Obama the Syndicalist

Syndicalism is a term that very few people are familiar with; partly because it is so difficult to define. It is a rare and unstable mixture of Marxism with a more familiar corporate unionism. But the difficulty in defining syndicalism is the same difficulty one finds in attempting to determine what Obama’s vision for the world is.

Obama would never refer to himself as a syndicalist (nor does he likely know what it means), but he has played the part of one as a community organizer and now as president. As Dinesh D’Souza points out in his book The Roots of Obama’s Rage , Obama’s background is one of an anti-colonialist. But there are strong similarities between these two movements. Both anti-colonialism and syndicalism are, in the end, theories of revolution rather than cohesive theories of societal order. Neither one establishes a stable and viable society, but rather are driven by frustration and the obsession to rectify perceived injustices. While the anti-colonialist is revolting against the colonizers, the syndicalist is revolting against the capitalists and industrial oppressors. For Obama, capitalism is code for colonialism, and he despises both. Obama as a community organizer is more aptly named a “community agitator”. Agitation is what he does the best. He’s been referred to as the “agitator in chief” (hat tip to Rush Limbaugh). He is most comfortable in this role and becomes disinterested when asked to rebuild what he has disassembled. This is the unsustainable state of a controlled anarchy which arises from syndicalism.

Webster defines syndicalism as “a form…of trade unionism…that aims…ultimately at the control of society by federated bodies of industrial workers (can you say “public sector unions” that seeks to realize its purposes through general strikes, terrorism, sabotage, etc.” And I would add, by “community agitation”. One can see how the blood flows in Obama’s veins whenever he begins to dream and pontificate about the collective state, and unions organizing against the capitalist pigs.

Joshua Muravchik calls syndicalism “an ill-defined variant of socialism that stressed violent direct action and was simultaneously elitist and anti-statist.” Obama is an elitist that was elected president because he also possesses an odd anti-statist populist appeal. He loves to organize populist groups into political forces that disrupt and topple established structures and perceived towers of social injustice. You can see this passion in his speeches on the south side of Chicago as he is agitating the people to organize (in essence “unionize”) in order to gain political power. You can see this in his blind support for the protesters in Egypt and now Lybia. It doesn’t matter whether the protests are justified or not, and certainly not whether they are in America’s best interest. All that matters is that there are protests, and that the powers that exist are being toppled. Never mind what new powers will be established. The throwing of eggs is all that matters, not who will clean up the house afterwards. In this way, Obama the agitator, is very much an irresponsible petulant little boy. But a very dangerous little boy as the President of the United States.

Syndicalism is about the total unionization of all of society. Notice that Obama is not concerned about creating jobs in general, but specifically about saving union jobs. The auto industry bailout was for the benefit of the union, and certainly not for the benefit of the car buying consumer. This is not merely a political strategy, but fits a syndicalistic view of the world. In Obama’s dream all workers would be members of one of the syndicates, collectives, or unions that would govern all of society. The syndicalist ideal is one in which government is based on functional rather than territorial representation -a world without borders run by organized experts in every field. Power is distributed between various trade unions or union syndicates similar to rule by numerous mob families. It could also be compared to a form of tribalism, but one in which the tribes all work together in a grand collectivism (caring and sharing). These specialized syndicates contain the “experts” who are considered most suited to run society. But in reality, it is a highly unstable state in which the tribes or syndicates would most certainly begin warring with each other rather than working together in harmony. And so, syndicalism ends up as simply a counter productive revolutionary theory: a sort of controlled anarchy, a permanent change, a hope for whatever-you-wanna-hope-for, movement. Does this not sound familiar?

It is in this controlled anarchy or lawlessness that Obama finds his passion. He will not enforce the border, because that would end the controlled lawlessness of illegal immigration. He relishes seeing the NEA union mobs in the streets of Wisconsin and elsewhere (although he will neither go there in support nor condemn the union “incivility”), not only because he supports unionization and collectivism in every instance, but also because the very presence of protest and unrest is what he feeds on. I even believe that it excites him to defy the court that held his administration in contempt regarding his ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as defying federal judge Vinson who declared Obamacare unconstitutional, thus making it null and void. Lawlessness to Obama is revolutionary, exciting, transforming, and dangerously fun. Like a popular mobster whom the FBI can never seem to bring to justice; or the populist hero John Dillinger, on the edge, robbing banks, living it up, outrunning the law, and cheating the hangman. And the sensational press, as with Dillinger, feeds on the blood sport of the chase, all the while cheering on the populist hero because he was kind to one poor farmer and gave him a few of the dollars he stole from his last bank heist.

Syndicalism is the embryonic state of fascism. Because of its revolutionary nature, It is not viable on its own. Historically, it served as a crucial stepping stone from idealized Marxism towards fascism in the early 20th century. This is Obama’s world, a state of permanent flux and agitation. The hope and change never end. The hope is the end in itself, and there is no end to the change. Obama is not interested in the end, nor the end justifying the means; but solely in the means itself. As a syndicalist and populist, there is little thought in how to establish a just and viable civil society. The attitude is “let’s just tear it all down now and figure out how to rebuild it later”. You can find this attitude present in the passing of the health-care legislation. Firstly, it was rammed through with typical union dirty tactics. Secondly, although it is referred to as “Obamacare”, he has almost no knowledge of what’s in the bill, nor does he care. What he does care about is the tearing down of the American health-care industry. It doesn’t matter what it’s replaced with, just so long as it’s dismantled and power is redistributed towards the government (meaning himself). That is sufficient knowledge for the syndicalist Obama. This is echoed by political lapdogs like Nancy Pelosi when she said, “we need to pass this bill to find out what’s in it.”

We can see now how Obama has much in common with the radicals of the 60’s, and it is easy to understand how he befriended a terrorist like Bill Ayers. Terrorism is a favorite tool of syndicalists. Strong arm union and mafia like tactics are also popular. These radicals had no idea how to rebuild what they were tearing down. It was almost a game to them. They were rebels without a cause, or certainly rebels who were incapable of thinking through their cause. But it was so much fun being a part of a mass movement. They got to skip class, scream and be angry, write passionate songs, and have sex without war. Now Obama can go on vacations, play golf and basketball, fly around the world, and still pontificate about the latest injustice that needs sabotaging and redistributing. Even the very concept of redistribution is not a constructive, but rather, a destructive idea based not on wealth creation but on stealing the wealth created by others. And America has vast quantities of such wealth; ripe for spoiled university brats to redistribute.

The happy state for Obama is one of a continuous crisis: a sort of permanent revolution. Of course revolutions can’t last forever, but the syndicalist Obama does not care to consider this. A wealthy country like America can maintain a permanent state of revolution longer than any other. There are simply many more structures to be dismantled. There are many more houses to throw eggs at (or bottles and rocks if you’re a union thug), and many more clean walls to graffiti up. What fun! -being an American president when you’re a syndicalist revolutionary like Obama. -Like an unruly little boy with a baseball bat in a china shop. Sadly, the cleaning up of America will not be as easy, and dinners from now on will be served on paper plates.