Check George Will on CSPAN interviewing the Professor who wrote a book about Reagan. He is unbelievable. Reagan apparently recognized that God created us with a greed chip and that ignited an anti communist fire all over the world. Never mind that most of the developed world and South America are finding a middle ground that cares about the "cogs" in the economic wheel.

Great job Carla! You walked into the lion's den and actually made some headway in a civil exchange of ideas!

There is a false labelling in your post suggesting Marxism as the only form of socialism. The Fabian Socialism of England, and the Fabian Society had a pivotal impact of the Labour Party policies of social democracy, which did not seek a universal government ownership of property or means of production. Northern European models of socialism today generally favor mixed economies with market forces driving production and consumption, with a broad based safety net in those areas of public goods and infrastructure, such as education, housing, health care and transportation. Bernie Sanders, as the Socialist Senator from Vermont seems to be quite popular. Indeed the pendulum may be swinging in our country toward a revitalization of the social democratic ideas of Roosevelt especially when it comes to the distribution and investment in public goods.

Jeff, Are you serious about "free" markets? There ain't no such thing.

Years ago, I worked in the anti-trust division of the Justice Department in Wisconsin under a Republican AG. One thing that that experience taught me is that there is an enormous amount of collusion between so-called competitors to manipulate the price of their products. I saw this across large sectors of the economy ranging from big oil to plumbing fixtures.

Now today, we have almost the inverse situation with massive retail outfits like walmart dictating the price and the place of manufacture of goods that they will sell in their stores. They are so large that manufacturers will agree to their demands...not long ago, a pots and pans manufacturer in Wisconsin was told by walmart to move its manufacturing to china or lose their business.

No, we don't have anything approaching free markets here...much of the market place is dominated and manipulated by big corporations...leaving us with a few sellers and many buyers...not the marketplace described by Adam Smith.

Free marketers like to trot out the

with the exception of some boilerplate language, even the socialists aren't socialists anymore...If there is anything approaching unanimity in politics, it's the idea that free societies need free markets.

Well, the socialist movement in the US was effectively smashed during World War I and immediately thereafter...by the administration of Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. Wilson had Eugene Debs tossed into prison on some sort of cooked-up sedition charge, and the postwar Palmer Raids mopped up the remainder. But I demur.

The old socialist ideal of the state controlling at least some of the means of production is certainly alive and well in much of Latin America and Europe (think France, say, where Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate for president, is in big trouble partly because a lot of party members think she is selling out socialism).

If everyone here would get to know one Republican (or independent who sometimes votes Republican), the truth of this would become clear:

I don't know if it would change the dialogue if Republicans knew this, but it seems that Carla managed to break through some of the fog. ("It is only through the sharing of ideas, that we may come to understand each other better. Maybe, we can come to see that we are not each other's boogyman.")

To define the term ”socialist” as it applies to a modern day politician, it is a person that attempts to control the lifestyles of the populous, including but not limited to what mode of transport people use to move about, what type of housing people live in and where that housing is located, and what people choose to eat. Additionally, such a person will also likely be in favor of creating tax codes that are specifically designed and aimed to bring about that type of socialistic change. Therefore, if the socialist shoe fits any specific politician(s), the politician(s) should be labeled as such.

It's important for progressives and/or Dems to come to terms with socialist aspects of their policies. Retreating from the "socialist" tag has dire consequences for social justice and social equity agendas.

Let's face it. Much of progressive policy is acheived through redistribution of wealth. Social security takes money from the young and gives it to the elderly. Income taxes pay for schools. If we ever get universal health care, you can bet that it will be redistributive.

The state also has a strong role in economic development and even production of goods and services. Consider: The internet, or more locally state Universities, BPA, Port of Portland, Trimet. etc.

Failure to be clear on what are desirable socialist (or socializing) policies paves the way for corrupt uses of the state when the economy needs propping up. US military Keynsianism has always been designed to benefit private sector groups enormously. Lockhead Martin, Raytheon, KBR, Bechtel, Haliburton, etc. have a long history. The only thing new in Iraq is the scope of privatization.

Now, because we face a crisis with health care and the private sector can't cope, the government will get more and more involved. The Democrats will try to figure out a way to keep it market-like on the surface. Below the surface, you'll see massive subsidies in every which direction that keep the system going in a way that benefits most of us (thanks Dems) ... AND also by design the insurance companies (less thanks).

the problem is, in this context, socialism is not a meaningful word, it is a conservative dog whistle. and 'free market' has become such a politically loaded term, that it too is nearly useless beyond as a vague description for our system of free enterprise.

conservatives mix and match the terms 'free market' and 'capitalism', which is a huge mistake. capitalism is, quite simply, any system where capital can be accumulated and then productively employed to make more capital. china is essentially a capitalist nation.

one of the problems with our economic system is that the incentives are all screwed up--the greatest rewards do not come from productively employed capital, they come from non-productive rent-seeking. a capitalist economy is one of growth and expansion, creating more 'winners' every round. a rentier economy is a zero-sum economy, where you are collecting rent, or paying it, and there is only so much to go around. every bottleneck is a potential windfall if it can only be controlled, and charged for. the california energy crisis jeff mentioned is a fine example; it wasn't so much "deregulation" as it was "reregulation", where the energy traders were able to engineer false scarcity, in order to pump up the price of their service, and rake in the "profits". but this is not profit--there was no new capital produced--this is rent.

this is basically how our economy has been running since ronald reagan and alan greenspan (along with a conservative democratic congress) tweaked the keynesian consensus that had lasted for 50 years. they restructured the tax system to tax investment income more lightly than work, they instituted a consumption tax on the middle-class (the social security trust fund), and liberalized (well, corporatized) trade. the result was massive liquidity at the top resulting in successive waves of speculative asset bubbles (commodities, stocks, real estate, futures, etc), family income that only stayed even due to more women entering the labor force, and the deflationary effect of cheap imported goods, and nearly all of our economic gains over the last 25 years having gone to the wealthy.

if there is a capitalist party right now, it is the democratic party (though they are still tainted).

Per Websters Online: "(1)Theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Let's face it, when the Gov't takes over non-essential duties that can be adequately handled by private enterprise, socialism creeps forward.

"(3) (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect imlementation of collectivist principles."

Research Venezuela for how this is playing out in real life before our very eyes.

Steve,

I believe you are confusing free markets with competitive, profit maximizing pricing. It is illogical for you to price your product or service materially below the prevailing market price UNLESS you are trying to grab market share at the expense of healthy profit margins.

The example is Costco. Costco prices below prevailing market prices and thus wins on volume. The do sacrifice margin in the process and expose themselves to the risk of a general economic slowdown. Their system suffers when not enough volume moves throught the distribution chain. This occurs within a sharp recession.

I'm always amazed by the right-wingers' blind acceptance of militarism and praetorian culture while claiming that the rights of man will inevitably lead to a Stalinist-style socialism. The fact is that there is an intellectual threshold in America; if you toil beneath the bar you subscribe to Hobbs and the privilidges celebrated by the antebellum South. When your mind reasons above the bar, you subscribe to the social optimisms articulated by of Locke, Rousseau and Jeffersonian democracy.

I'm proud to be a socialist, in principle. My values are the values of socialism (compassion, empathy, community, brotherhood, broadly-defined equality), and I do not accept that "free societies need free markets". I do accept that markets work better than planning and state ownership, but there is nothing about liberty that requires economic anarchy.

Jall,

I appreciate what you said. I too value the end goals of that socialism aspires to "compassion, empathy, community, brotherhood". However, you do do all of those things on your own. Today, you can write a check to the United Way. Today, you can donate clean blankets to a homeless shelter. If you have the means, you directly pay the tuition for a young man or woman to go to college that couldn't afford to otherwise.

There is no need to write the check to the Gov't and then let them redistribute. You, and I, can do that right now.

In the New Testament, it is stated that the followers of Jesus would, from time to time, sell land or other items of values and bring in the proceeds to be distributed to those who had need. This was a direct gift. That, is true socialism.

I love the dog whistle comment, Pedro. Great metaphor for code words.

I had a discussion about the Healthy Kids Plan the other day with a struggling father of three who opposed it because he believes it's socialist. Put another way, "why is providing health care to children socialist?", he really had no answer other than, "it rewards poor people for having kids."

And roads reward drivers for buying cars?

Hard to fight views that are based on identity instead of logic. "Dog whistle," indeed.

I encourage people to check out the work of Professor David Schweickart of Loyola University in Chicago. He advocates a specific model of "socialism" which is generally referred to as Economic Democracy. This is not Karl Marx stuff and there is no centralized control of production, etc. Economic Democracy, as I understand it, is a system which attempts to reasonably allocate the vast resources of America among all of the people of this country. In my opinion a far better alternative than the current "winner take all" model of capitalism.

Authentic and intellectually honest debate cannot take place in an environment in which the meaning of words is changed to fit the manipulative and propaganda agenda of the parties involved. The right wing has been successful in propaganda in large part by changing the meaning of words, like "socialism", to mean something that has never been historically. When William Buckley had his program on PBS, "Firing Line", I believe there were some moments of authentic debate over ideology and policy. Such forums no longer exist. Instead there is simply manipulation, and dishonesty in the use of words in the political realm. Corporate media has largely facilitated this, and propagandists like Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich have been the wordsmiths to ply their trade. Simply repeat something enough, with a corresponding negative emotional charge, and it becomes "bad". So anything "socialist" is bad, anything "liberal" is bad. The Beltway corporate punditocracy are more than willing to oblige. John Murtha has a simple wisdom about the right wing propagandists, "Just because they say it, doesn't make it true." I long for a time when intellectually honest debate and exchange can take place in a culture marked by respect between citizens.

I'm listening to the results of the Dutch elections as I read this and tonight the SP (socialists) are the biggest winners, for what it's worth.

They've been through a recent period that has eviscerated the middle- "tolerance is dead" is everyone's motto, just about- which has caused real gridlock. Tonight's results represent a way forward for them.

The new Animal Rights and Welfare party took their first senate seat! Well done.