the SLP, socialism would form a “classless society” and would “abolish the labor market”. American Socialist Daniel De Leon said that socialism “is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end.”

Class in America is defined primarily by income. People are grouped, roughly, by how much they make on a yearly basis. If we are to make a system with no social class, then it follows that you must eliminate the differences in the class. Logically, one class=one income=redistribution of wealth.

“Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.” And, “Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions.” So, Socialism means government control of the economy, assisted by democratic unions.

What does Obama propose?

He proposes nearly doubling the capital gains tax (from 15% to 28%) and that he will raise taxes on CEO’s (meaning, in context, on the rich) He says he will “spread the wealth around” because when this happens, everyone wins. Most famously with his conversation with ‘Joe the Plumber’, but he says things similar to this on many occasions. For instance, he has said that we must pay attention not only to “growing the pie” but also to “how the pie is sliced” in an interview with the WSJ.

Who will pay attention to how the pie is sliced? Obviously, according to Obama, it isn’t working to let it slice itself. The answer, if you think about it, is clear: The government.

Raising taxes on the rich while simultaneously giving breaks and checks to the poor? Check. Direct government control of the economy? Perhaps. His stance on unions, for instance, is very much in line with the socialist agenda.

Do you deny that redistribution of wealth is the goal of socialism? If you don't deny this, then do you deny that taxing the rich at a much higher rate in the interests of "fairness, not revenue", is moving towards that goal at breakneck speeds?

You say that because he is not proposing a 100% tax rate on everyone and then doling it all back out, there is no way he is socialist in any fashion. This is like saying: Obama is gathering firewoord, kindling, and tinder. He’s stacking it all in a nice pyramid, making sure it’s good and dry, and then buying some matches. But he has never suggested we light the match, so Obama is in no way pro-Fire, nor is he moving us in that direction!

As a quick aside, I had this to say on the bailout:

The bailout: A horrible idea. One of the most socialist plans ever invented. It's supported by Obama, by McCain, by Bush, by just about everybody except the American people. This shows that the idea of big government is pervasive, but since it's supported by both candidates, it's hard to use in a debate of this nature, except to warn that we cannot allow socialism to creep in any further. (Just to show internal consistency. When I see socialism, I call it, regardless of who proposed it.)