Critique of "Problems Facing our Socialism"

A while back I wrote a blog highlighting Barack Obama's Father's "Problems Facing Our Socialism" Article. I be lived that our President was using it as a platform for his policies. I want to re-post it to see just how correct I was. You be the judge.


Highlights from "Problems Facing Our Socialism"

This will basically be a critique of a paper published in 1965 in the East African Journal by Barak H. Obama. I assume it's Sr., though I don't know for sure if the H. stands for Hussein or not. I'm not familiar with Sr. Obama.

This paper was written as a critique of Sessional Paper No. 10, which was talking about the socialization of Africa, where Barak H. Obama wanted to Socialize Kenya specifically. He presented the unique problems Kenya faced as opposed to Africa in general, so some principals don't apply to the world in general, or to, say the United States, so I'll delete those. Any direct quotes taken from the paper will be put in quotation marks to give credit to Mr. Obama, Sr. He is very eloquent and speaks very well. I can see where his son gets his oratory skills from, or at least the ability to write. The paper he references is the Sessional paper no. 10.

The first topic to be discussed is population growth. "On population growth, the paper notes our high rate of growth and recognizes that this factor can be very detrimental to growth. The paper recognizes the detriments and adverse repercussions which nationalization can have on growth in this country. The policy of the government in this paper is to try to raise per capita incomes. This, it recognizes it can only do by getting high rates of growth and to achieve this high rate of growth there must be a high rate of capital accumulation."

Now, did you catch that? Nationalization would have a detrimental effect on growth rate. If you nationalize the nation, i.e., buy up businesses, make it nationally owned you stunt the growth of the population. That's what Obama, Jr. is trying to do to our nation. So you have to ask if his father proved that it will stunt our growth, why is he doing it? We're not so grossly overly populated, if you kick out the illegal aliens, that we need to be nationalized to fix it, are we? He has a Czar on his staff that asked the question would government consider forced birth control if faced with a crisis of population.

He goes on: "The first part of the paper deals with wide topics such as the objectives of societies. The paper states that there are universal desires of societies and these include political equality, social justice, human dignity and freedom of conscience, freedom from want, disease and exploitation, equal opportunities and lastly, a high and growing per capita income and equitable distribution."

Really? I didn't know it was universal that EVERYONE wanted equitable distribution. I don't want equitable distribution, do you? I want what I work for, and I want you to have what you work for, not what I work for.

Now, he goes on to talk about communal ownership: "African tradition is fundamentally based on communal ownership of major means of production and sharing of the fruits of labours, so expended in production, to the benefit of all; and yet the paper advocates title land deeds and private ownership of land --- a major means of production. How do these two conflicting factors reconcile...? In fact, one wonders how the statements made here differ from scientific socialism unless one takes the statement 'society in turn will reward these efforts' to be different from 'reward to each according to his needs.'"

He didn't like the paper advocating ownership of land. He wanted all land to be communally owned, as well as all farms. Fruits of the labor should be communally owned as well. So you work to put into a communal fund, and draw out according to your efforts. That almost sounds good, doesn't it? That almost sounds like it would work. Not according to your needs, but according to your efforts. Good argument. But listen on.

"Here the paper goes into use and control of resources. The first statement concerns conflict of opinion on attitude toward land ownership. ..."(deleted due to Africa specific.) "The paper says that because of credit requirements there has to be land titles and registration. If this is the case, must these land titles and registration be done on individual ownership? Does it mean that co-operatives cannot be registered or that what is owned in common cannot have title deeds? Is communal ownership of land incompatible with land consolidation?... It is true that mismanagement can occur both in private as well as in public ownership, but we ought to look at the matter within the social context. Looked at this way, we can avoid economic power concentration and bring standardized use and control of resources through public ownership, let alone the equitable distribution of economic gains that would follow. One need not talk of state ownership of everything from a small garden to a big farm."

Ok, he's arguing that communes can be registered, and the government can own communes, too, but they can leave small farms and gardens to the people. And there's that equitable distribution of economic gains again. Are we going to have to invest all of OUR profits in the nation? Is it going to be billed as the only patriotic thing to do?

"Will this be easily done through individual action, through co-operatives or through government ownership? Realizing social stickiness and inflexibility and looking at the society's distrust of change, one would see that, if left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."

Did you catch that? They would like the people to do it, but that would take too long, so government will have to force them do it.

"Would it not seem then, that the government could bring more rapid consolidation through clan co-operatives? Individual initiative is not usually the best method of bringing land reform.......the government should take a positive stand and, if need be, force people to consolidate through the easiest way, which, I think would be through clan co-operatives, rather than through individual initiative. If one were to suppose that the stat is an instrument of society and if the society regards growth as well as the correction of the lopsided development which has characterized this country as important, than, the society, through the government, which is its instrument, should enforce means by which this growth and change can be brought about....If the government should, however, feel that individual ownership is the best policy to take in order to bring development, then it should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country by one individual and this should apply to everybody from the President to the ordinary man."

OK, this is where they restrict the size of your farm. This is where Obama, Jr. is headed next, I believe. If he can't use eminent domain to grab up all the land, he'll pass a bill that says your farm can't be beyond a certain size. I have no idea what that size will be, but not so small that the American people won't revolt. Be on the lookout for it and don't fall for it. It's a way to ease the path to nationalization.

Then he takes on the fact that they don't have a good education plan: "It is true that we do not have many people qualified to take up managerial positions in these enterprises nor those who could participate intelligently in policy-making functions. But this is not to say that there are none. At present, many highly qualified Africans are employed by commercial firms and are given very pompous titles...one would find that they actually have no voice in the companies which give them these high titles."

Sounds like ACORN, doesn't it?

Then he approaches taxation: "True, in the paper there is a realization that taxation can be used as a means of forced saving, but it is given a secondary place in this respect...It is a fallacy to say that there is a limit and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. How are we going to rid ourselves of economic power concentration when we, in our blueprint, tend towards what we ourselves discredit?.... Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many and through this have not only economic power but political power as well."

Tax the business and put it in the treasury. Economic power concentration? The people with the money have the power. That's vote with your dollars, and he wants to take your dollars away, or at least your choices. That could be buying up all the grocery choices. Does this sound familiar? With the standardized labeling? Make all the labeling look the same, and you can't boycott certain companies because all the labels look the same on the shelves. They know they can't buy up all the different grocery companies, so make them all look the same.

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income, which is taxed. Assuming that development and the achievement of a high per capita income is a benefit to society as a whole I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and siphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign aid."

Tax the wealthy at 100%, put them on public aid, and then put their taxes on the national debt? The poor would LOVE that, because it would make them realize what they've felt like all their lives. But, do you think the wealthy would continue to work hard, if all their wealth is going to just be taken away? I wouldn't. Why? I'd sit on my but and collect welfare. Why bother if no matter what you do, or how hard you work, you get a government check?

Then about nationalization: "Nationalization should not be looked at only in terms of profitability alone, but also, or even more, on the benefit to society that such services render and on its importance in terms of public interest. If we were to look at these things purely on profitability, then the railways would not have been nationalized worldwide since it is the least profitable so that in all countries."

Probably the most telling statement in the whole paper. Nationalize the car companies, we don't care if they make money after that. Nationalize the banks. We don't care if they make money after that; it's for the best of society. Nationalize the papers and we don't care about profits. What about subsidizing the railways.... Can we subsidize farmers? Can we nationalize talk radio? No? Well, lets destroy them, then.

And lastly, though out of order, I saved this one quote for last: "...so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others, nor is it unlikely that in a country with low per capita incomes, to subject the poor into submitting to political ideologies and to persuade them to vote for those who offer them money, would not be difficult and has, in fact, been occurring."

This comes from a man who was sent abroad for his education. He didn't stay in Kenya and be forced to attend a local college. He attended Harvard. He married 3 women at the same time, according to the Internet, never obtaining a divorce. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lori Ann Smith