The first video is about
Raila Odinga...
The party he is connected with is
social democracy..
Ther be no communists nor marxists in dem hills o'er der!
obama or odinga may say SOCIAL(the opening that leads to communism) democracy and have their little non-threatening definitions for it but they act and believe differently. why dont you look up karl marx on wikipedia? read it and see if their isnt remarkable similarities to what obama says. to me he echoes marx's ideology. wikipedia
ran by libs im certain.
i dont care what they may call themselves(odinga/obama) look at their actions. if the shoe fits?
thats one thing i have never said about obama... that being he is dumb. like he is going to say he is a commy? his ideology and friends define him... its that clear and you fail to see it. either your that naive or just plan blinded by party lines.
hmmm here you go... i didnt see this initially... any way you scratch it or call it he is to some degree a marxist.
History
[edit]
Pre-war—social democracy and Marxism
Many parties in the second half of the 19th century described themselves as social democratic, such as the German Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein and the Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei (which merged to form the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands), the British Social Democratic Federation and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In most cases these parties were avowedly revolutionary socialists that were not only seeking to introduce socialism, but also to introduce democracy in undemocratic countries. Most of these parties were to some degree influenced by the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were still actively working to influence European politics from London.
The modern social democratic current came into being through a break within the socialist movement in the early 20th century, between two groups holding different views on the ideas of Karl Marx.[1] Many related movements, including pacifism, anarchism, and syndicalism, arose at the same time; these ideologies were often promulgated by individuals who split from the preexisting socialist movement, and held a variety of quite different objections to Marxism. The social democrats, who had created the largest socialist organizations of that era, did not reject Marxism (and in fact claimed to uphold it), but a number of key individuals wanted to reform Marx's arguments in order to promulgate a less hostile criticism of capitalism. They argued that socialism should be achieved through evolution of society rather than revolution. Such views were strongly opposed by the revolutionary socialists, who argued that any attempt to reform capitalism was doomed to fail, for the reformers would be gradually corrupted and eventually turn into capitalists themselves.
Despite their differences, the reformist and revolutionary branches of socialism remained united through the Second Internationale until the outbreak of World War I. A differing view on the legitimacy of the war proved to be the final straw for this tenuous union. The reformist socialists supported their respective national governments in the war, a fact that was seen by the revolutionary socialists as outright treason against the working class; in other words, the revolutionary socialists believed that this stance betrayed the principle that the workers of all nations should unite in overthrowing capitalism, and decried the fact that usually the lowest classes are the ones sent into the war to fight and die. Bitter arguments ensued within socialist parties, as for example between Eduard Bernstein, the leading reformist socialist, and Rosa Luxemburg, one of the leading revolutionary socialists within the SPD in Germany. Eventually, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, most of the world's socialist parties fractured. The reformist socialists kept the name social democrats, while many revolutionary socialists began calling themselves communists, and they soon formed the modern Communist movement. These communist parties soon formed an exclusive Third Internationale known globally as the Comintern.
By the 1920s, the doctrinal differences between social democrats and communists of all factions (be they Orthodox Marxists, Bolsheviks, or Mensheviks) had solidified. These differences only became more dramatic as the years passed.
[edit] Post war—social democracy and democratic socialism
Following the split between social democrats and communists, another split developed within social democracy, between those who still believed it was necessary to abolish capitalism (without revolution) and replace it with a socialist system through democratic parliamentary means, and those who believed that the capitalist system could be retained but needed dramatic reform, such as the nationalization of large businesses, the implementation of social programs (public education, universal healthcare, and the like) and the partial redistribution of wealth through the permanent establishment of a welfare state based on progressive taxation. Eventually, most social democratic parties have come to be dominated by the latter position and, in the post-World War II era, have abandoned any commitment to abolish capitalism. For instance, in 1959, the Social Democratic Party of Germany adopted the Godesberg Program, which rejected class struggle and Marxism. While "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" continued to be used interchangeably, by the 1990s in the English-speaking world at least, the two terms had generally come to signify respectively the latter and former positions.
In Italy, the Italian Social Democratic Party was founded in 1947, and from 1948 on supported the idea of a centrist alliance. Since the late 1980s, many other social democratic parties have adopted the "Third Way", either formally or in practice. Modern social democrats are generally in favor of a mixed economy, which is in many ways capitalistic, but explicitly defend governmental provision of certain social services. Many social democratic parties have shifted emphasis from their traditional goals of social justice to human rights and environmental issues. In this, they are facing an increasing challenge from Greens, who view ecology as fundamental to peace, require reform of money supply, and promote safe trade measures to ensure ecological integrity. In Germany in particular, Greens, Social Democrats, and other left-wing parties have cooperated in so-called red–green alliances. This is also not uncommon in Norway.
[edit]
The Third Way
In recent years, a number of social democratic parties and governments have moved away from some traditional elements of social democracy by supporting both the privatization of certain state-controlled industries and services and the reduction of certain forms of regulation of the market. These changes have been perceived in the policies of Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and Kevin Rudd in Australia; Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the United Kingdom;[5][7] Gerhard Schröder in Germany; Jens Stoltenberg in Norway; Mona Sahlin in Sweden; David Lange and Roger Douglas in New Zealand; Poul Nyrup Rasmussen in Denmark; Wim Kok in the Netherlands; and Ricardo Lagos in Chile. In general, these apparent reversals in policy have encountered significant opposition among party members and core voters: many of the latter, indeed, have claimed that their leaders have betrayed their traditional principles.[7]
Modernizing social democrats counter that their Third Way ideals merely represent a necessary or pragmatic adaptation of social democracy to the realities of the modern world: traditional social democracy thrived during the prevailing international climate of the post-war Bretton Woods consensus, which collapsed in the 1970s. It has, moreover, become difficult for political parties in the developed world to win elections on a distinctively left-wing platform now that electorates are increasingly middle-class, aspirational and consumeristic. In Britain, where such an electorate rejected the Labour Party four times consecutively between 1979 and 1992, Tony Blair and his colleagues (the New Labour movement) took the strategic decision to overtly disassociate themselves from the previous, strongly democratic socialist incarnations of their party. This challenge alienated many backbenchers, including some who advocated the less militant ideology of social democracy.
The development of new social democratic policies in this environment is the subject of wide-ranging debate within the centre-left. A number of political think-tanks, such as Policy Network and Wiardi Beckman Stichting, have been active in facilitating and promoting this debate.
the socialist democratic party, and communisty party of america have both given their endorsement to obam.... ahh shoot its just a coincidence.
