Forman writes: "The critics cry, 'Obamacare is socialism!' They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism."
President Barack Obama delivers remarks during a rally in Largo, Maryland, 03/15/12. (photo: Getty Images)
Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close
11 July 12
hen I was asked to direct “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” my friends warned me not to go anywhere near it.
The story is so American, they argued, that I, an immigrant fresh off the boat, could not do it justice. They were surprised when I explained why I wanted to make the film. To me it was not just literature but real life, the life I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968. The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do; what I was or was not allowed to say; where I was and was not allowed to go; even who I was and was not.
Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.
My sister-in-law’s father, Jan Kunasek, lived in Czechoslovakia all his life. He was a middle-class man who ran a tiny inn in a tiny village. One winter night in 1972, during a blizzard, a man, soaked to the bone, awakened him at 2 in the morning. The man looked destitute and, while asking for shelter, couldn’t stop cursing the Communists. Taking pity, the elderly Mr. Kunasek put him up for the night.
A couple of hours later, Mr. Kunasek was awakened again, this time by three plainclothes policemen. He was arrested, accused of sheltering a terrorist and sentenced to several years of hard labor in uranium mines. The state seized his property. When he was finally released, ill and penniless, he died within a few weeks. Years later we learned that the night visitor had been working for the police. According to the Communists, Mr. Kunasek was a class enemy and deserved to be punished.
I found myself in an equally absurd, but less depressing, situation when I was moonlighting on Czech TV as a moderator, introducing movies, in the early ’50s. It was live, so there was no chance to bleep politically undesirable words. Every utterance, even in supposedly spontaneous interviews, had to be scripted, approved by the censors, learned by heart and repeated verbatim on the air.
When I was preparing to interview one Comrade Homola, a powerful Communist, I sent him questions, but didn’t receive his answers. My boss, also a powerful party member, told me: “He is lazy! Write his answers for him, and remind him to learn them by heart.” So I did.
Comrade Homola arrived at the last moment. When the red light went on and I asked the first question, he reached into his pocket, took out my answers and started to read them, awkwardly and obediently — including my inadvertent grammatical mistakes. And thus, to my consternation, went the whole interview. In the control booth, my boss hit the roof. I was fired the next day for ridiculing a representative of the state.
Whatever his faults, I don’t see much of a socialist in Mr. Obama or, thankfully, signs of that system in this great nation. Mr. Obama is accused of trying to expand the reach of government — into health care, financial regulation, the auto industry and so on. It’s fair to question whether the federal government should have expanded powers: America, to its credit, has debated this since its birth. But let’s be clear about how frightening socialism actually could be.
Marx believed that we could wipe out social inequities and Lenin tested those ideas on the Soviet Union. It was his dream to create a classless society. But reality set in, as it always does. And the results were devastating. Blood flowed through Russia’s streets. The Soviet elite usurped all privileges; sycophants were allowed some and the plebes none. The entire Eastern bloc, including Czechoslovakia, followed miserably.
I’m not sure Americans today appreciate quite how predatory socialism was. It was not — as Mr. Obama’s detractors suggest — merely a government so centralized and bloated that it hobbled private enterprise: it was a spoils system that killed off everything, all in the name of “social justice.”
What we need is not to strive for a perfect social justice — which never existed and never will — but for social harmony. Harmony in music is, by its nature, exhilarating and soothing. In an orchestra, the different players and instruments perform together, in support of an overall melody.
Today, our democracy, a miraculous gathering of diverse players, desperately needs such unity. If all participants play fair and strive for the common good, we can achieve a harmony that eluded the doctrinaire socialist projects. But if just one section, or even one player, is out of tune, the music will disintegrate into cacophony.
I am not asking Mr. Obama and the Republican leaders to stop playing instruments of their choosing. All I am asking is that every player keep in mind the noble melody of our country. Otherwise the noisy dissonance might become loud enough to wake another Marx, or even worse.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Of course Obama isn't a socalist. And neither, in many ways, was Stalin nor his bureaucracy.
People who don't know, or don't care what words mean have no business writing them.
The Soviet States worked the same under Starlinin / Leninism....not Marxism...but years of BS an non thinking has had its effect! As for the NYT being an open and center paper all I can say to those who feel that way "The pixies are waiting for you at the bottom of the well!" Why dont you go and find out?
There is nothing inherently evil about a belief in social justice or in the idea that you can't put a price tag on everything.
It WOULD be of interest to me, however, to hear him opine on the capitalism as it exists today here in America.
agree - his movies are universal - anti-establishm ent, challenging authority, stupidity, Le Petit Bourgeois ...
He is more aware as ever you can be Mr. MHAS.
I come from the same country - as Forman did in 1968 - have the same experience.
CSSR aka CzechoSlovak SOCIALIST Republic. Read carefully the article - words have meaning ONLY in context.
DDR - East Germany - Deutsche DEMOCRATIC Republic was ONE of the most totalitarian state ever created (with free education IF your religion was Marxism ..etc.)
Forman is right - he sees his new country, USA, disintegrating - understand USA better than 99% "BORN IN THE USA".
Watch some of his films - en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Category :Films_directed _by_Milo%C5%A1_ Forman
all deeply human and against TOTALITY. Can not see one Republican ideologue applauding Milos Forman.
Total reflex with no understanding...
Forman's analogy to music is fair and poetic, but his implication that the irrational censorship and injustice he experienced was due to 'socialism' is just as silly as how Limbo, Faux and their emotional crowd use it...imho, facile at best...thanks for your comment and realistic perspective!
There are many voices. Some can only sing a note or two, others can sing many notes.
The ideology of the Republicans is "you're only okay if you believe and act exactly like I do." They don't want dissonance or harmony; they want a single note. I sometimes wonder if it's because they have have learned to hate the note or two they have, and want everyone else to sing the same note so they don't feel so alone.
If they are tone deaf, that would be even more reason to want others to be the same.
Many republicans, oligarchs, and the like, have learned to believe they know what is best for people, and that is how they can rationalize their priorities, decisions, and behaviors. In actuality, it is best only for themelves, and others who can only sing the same notes.
They focus on their intentions, and deny, avoid, or ignore the consequences of their belief systems.
In the long run, to anyone with any kind of musical or emotional range, one note is boring. So much of what is deemed malice, is probably boredom. The antithesis to boredom is creativity, and when you only have one note, creativity is not an option except, perhaps, for the volume at which one sings that note.
What do republicans have against property?
And he makes an important distinction between Western-style socialism and Marxist-Leninis t totalitarianism , a distinction that those in the GOP are either ignorant of or are deliberately conflating for their own propagandistic, partisan purposes.
Sadly, most Americans are thoroughly ignorant of what socialism is, it's various permutations, etc. In this country, the right in particular have gone out of their way to demonize it even as they have come to enjoy the benefits of social security and Medicare, both government-run programs that share many similarities with what Western European-style socialist countries offer their citizens.
What people are often calling Marxism has nothing to do with Marx or what he wrote either. Mostly he wrote economic analysis about capitalism. Most people are massively ignorant about any of this.
Marxism is ANOTHER religion - and "Most people are massively ignorant about it".
Socialism in this context was TOTALITARIANISM . Admire Social Democracies of the Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark) - go there and ask them if they have socialism, if they are Marxists .. people are massively ignorant about any of this.
But it is Foreman himself who refers to the totalitarianism he lived under for 36 years as a "brutal form of socialism." Ahem.... did you read the article?
No one is confused here except the Republicans who don't know the difference or do and would like to wed the two as an easy way to demonize anything and everything considered socialism.
We, in the US, supposedly live under capitalism, but bailing out too-big-to-fail banks isn't capitalism. Neither is giving them virtually interest free money when everyone else has to pay a higher rate. All of the special rules that the finance industry (and others with deep pockets) have been awarded by buying off members of congress fly in the face of capitalism.
Some of the people who oppose this blatant corruption may genuinely be opposed to capitalism, as well, but accusing everyone who calls foul on our system anti-capitalist makes just as little sense as concluding that a man who lived in an eastern European dictatorship has first-hand experience with socialism simply because his government used that title to describe their particular perversion of justice.
As I've already pointed out that there are a number of socialist ideologies in the world, one of which is Marxist communism. Moreover, there are various permutations as well: Marxism-Leninis m, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
Do you want to dispute this?
Moreover, no one can argue that Czechoslovakia was a repressive Communist state within the Eastern Bloc from 1948 to 1969, can they?
But you have a problem with Foreman calling what he lived under a form of socialism? It isn't just his government that arbitrarily assigned the word "socialism" to their form of governance, is it?
How would you have liked Foreman to describe what he lived under? Tyranny is a bit vague, no?
Again, wasn't the whole point of this piece about how Republicans are smearing Obama with this moniker of socialist?
CzechoSlovak SOCIALIST REPUBLIC (CSSR) was a repressive Communist state within the Eastern Bloc from 1948 to 1989 - 40 years of TOTALITY, censorship, electric fence borders - prison.
Why would one assume that Forman knows what socialism is any more than Rush Limbaugh knows what Social Security is, or that Glen Beck will write accurately about gun laws or US religion?
This pleading of special expertise is a classic logical fallacy.
I'm sorry, but I'll go with Foreman here; I think he knows exactly what he's talking about.
Lenin is more difficult to learn about, but the problem seems to be that he reached a point where he thought that a powerful party vanguard was needed to wrest control -- as opposed to Trotsky who favored bottom-up change. Stalin took that much furhter and went into complete totalitarianism and left socialism altogether, into state capitalism and oligarchy -- which is what the USSR ended up with under Stalin.
If you 'go with Formen' or any one source, like you are ordering a quick meal at a fast food joint, you are not going get a decent meal or a decent understanding. You have to look stuff up. Use a search engine like Google and type in 'socialism' and read the decent reference sites and what socialist say about themselves.
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Socialist_Republic#Politics .
This was not communist or socialist, or Marxist -- but totalitarianism using that name: it went against everything the original socialists and communists stood for. It's like the Nazis calling themselves socialist -- while they were rounding up the actual socialists into camps. It's Orwellian -- war is peace, ignorance is freedom...
Just making stuff up and saying, or repeating propaganda, is very destructive.
WETHEPEOPLE MUST break a mirror, dispell the spell, deconstruct the distruction.
Our very freedoms, and that of our posterity, depend upon it...
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/hisfram1.htm
The _ancien regime_ and its Western acolytes, following the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, launched a vicious war against the Bolshevik government and its supporters. The Russian Civil War -- which was supplemented by the simultaneous invasion by 19 countries, including the U.S., and whose purpose was,in Churchill's words, to "strangle the Bolshevik baby in its cradle" -- led to a militarized form of communism which deformed the entire ideology and opened the way for the Stalinist dictatorship.
It should never be forgotten that Marx expected the first revolution to take place in the most advanced capitalist economy, not the most backward.
Here's one:
"The end of Czechoslovakia’ s totalitarian regime was called the Velvet Revolution because of how smooth the transition seemed: Communism dead in a matter of weeks, without a shot fired. But for Vaclav Havel, it was a moment he helped pay for with decades of suffering and struggle."
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/18/news/world-news/vaclav-havel-hero-of-anti-communist-revolution-dies/
Moreover,
"The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, in Czech and in Slovak: Komunistická strana Československa (KSČ) was a Communist and Marxist-Leninis t political party in Czechoslovakia that existed between 1921 and 1992."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Czechoslovakia
Our schoolchildren have these false notions pounded into their heads from 'Day 1'. The mainstream media are just mouthpieces from capitalism's "AMEN Corner". The mainstream
media are owned by corporate profiteers and operated in conformance with the capitalist ideology that assures the maintainance of the "status quo". In this, the media are VERY much like "Our" Congress...in concert with the rest of "Our" government.
The anti-socialists need to inform themselves in spite of the obstacles in the way of finding the truth. Read socialist philosophers like Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm,
Max Horkheimer and you will find that socialism is MUCH more compatible with democracy--and Freedom--than is capitalism.
I realize I'm asking a lot from those of our fellow citizens who have been perfectly happy all along to accept the bullsh*t about how America is the biggest,best, strongest and free-est place on earth.
America can do MUCH better for ALL of its people! Many other countries HAVE done better already. You can look it up!
If he did not learn how ruthless, partisan and generally disfunctional the right wing is, then he is either on their side or literally oblivious to reality...which is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Basically, there is a continuum with a few 'bright lines' that describe who owns the means of production, who controls production and what is done with the earnings, and what the path to true workplace democracy is.
European 'socialism' generally means social democracy -- a people oriented system still operating under a fundamentally capitalist system, where regulations limit what the owners can do and ensure more equity in economics and sharing wealth.
Democratic socialism is more towards communism, with a greater share of the means of production owned and controlled by the people and workers, and so is more democratic in terms of work, production and the economy (as well as the politics which such control confers).
Socialism itself is often thought of as an interim stage between capitalism and true communism where all the means of production is in the publicly held commons and financial, production, and economic decisions are made by the societal collective, for the benefit of every person and society as a whole. This is most 'radical' or 'revolutionary' position since it goes to the root of the economic system and requires fundamental changes in organization of economic life.
And look at the socialist party web sites such as
http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html
http://www.socialequality.com/about/socialism
http://socialistworker.org/where-we-stand
There are variations, maybe comparable to those of Christianity, but there are common stands.
Basically it's about a democratic system for people instead of money, 'business', and plutocracy.
socialism is ideology - religion ... great academic cafe discussion -
Marx - Dictatura of Proletariat - political power to be held by the majority working class - IS TOTALITARIAN by definition.
BTW NEOCONS are mostly ex-Marxists.
Capitalism:= "Distribution of the resources on the basis of MERIT".
See Karl Marx "Das Kapital".
There is Marxism, Fascism, Socialism, Capitalism, Republicanism in two different political parties-- five different things.
But Marxism and Socialism are far apart. And Marxism, Fascism and Republicanism are close together.
Best governments in the world: A balance of socialism and capitalism. Has there ever been or will there ever be a totally capitalist or Marxist country suitable for human habitation? Which country, pray tell, and where?
"All private enterprise" is a sexual fantasy of Christian Grey and Willard Romney.
Neither Marx nor Lenin believed in totalitarianism , but in socialist democracy.
It is a founding principle for Communism and the absolute philosophical opposite of Fascism.
So you need to adjust you understanding here.
Theres the real crime!
That is called buying the lies of Fox News and right wing radio hacks. We no longer have news organizations in this country. We lived in England, for five years, recently and I truly miss BBC. - and while I'm at it, the National Health Service is fantastic.
The ancient Greeks recognized the pattern that the right wing is trying to impose even now.
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side": Aristotle
Obama is a right wing liberal a neo liberal machine guy who will go along with the banker and the economists as they attempt to reestablish rule over an out of control greed epidemic.Health care is simply a system that will work as poorly as the insurance industry dictates.Obama might turn out to be the next Nixon not the next Lenin. America start educating our children.
How would Republicans fair under socialism? Not at all well because many simply do not possess a concern and empathy for their fellow man. In their dog-eat-dog world, it's strictly survival of the fittest. Everyone else? Well, they're on their own.
Finally, I knew a co-worker from Czechoslovakia working in New Haven, CT. I talked to her one day about her country. She said that she didn't have a problem there regarding "repression," saying this in a matter-of-fact manner. She worked, studied, socialized, etc. But she added that maybe those who had trouble were maybe from the politcal Right. (Given the Rights' basic agenda worldwide, assisted by the World Bank and IMF, etc, of trying to impose austerity, social cuts and deregulation, with the resulting disasterous consequences,; and worse, knowing this is happening but looking away because of an extreme fetish for money, I'm not really concerned with the Right's rights,i.e., the "rights" to be parasitical and predatory. Forman's comments, although reflecting at least some truths, don't provide an intelligent way of understanding the topics, especially when not knowing a distintion between Stalinism and the other ideas. It's time not only to abandon Stalinism, but ignorant, reactionary anticommunism.
I escaped CSSR in 1968 - 23year old student - before Soviet Invasion - till 1989 it was TOTALITARIAN state - much worse for most intellectuals than Milos Forman - he was privileged - allowed to study. Marx recipe for Dictatura of the proletariat ranks with Mein Kampf.
Marx was genius in analyzing capitalism, but under his dictatura MOST of contributors here would be in GULAG.
It would be interesting if Alexander Dubcec (wrong spelling) was successful in implementing "Socialism with a human face." But with the Cold War raging, both sides must have been thinking, "If you give an inch, they'll take a yard." The U.S. has been a pro at invasions, probably more than the USSR. Take a look at a chronology of U.S. invasions. Too many are too suspect. Totalitarianism sure is an all-incompassin g word akin to all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-supreme, etc. And they naturally describe characteristics within monothiestic religions, precisely because of its historical roots. "Heretics" in the Inquisition found that out: arrest, show trial, torture, execution. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is another way of saying that after a successful revolution, inevitably there is counterrevoluti on and outside invasion, just what happened in the 20th century with revolutions or "winning" elections that were idelogical threats to capital. Thus, this different dictatorship would be a phase to crackdown for survival and in turn try to establish stability and security for a country to implement an alternative system. Of course, with that there's shades of gray. I highly doubt Marx envisioned a dictatorship of the kind that Stalin eventually imposed. In fact, Marx and myself would have probably been labeled "enemies of the people" under Stalin; then the gulag and usually execution. Stalin imposed the Dictatorship of the "Great Stalin."
"A couple of hours later, Mr. Kunasek was awakened again, this time by three plainclothes policemen. He was arrested, accused of sheltering a terrorist and sentenced to several years of hard labor in uranium mines. The state seized his property. When he was finally released, ill and penniless, he died within a few weeks. Years later we learned that the night visitor had been working for the police. According to the Communists, Mr. Kunasek was a class enemy and deserved to be punished."
That paragraph describes also experiences of innocent US citizens "detained" by the Bush Administration and also by the Obama Administration.
The author suggests that "Marxist-Lenini st" government is (was) totalitarian (brutal). The proposition is false. Soviet "communism" was a form of fascism — Leninist-Stalin ist, not Marxist. It was not a government that Marx intended or would have approved, but, rather, that Marx would have inveighed against ferociously.
The world bears perhaps just one society that resembles Marxist-communi st (a society Marx would not have imagined fitting for realization of his economic philosophy. That society is that of the remaining still-tradition al bands of the Kalahari Bushman people. They have no rules but practice Marx's central objective, an utterly empathic goal — from each according to each's ability, to each according to each's need.
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian"
mises.org/daily/1937/
The point of this article is definitely propaganda and therefore fake. And it is also cynically targeted at an easily deceived American audience.
Let me explain:
This article uses Communism and Socialism interchangeably . Which is based on a common American misconception.
However:
Communism is a POLITICAL doctrine, defined (by Lenin himself) as "diktatur of the Proletariat (working class)".
And Socialism is an ECONOMIC doctrine explained in Karl Marx's Das Kapital as "distribution of the resources on the basis of NEED".
Even the most dimwitted Eastern European would NOT have confused the two. But apparently Mr Milos Forman deems it all of a sudden politically expedient to muddy the discussion.
For your information the economic goals of Obama are helping the US economy along towards (neo)Feudalism. And his political (in)actions contain all the hallmarks of Fascism (diktatur of the corporations or Corporatism : Mussolini).
Oh and before I forget.
I proclaim myself Socialist and proudly so, but feel grievously insulted by having my economic views demeaned with biased Obama associations. Unlike me, Obama doesn't claim himself to be Socialist nor have his actions warranted such compliment. It is Americans that need to learn the proper meaning of scientifically defined, but still English, words.
And Socialism is an ECONOMIC doctrine explained in Karl Marx's Das Kapital as "distribution of the resources on the basis of NEED"."
Except when Communism mean an economic system and socialism means a political system -- and those meanings are also used. But then, there is social politics and political economy -- but I'm not sure if these are still current terms. It gets rather muddy, and different socialist or communist groups have different ideas. NeoMarxism was introduced just to confuse things further. LOL
Totalitarianism has no legitimacy in any of this thinking though, and I'll take the position that trying to bring about socialism or Marxism through despotism is like trying to bomb a country into democracy.
I tend towards anarcho-sociali sm: bottom up revolution by educated people -- self-educated mostly, and through self-organizati on. I don't think Americans have the knowledge or the social and political sophistication to accomplish much now: they have been propagandized and dumbed down too much, to the point where resist learning anything or doing critical thinking. It's worse then with the illiterate Russian peasantry because Americans are convinced they know things they don't.
I don't think Americans have the knowledge or the social and political sophistication to accomplish much now: they have been propagandized and dumbed down too much, to the point where resist learning anything or doing critical thinking. It's worse then with the illiterate Russian peasantry because Americans are convinced they know things they don't.
Yes, indeed! Very well put bluepilgrim.
Most Americans don’t know anything about socialism, communism or Western European social democracies. Most Americans could barely find Europe on a map, let alone tell what countries constituted the Soviet Union and its satellite nations.
Here is my strategy when I’m talking to these kinds of people. Happens all the time because there are so many.
If they say Obama is a socialist or wants to establish socialism in this country I ask them to explain what makes Obama a socialist or what are the indicators of a looming socialist society. (Not in these complicated words of course).
I found that you cannot teach these people or prove that they are wrong; you can just show them that they don’t have a clue.
All you have to do is change a few names in the above scenario and you get to see exactly what it now looks like in the US. American citizens are spied upon by their own Gov't. People end up in rendition prisons and the right habeas corpus disappears for all but the wealthy. We have socialism for the rich and surpression of the people who must support them at their whim. For those who call the GOP/TP Nazis had best reacquaint themselves with the old Soviet Union and see that the real parallels to what is happening in the US are there.
Drones
Paraguay (UNASUR)
The de-evolution of the nation-state
Where have you been, Milos, in the clouds?
Dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power.
Both Marx and Engels argued that the short-lived Paris Commune, which ran the French capital for three months before being repressed, was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Perhaps it's time to dispense with the niceties of our vain self image, and just frankly own up to being a sociopathic nation, a land of murder and thievery. At every inauguration of a new president, the Elect (how God-like, the president ELECT) should pick a small child out of the crowd of well wishers, at random, and behead the child with a dull knife, to show that s/he's wo/man enough for the job.
As for Milos Foreman I like his movies but was this an honest mistake equating our wishy-washy corporations-fi rst socialism with Eastern Bloc Stalin-Lenin Communism? That is as equally absurd as calling Obama a socialist.
-----------------------------------------------
...or Bradley Manning....or Prometheus for that matter.
RSS feed for comments to this post