How are todays' Democrats best categorized as socialists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[Miztiki]

I'm reading about socialism on wikipedia and wondered how the Democrats of today would best be categorized. Are they social democrats? Reformist socialists? Moderates? Are they socialists according to definition of socialism at all?

Are they Marxists who see socialism as the "transition between capitalism and communism, the final stage of history"?

Do they only want a "welfare state"?

For instance, what is Hillary? What type of "ism" does she envision for our country?

[Flatus I. Maximus]

If you really want to understand American Democrats, go read The Promise of American Life by Herbert David Croly. You can find it on Project Gutenberg.

Published in 1909, this book basically lays out the arguments for "socialism with an American face." E.g.:

• Jeffersonian democracy has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced
• the Constitution is an impediment to truly progressive government and must be circumvented
• for the efficient management of society, power must be taken from state and local governments and concentrated at the Federal level, preferably in the hands of unelected bureaucrats
• businesses must be tightly regulated and managed by the government for the greater good, and "excessive" profits confiscated
• labor must be tightly regulated as well, and "independent" laborers forced to join larger and more manageable collectives
• hereditary wealth makes a mockery of equality and must be confiscated, albeit slowly and quietly, through taxation
• ultimately, all wealth must be redistributed equitably, through a system of Federal "income tax" and "welfare" payments (remember, this book was published in 1909, at a time when there was NO Federal income tax), so that no man might suffer from either the handicap of not having enough money or the corrupting influence of having too much money
• et cetera, et cetera...

What makes this book most interesting is not so much the book itself -- it really is the definitive smug treatise on the virtues of a planned political economy -- but the list of who read it and thought it was brilliant. For example, Theodore Roosevelt became an ardent and vocal admirer of Croly's ideas; thankfully, after he left office. Taft implemented some of Croly's ideas without crediting the source, and strong echoes of Croly's "New Americanism" show up in Wilson's "New Freedom" and Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal," as well as in the decisions and opinions of Croly fans Judge Learned Hand and Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter.

Of more immediate importance to Croly himself, the book drew the attention of Willard and Dorothy Straight, who along with Walter Lippmann subsequently founded "The New Republic" magazine and hired Croly to be Editor-in-Chief. He remained in this position for the rest of his life, enthusiastically publishing the works of the British Fabian Socialists and their American imitators, and laying the foundations for modern American "progressive" and "liberal" thought.

[GSlob]

You need not so much a description as a definition. To avoid stepping into marxism, and then having to clean one’s shoes, the definition better be NOT economical but sociological: socialists are collectivists without exception, with hillary’s “we are going to take away your things for the common good” serving as a good illustration. In practice, such proclaimed primacy of the group over the individual and its necessary corollary - the subjugation of the individual - manifests itself in that ideated group becoming fictitious and serving merely as a cover for the nomenclatura oligarchy, for whom and by whom such a system is run. Now, elements of such system could be found everywhere [adventures of the US nomenclaturist Sandy Berger come to mind]. Thus one comes to an arbitrary threshold value of “socialism quotient”.

[Disambiguator]

Where does the term “Statist” fit into the socialist world?

"Statist" is just another synonym.

Politics can be expressed in terms of cows. There are some variations to the theme, but it goes something like this:

Socialism/Communism - you have two cows, and the government confiscates them and then gives you some of the milk.

Fascism - you have two cows, and the government confiscates them and sells you the milk.

Nazism - you have two cows, and the the government shoots you and takes them.

Capitalism - you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull.

[Son House]

” How are todays’ Democrats best categorized as socialists? “

Progressive taxes.

[Doctor Raoul]

Yes

[Popocatapetl]

Real socialists are a minority among the democrats anymore. By this I mean the “true believers” like Teddy Kennedy and Hillary. The rest are not ideologically pure and are more a duke’s mixture of screwed up beliefs.

Bill Clinton was an interesting case, more like a Mafia boss than a leader, wanting the entire democrat party and later the entire government working for him and only him. He would not allow and deeply distrusted anyone around him who was not “dirty” enough to be ruined at his whim, and felt no loyalty whatsoever to his toadies and lickspittles.

Hillary, on the other hand, embraces extremism anywhere she finds it, and has nothing but contempt for democratic forms, preferring liberal “elites” to craft policy for her. She sees the world as black and white, so individuals are either her friends or her enemies.

As far as commonality in their party, I would say that they remain together out of shared hatred. While they don’t all hate the same things, they all have bitter hatred towards something. And this hatred manifests itself as meanness and crudeness. Many of them are blind to their own hatred, and think that only they can feel oppressed, that those that they hate are incapable of feeling.

[Major Matt Mason]

I would call them Incremental Socialists. Deep down inside, they agree with the tenets of socialism, but they know that, in the U.S., they can't get everything they want in one fell swoop. Instead, they chip away, little by little, always keeping their eye on the prize. I would say that they have been very successful up to this point. If only those that we choose to represent our side were so dogged.

[richardtavor]

If you are looking for parallels, look to the Roman Empire in the last days—the government taxed everything and then paid for indulgences for the people. When the democrats can access all private wealth, then they will redistribute it according to the desires of the powerful. One last question—where is the Roman Empire today?

[Duke Nukum]

I think they are neo-feudalists.

[Aikonaa]

The 1918 Soviet Constitution had a clause which stated: "He who does not work shall not eat," which carried over into Stalin's later constitution of 1936.

I don't see Democrats supporting such 'right-wing' ideas.

[stumpy]

They are NOT socialists, they are communists of the Marx variety out to destroy America.

[stumpy]

They are NOT socialists, they are communists of the Marx variety out to destroy America.

[SteveMcKing]

Of the many definitions:

liberal: n. One who is open-minded... at others' expense.

democrat: n. One who buys things... at others' expense.

[Parmy]

Today's Democrats are barely to the right of Leon Trotsky, Valdimir Lenin, Karl Marx and Josef Stalin.

Today's Republicans are to the left of Hubert Humphery, who was a raving libereal in his day.

[CutePuppy]

Democrats as a party are a mix of different Socialists, but for the most part, as guiding philosophy to achieve practical goals they are :

Fabian Socialists.

Fascists - government’s/state’s control of means of production and services and education, yet not necessarily state’s ownership of means of production and services. As Hitler famously said “Why own when you can control?”

Kind of like dual-stock structure in NY Times, Pinch owns very little of NYT stock, so when stock goes down the shareholders bear the brunt of it, yet he has complete control of “voting stock” in managing NYT - his own “controlling legal authority”.

[FreedomPoster]

On that general theme, see the second quote on my FR home page, the two-paragraph one by Hayek.

[BobS]

"Hillary, on the other hand, embraces extremism anywhere she finds it, and has nothing but contempt for democratic forms, preferring liberal “elites” to craft policy for her."

That is called Maoism. Pol Pot could not have killed all those people without spies everywhere.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

For instance, what is Hillary? What type of "ism" does she envision for our country?

Read my tagline.

[Quick or Dead]

The funny thing about Democrats and socialism is that they run the gamut of Socialists. Some are soft socialists a la FDR. Some are disciples of Third Way Socialism (i.e. Fascism) and see a perfect union of industry run by corporations, but ultimately controlled by the government through heavy regulation. A few are hardcore Communists (they don’t confess it, otherwise lynch mobs would form), such as Queen Hillary, who strangely betrayed her true self when she said “we will take things from you for the common good.”

[OKIEDOC]

Actually the real description of a Democrat is a baby murdering, back stabbing, muck diving, scum bag sewer dwelling, just on the bottom side of a naivete cut and run coward.

Also see the descriptions as given under Jessie Jackass, Murdering Ted Kennedy, Traitor John French Kerry, Cigar Billy Clinton, Racists Al Sharptongue, Anti-American George Sor@ss, Hairy Read, Nancy Peloser, Dickie Turdbin, John Kookie Edwards, Congression Black Caucau, NAACPeepee, Babs The Nose Streisand, Rosie The Anal Mouth O’Donnellll, Sean No Cents Penn