If we define a person by his or her actions and not by the social or cultural groups he or she defines him/herself by. For example a man is not a moral person just because in his marriage wov he promises to love his wife and none other forever. Especially if he goes and has an affair with a nother woman. Does the same not apply to politics?

President Obama has problems with his new great social security renewal. He has been accused for being a socialist and even a nazi. Now lets look at these accusations.

The word “nazi” comes from german political party called nazional sochialistiche partie. They were racists and extreme right wing nationalists, with romantic and unrealistic world wiev of germans as a superhuman race. They had nothing to do with socialism, alltough they had the word in their party name. It is said, it was just to spite the communists and to gain popularity among the great labouring masses. Originally their leader mr. Hitler was a populist who served both the corporate world like the Krupp and Daimler-Benz and the western colonial governments like France,  Great Britain and USA. His purpose was to turn Germany wich had just been humiliated in “the great war” into a buffer zone against the newly formed Soviet Union. The plan backfired and mr. Hitler and his party turned against most of the world with well known results. His political role was originally a corporate agent.

The word socialism in its modern political meaning comes from a german philosopher called Marx. He definied the structure and aims of the market economy. He called it simply capitalism. He also defined an alternative cultural movement to capitalism and named it socialism. Socialism is a moral movement that has much of the same as many of the great philosophers and mystical religious characters, like Jesus, have defined as responsibilities of the single person and also the larger community of people. While capitalism aims for the stronger to survive and gain more money ie. power and influence in the struggle for survival, socialism aims at community to take care of its weaker members also. So a politician not striving for the benefit of the rich capitalists, but for the poor and underpaid is a socialist.

There is a third kind of a politician. Mr. Stalin who took over the newly formed Soviet Union after mr. Lenins untimely death used the exeptional situation in the former Russian Empire to claim the same political power the tsars had handeled. He sent political adversaries into Siberia or to be shot. They were mostly other communists or if you please socialists. He created massive personal cult first around mr. Lenin. (Something he himself would not propably have approved.) Slowly mr. Stalin turned that cult worship to himself. Mr. Hitler was a great help in that , when he launched his doomed war upon the Soviet Union. Mr. Stalin was in politics only for his personal gratification so he was a demagogue.

President Obama could be judged as a corporate agent, because that is what US presidents have been for generations. A corporate agent is easy to recognize by the facts that he gets most of his support (mainly monetary) from the busines world and rich capitalists. Also decisions made by a corporate agent obviously support the business world (mainly the wery richest capitalists at least). But now it seems that president Obamas actions are drawing him towards socialism. For truly his new social security program would benefit nothing to the few wery richest capitalists, but for the millions poor people it would bring a great help.

On the other hand in this respect president Truman was a socialist. His actions in the beginning of cold war to stop communism from spreading were indeed socialist. By his political affiliation he was a corporate agent.  He claimed that communism prevailed in the poorest and undeveloped areas, and thus it was necessary to take action against powerty. So his motives were not socialist but his actions were. Maybe it is the same with Obama. That he is not moved by the actual altruist philosophy, but by some other agenda. Or maybe he is just a reasonable man, who sees the world needs a new direction, before rich capitalists rip it apart in their greed.

So do not laugh at schoolboard member mrs. Ada White, who wanted to ban Robin Hood books from schools in her native Indiana. For she was absolutely right. Robin Hood was (in political terms) a socialist. That is judging him by his actions. Obviously socialism as a philosophy was not yet born, but its ideals were not new in the world. Maybe he even was a communist, for he was ready to use violence to set things right.