Conservative View Of Jena 6

No Marx Without Lenin?

Of course she's right. When Marx died in 1883, Lenin was just 13 years old. Marx as a person and the founder of scientific socialism - along with F. Engels, who in this context always said to only take a back seat - exists independent of Lenin, of course. His historical role is completely autonomous from the role of the Russian revolutionary and leader of the Bolsheviks, who in 1917 successfully ran the October revolution thus constituting a 70-year-long existence of the socialist Soviet Union.  Maybe one could resort to a (restricted) comparison. A certain Saul/Paul of Tarsus never personally met the "son of a carpenter from Nazareth" whose historical existence is in doubt up to today. He never belonged to the "12 Apostles." Nevertheless, he became the actual founder of Christianity by his really impressive preaching and missionary abilities. Without him breaking the taboo that also non-Jews could become Christians, the early Christians would have remained a small Jewish sect, and never would have made it to a world religion. What would be heard of Marx in the 21st century, if not colonial rule was broken also thanks to the existence of state based socialism after 1945, and if not because of this global political constellation countries like Cuba, Vietnam, the People's Republic of Korea and the huge "Red China" continue to feel more committed to a socialist option even after the end of the "Soviet bloc"? Notwithstanding all the contradictions present in these states. "Tout ce que je sais, je ne suis pas 'Marxist'." ("For all I know, I'm no 'Marxist'") – this is what Marx is supposed to have said to the refugees from the Paris Commune – particularly "Marxist" and "revolutionary" but in reality rather irrational and stubborn – who in England spoke out on the possibilities of the immediate "next start" for a this time more successful proletarian revolution in France. To be "Marxist"; that is to be someone who claims to think and to act in the spirit of Marx, but that does not automatically imply to be positive. Lenin wrote: "We consider the theory of Marx, not as something complete and inviolable; on the contrary we are convinced that it only has laid the foundation of the science which socialists must develop further in all directions. if they do not want to be left behind by reality.

The Blame Goes Beyond Obama For Debt Ceiling Compromise

There is always a tendency to blame the person at the top for every problem in an organization whether it is the corporate world or a government agency. It is natural for human beings to find fault with a single person because they have one target instead of many; especially when the “many” represent members of your own fraternity. The debt ceiling crisis and proposed deal between Democrats, Republicans, and the White House is a perfect example where the professional left and many liberal individuals are busy hurling accusations and insults at President Obama for averting a catastrophic default on America’s debt.

Before any critic starts in, the proposed spending cuts and debt ceiling increase is not good and will not solve the problem of increased revenue. Now that is out of the way, the appropriate question is; just what was President Obama supposed to do? Although the deal is less than ideal, it averts a disaster of epic proportions that would cripple this nation’s economy to the point that America may well have never recovered. However, that is not really the issue, but since the nay-sayers are throwing words like sellout and President Obama caves again, it is worth a brief perusal of exactly who is at fault.

There seems to be a twisted notion of the powers many on the left think the president has and to be honest, it reeks of teabagger logic. The Constitution is very specific in describing the nature of our government and it says in Article I, Section 7, clause 1 that “ all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives .”  Now that may seem unfair, unreasonable, and  astonishing to many on the far left, but the Constitution’s framers decided that was how the government was going to operate well over 200 years ago. It is not a Republican plot and definitely not ideal in the current political landscape, but it is the law of the land and like it or not, it is all there is.

For any American, either on the left or the right, to lay blame for the deal on the president alone is misplaced and frankly; childish. In 2009 there was a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, and it took a Herculean effort for President Obama to get support for health care reform. It was expected he would face opposition from Republicans, but the near deal-breakers were members of his own party and it took arm twisting and cajoling to get the votes to pass the law. In fact, from the minute President Obama took office it seemed there were always a couple of conservative Democrats standing in the way of true change and it was enough to give Republicans veto power in the form of filibusters and obstructionist tactics. But the blame does not lie solely with Congressional Democrats because they acted according to their constituencies and the special interest groups whose sometimes unreasonable expectations derailed a unified front from Democrats. The public option is one example where special interest groups nearly upset the administration’s efforts at passing health care reform.