I attended a gay rights march downtown yesterday that ended with a rally at the Texas capitol yesterday and the International Socialists Organization was there selling their weekly newspaper; out of curiosity, I bought a copy. I'm looking to see if there are any Socialists on here and to get your views on issues and why you chose to be a Socialist. I'm not looking for Socialist bashing so please share informative views only.

Socialists selling? Whatever happened to "from each according to his means, ...?"

" ... I'm not looking for Socialist bashing so please share informative views only."

"Socialist bashing" is not mutually exclusive with "sharing informative views" on this system. I do know that most Socialists profess to support freedom of speech, but they, and apparently those flirting with their cause, rarely allow its free exercise in practice.

Hummm...I guess I should have titled this thread: If You Are a Socialist, Please Read...If You Aren't, Tally-Ho and Move Along

Oh yeah, I forgot. Socialists also make a big noise about "freedom to assemble peaceably." Trouble is, when they do, things rarely remain peaceful for long, and they don't much like folks who disagree with them assembling at all. "Move along," indeed!

Yo, Mike, easy on the bobster there! He's not trying to squelch dissent, he's trying to open substantive conversation. It's his thread, let him set the parameters of his own question...

Everybody back to their mornin' coffee...

Oh, OK, GJ - and not just because YOU* asked. But really, some of these posts seem to go out of their way to INVITE such ripostes, don't they?

I don't like the idea of Socialists trying to grab on the the gay rights movement, to further their own opportunistic goals. Lord knows we've got enough wackos purporting to speak for us without dragging in the Reds, who, as Bobby's post shows, show up at our events to make money off us. I know more than a bit about Socialism because I lived in SFrancisco for 25 years.

BTW, my mornin' java is a mocha. Have a good one, y'all!
_____
*Because you are my Special Lady! (I hope this revelation doesn't get you in trouble! wink )

lol and agreed re the glomming on. That said, I'm as interested as bobby is why certain people are attracted to/interested in socialism.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the actual author of that quote was a prominent Mormon, it may have been Smith, the founder, or Brigham Young, not sure which. The Mormons, incidentally, were one of the first groups to attempt a community based on communist/socialist (they referred to it as \"commutarian\") principles.

The Mormon church and community are now solidly and deeply capitalist, so that's part of what happened to the socialist ideal.

Well, let's define our terms, shall we? What, exactly, is a "socialist"? The old Soviet empire took communist (e.g., complete lack of private property) ideology, married it to old-fashioned totalitarianism and we got the Cold War. Interestingly, it was the old-fashioned capitalist system in America that saved the Soviet's rear end in WWII. Their fighting forces were tough and tenacious, but without our equipment, they would have folded up faster than France.

When I studied comparitive economic systems in college, however, we looked at economic systems as a continuum, without the political overtones. The USSR was the most socialist/communist, with the US playing the opposing role as a capitalist system, with countries like Sweden and the old Yugoslavia in the middle.

Socialism, to me, is a modified form of communism, which allows for private property rights, but still has the central government playing a very important role in determining the flow of goods and services throughout the country. That in and of itself is neither positive or negative, but an example of the "social welfare function" that all societies impose. It can operate under relatively free political systems, as in many European countries, or under strict dictatorships and related ideologies.

Personally, I believe we have nothing superior to the capitalist system, because that system, at its core, is an organic creation of the human psyche. The formation of markets is an efficient and relatively simple way to ensure goods and services flow to those who value them. That formation, for better or for worse, is also inevitable, even in a supposed communist system. In the old USSR, every company had secret employees whos job it was to basically barter with other companies to correct the central government's screwed up supply distribution. If you had copper, but didn't need it, you'd find a company that need copper, but had the supplies you needed, and you'd swap. Without this system, the USSR wouldn't have lasted very long. Unfortunately, it was also grossly inefficient.

That is not to say I believe in unfettered capitalism. There is no economic system that is immune to corruption or greed. In addition, perfectly functioning capitalist systems require cheap or free access to perfect information, which simply does exist (for example, every employee cannot be expected to know if a certain employer's workplace is safe, and therefore cannot put a fair value on working there - so we have OSHA). Then you add in the problem of "public goods" like transportation systems, defense, health care and education, and you realize a pure capitalistic system is not necessarily the way to go.

So I personally support heavily regulated capitalism, with a strong central government, along with a truly free press to keep both sides accountable (something we are sadly losing in modern America). One of the best things FDR did for capitalism, although I highly doubt he understood its overall ramifications, was requiring insurance for all banks. A safe and secure banking system is vital to any properly functioning capitalist system. As a result of insuring deposits, in the stock market crash of 1987, consumers ran to put their money into the "safe" bank, rather than creating runs on banks, as happened in 1929.

I think it is important to have real debate on the correct role of the government and the private sector in our lives, which is the basic capitalist/socialist debate, but we also have to realize that no one ideology will be perfect, and different tactics or institutions from different systems may be needed at different times.

I like to go to parties.

socialism in theory is great as is communism; it's only when you get people involved that it gets all mucked up

it works on a small scale basis

I don't consider myself a socialist but I certainly don't consider myself a capitalist either

The biggest problem Socialists have in the image department (other than the fringe elements that make any political group look bad; gmginsfo, let's not forget there are elements of your political family you'd rather relegate to the children's table) is that Socialism has been unfairly conflated with Communism. They aren't the same thing. I have nothing against the spirited debate of the merits of any political ideology, but the right has a tendency to be dismissive of Socialism as merely another component of the failed Communist system. Without addressing the fact that over a billion people still live under Communism, Socialism is alive and well accross Europe, in Canada and in various other countries around the world. It didn't fail and it isn't a totalitarian political system. You want to discuss whether it is better for the least able of our society to be helped or ignored, I'm all for the discussion, but lets have an honest, adult debate and leave the children home.

Thanks, jqueer. Conflating socialism and communism is a common conceptual error that the right, and even many on the left, makes all the time. Also, there is a difference between a governing party that is Socialist (or socialistic) and a government structure that is democratic socialist or strongly redistributive. Finally, Socialist and "liberal" are two different things.

I was going to say that socialist or true Leftist parties run the nations of the United Kingdom (Labour is one of the oldest socialist parties in the world), Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, and Venezuela (though Chávez verges on something more extreme at times). Uruguay recently elected its first Socialist government in its history, displacing the rule of the two longstanding moderate-conservative parties. France and Austria had Socialist governments in place for quite some time, though the current conservative governments now in place don't appear to be that different, except for their rhetoric. (Chirac, the leader of France's conservative government, would easily fit within the Clintonian fold, though his corruption and chicanery is on the order of a Tom DeLay.) I'm not too sure about Ireland and Luxembourg.

The following countries have redistributive economic systems in place, I believe: UK, Canada, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, Iceland, New Zealand, Israel, and Japan. (I'm not sure about Switzerland, though I know it has numerous liberal policies in place; not sure about Australia either.) In all of them, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is far smaller than in the United States, or in other countries that mirror our economic disparities, like Mexico and Brazil; they have extensive social safety nets (even the UK despite the Thatcher woman's best efforts); free educational, health care and pension systems, funded by taxes; constraints on the market; and yet all are capitalist societies.

Brazil and Chile, for example, have socialist leadership, but the countries are not socialistic in their ethos or structure. In the case of Brazil, this has led to dissension within the governing Worker's Party ranks and leadership, which has functioned more like a Clintonian party moderate conservative party (or its predecessor, a moderate-liberal government), rather than the working-class, unionist party it long was. It also has not made good on numerous plans for societal improvement, unlike Argentina's socialist government, under Néstor Kirchner, which has managed to turn around one of the greatest financial disasters that country has ever faced. One problem with people like Kirchner or Chávez, however, is that their authoritarian tendencies tend to overshadow the actual good work of their governments.

Our U.S. political system and societal structure definitely has many benefits, of course, and it has withstood numerous challenges for over 200 years (whether you date it from 1776 or 1789). There are fewer barriers to capital development, and we usually see a higher economic growth rate and lower unemployment rate than many of the more redistributive countries. Yet we also have a greater disparity between the rich and the poor in economic and social index terms, an increasingly threadbare social safety net through which millions are falling each year, higher rates of financial insolvency, and, more, despite the drops in crime in the 1990s, higher rates and levels of violent crime overall than any other highly industrialized, wealthy country.

Cuba, China, and Vietnam are Communist countries. I'm not sure what one would call North Korea.

[ March 14, 2005, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

someone could argue that Labour under Blair has nothing of a socialist party.

At the Pentagon they call it "Next."

Cap'n, that Marx speaking, not the Mormons. I'm surprised that for all his wealth of other information, FT didn't point that out.

Yes, "conflating" - love those chic catchwords of academe - socialism with communism is a common sin, just as confusing communism with representative democracy is, but some of us do keep our wits about us and aren't enticed by visions of the Workers' Paradise, even the one 50 miles south of Miami. All societies "redistribute wealth" in one manner or other; but not all have safeguards like the V Amendment that prevent - when properly applied - safety nets from becoming hammocks.

The closest moniker I can come up with for North Korea is "failure."

Actually, at The Pentagon, if you mention North Korea, they say, "What is it about North Korea? Do they have oil now? No? Well we don't need to talk about North Korea, then."

Cuba is a Communist dictatorship, not a Socialist state. That's been quite apparent since about, oh, 1960. As I once pointed out on this board, I lost the friendship of a Castro-loving cousin who accused ME of being "right-wing" for criticizing Castro's anti-dissident and anti-gay actions. His excuse, like that of many on the far Left, is to blame the U.S. Well, yes, the U.S. embargo and the endless plotting and dirty tricks, the besiegement, of Cuba, must be taken into account. But then how do you explain those "reorientation" camps for the queers? Ah, silence.

As for "academe's""conflating," the word and its related terms date from the English Renaissance (around the year 1549), the era of Erasmus and Marguerite of Navarre, the year of the Book of Common Prayer, during the reign of Edward VI. I believe Oxford and Cambridge, like the Universities of Paris and Bologna, were open then, but not the "liberal" American bastions the right-wing so loves to daemonize! Perhaps one might check the letters of Desiderius Erasmus or the texts of Shakespeare to see what they were "blowing together" or "kindling."

[ March 14, 2005, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

FT, thou inflamest my desire to quaff ale with you; good word play, that!* But doesn't it beg the question of when the term "ivory tower" first came to be applied to academe? And didn't Dante consign Francesca of Rimini to the mother of all conflags?

Enough squabbling on this great day for gay rights courtesy of a California Court - let's declare a truce of God, or the godless, as the case may be.
_____
*You wouldn't happen to have an OED at hand, now??? wink And I'm a bit puzzled about the proper use of dative "you" following objective "thou;" my German is grumbling in the trenches.

I used the word "conflate" for very specific reasons. As dictionary.com indicates, conflate means to bring together; meld or fuse. I could have used "meld," "fuse" or "bring together," but none of those would have introduced the sense of inappropriateness "conflate" is able to convey. I'm suprised someone who's made it all the way through an undergarduate degree and law school would expose such an anti-intelectual bent as to dismiss the proper use of words as "chic catchwords of academe."

edited because that comes accross as entirely humorless and was not meant to be. I still can't bring myself to use smileys, though.

[ March 14, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

Now, JQ, I never said using "conflate" was inappropriate, though I might have called it cliche, but in doing so could be said to have committed like error myself. It just bothers me when stock or vogue phrases are bandied about, like wayward snippets from some sit-com script, roosting wherever they indiscriminately may.

Consider the term "political correctness." This has all propriety and style of Warren G. Harding's "Return to Normalcy." I've always tried to use the term "political rectitude," but it's never caught on.

Jqueer and gmg, the buzzwords in the humanities right now are "imbricate" and "interpellate" (usually used wrongly, when "interpolate" or "intercalate" is needed). Use one of those about a good fifteen times in an essay and you might actually get it accepted by PMLA.

Another good one is "subalternity,"* though that's almost passé. Also, we're now at the moment of "post-post" everything: "post-post-modernity," "post-post-coloniality," "post-post-queer theory." Ah, I can already hear the ennui settling in.

Also, you should begin your essay either through punning on an established title or opening with a present participle (sometimes a gerund), or both. "Queering la vie de Saint Léger: Bodies, Fluids and Strange Discursivities in Medieval French Epic," or "'Sleeves' of Grass: Clothing, Feminism and Whitman's (Auto-)Narrative Ruptures," Etc. Lots of hyphens and parentheses work well too. Some of these talks, mind you, are actually quite good!

The accusative or dative form of "thou" is "thee" [he gave it to thee, With thee, she is least happy, etc.]--Or, quoting my favorite bisexual Renaissance poet, the greatest writer ever to grace the English language, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day...?"; the genitive form is "thy" [thy heart may lie in the right place]." The possessive pronominal form is "thine."

Quaffing beers--let me see what I get back from the Feds after April 15, and then let's talk.
--
*This comment need not imply that I hold any bias against the Avalon Professor of the Humanities at Columbia University.

[ March 14, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Speaking of one of our worst (Republican) presidents ever, here's a fun poem by one of our greatest (gay) living American poets, John Ashbery, from his 1981 volume Shadow Train.

QUALM

Warren G. Harding invented the word "normalcy,"
And the lesser-known "bloviate," meaning, one imagines,
To spout, to spew aimless verbiage. He never wanted to be president.
The "Ohio Gang" made him. He died in the Palace

Hotel in San Francisco, coming back from Alaska,
As his wife was reading to him, about him,
From the Saturday Evening Post. Poor Warren. He wasn't a bad egg,
Just weak. He loved women and Ohio.

This protected summer of high, white clouds, a new golf star
Flashes like confetti across the intoxicating early part
Of summer, almost to the end of August. The crowd is hysterical:
Fickle as always, the follow him to the edge

Of the inferno. But the fall is, deliciously, only his.
They shall communicate this and that and compute
Fixed names like "doorstep in the wind." The agony is permanent
Rather than eternal. He'd have noticed it. Poor Warren.

© John Ashbery, 1981, 2005.

[quote]CPT_Doom:
[QUOTE]The Mormons, incidentally, were one of the first groups to attempt a community based on communist/socialist (they referred to it as \"commutarian\") principles.[/quote]Actually, there were many before that, most notably the first-century Christians in Jersualem, who, according to the book of Acts at least, shared with each other according to need and sold possessions to support each other and the cause.

The catch to that degree of redistribution is that it only works well when it's voluntary and in service of a willingly shared belief. What the Soviets (and Mao et al.) practiced was violently coercive and therefore doomed to self-destruct eventually. eek!

Likewise, socialism along the West European model is different from communism precisely because it's coupled with democracy. Individual rights are as important to the mix as the web of tax-supported social services. (One can argue endlessly about who has more freedom where, and I have no plans to move, but anyone who crossed the old Iron Curtain can attest to the difference between the two sides -- and why it fell, or rather was trampled by the crush of voting feet.)

This leads to another catch: Socialism can only work when the economy is strong enough to support all those tax-funded services. Golden egg, goose, etc. This is rarely the case in the Third World countries where it sounds most appealing. If there's no (or only a small) educated middle class that views itself as citizens rather than subjects, then even a superrich elite has only so much wealth, and even if that wealth could be redistributed, it wouldn't go far enough to make a dent. Drop, bucket, etc.

That said, capitalism functions best with regulation to keep it honest. Like children and professional athletes, free markets need adult supervision.

Any idea of these government and societal ways in their true and purest forms do not work. Why? For the simple fact human nature does not allow it. Dont you think communism/socialism is very utopia driven at its core? But because humans are greedy, nobody is going to ever let anyone be on a level playing field throughout the whole society. Thats why capitalism works so well, because we just accept the fact that humans are greedy and power driven. Survival of the fittest and let the best man win.

Bobby, I suppose at the heart of the matter is the definition of Socialist. If the paper you bought is anything like "socialist" papers I've seen, it's a largely unread missive like North American (oops, Canadian, since I understand it's illegal to be a Communist) communist papers. I think of the people that write them as the types of wackos that find a personal fire in feeling alienated. The "I'm misundertood and attacked, so therefore I'm in the right and oh so special" crowd. But I'm jumping to conclusions. Maybe it wasn't that kind of paper at all.

Up here in the no-so-frozen north, "Socialist" isn't a bad word. At any given time, 2 or 3 provinces usually have "socialist" governments (called the NDP, or New Democratic Party.) It was a socialist government that won us our "universal" health care system (that we can all be so sanctimonius about) in 1962. Canadians tend to think of Socialist ideas as more of a view of things that the state should be taking care of for the common good. Health care is one. Old Age Pensions are another. A second concept might be redistribution of wealth for the benefit of weaker members of society, such as Welfare, or Disability payments. I would class American Social Security as a socialist concept, although Homeland Security is probably starting a file on me this moment for suggesting it.

Up here we seem to have a democracy and a certain amount of socialism at the same time. It doesn't scare us. That being said, the chance for an individual to make massive wealth is less than in the U.S. We don't get nearly as rich, and we also don't get as poor. Of course, our heavier taxes does tend to strangle lots of the admirable entraprenuerial (spelling?) spirit that made America great.

On the other hand, the 30 million Americans without health care boggles our collective beer-befuddled minds. That's as many people as we have citizens.

Also, we're not so scared of the word. Nor the word "liberal" -- the Liberals are currently our governing party. Small "l" liberal to us, means middle of the road.

Oh, one last note, tied to my first paragraph. It's never been illegal to be a member of the Communist Party here. I've never understood why in a free country it would be. The Communist party candidates are on the ballot in virtually every election. NOT ONCE has a Communist Candidate ever been elected. Nor come in second. Nor third, nor fourth... In fact, if they get even one percent of the votes of the Rhinoceros (yes, you read that right) Party, I would be very surprised.

I think Jim Wallis has made some pertinent comments on this subject. If one is able to strip away prejudices against evangelical christians, with whom he seems to be affiliated but trying to change from within, the wisdom of his comments can be judged on their merits. I think he gets this one about right. I would like to see more about his views on gays.

So...from reading the replies so far, no one here alligns himself or herself with the Socialist Party. I know there is at least one Socialist in the US House of Representatives... a guy from Vermont (not surprising). I have enjoyed the discussion when it has been on topic. Thanks for some of the input, Outsporters.

How 'bout "Inclusion wins?"
Is that catching on?

I'm not aligned with or a member of the Socialist Party, but ironically, due to the influence of my Christian beliefs, my views are often socialist. Like danimal hinted at above, true Christian principals are very often socialistic. Jesus pointed out repeatedly about the importance of helping others, sharing wealth, hosting people in your homes, etc. Bascially, we are asked to overcome primal instincts of only being concerned with ourselves and put the concern for others on an equal level (love others as you love yourself). Capitalism to me seems to be quite Darwinian, a survival of the fittest where individuals are out for themselves.

I don't think either capitalism or socialism could exist on a large scale in their purest sense. Both need elements of the other to function. But I know when I see homeless people on the streets, with no food or shelter, while others in our society are more concerned with their second car or high definition TV, that I wish the wealthiest nation in the world could be a little more socialist.

Dear Raze,

Please re-read what Boobster is requesting before typing "the same response" you always insert.

Thanks,

Socialists, NOT the commie-pinko-no-spine-go-hide-in-the-corner-liberals

Dear PhillyFan,

Your anatomically correct Barry Goldwater blow-up doll has been shipped. Per your request, you will receive it ASAP. The extra suction cups cost extra, though.

Regards,

Lonely Knight Equipment Co.

p.s. FYI, we also have a Clinton doll for your friend Raze. wink

Dear Lonely Knight Equipment Co.

I was looking to purchase the Hillary Skank doll i saw in your catalog, does she come with the large attachment? Or is that Extra?

Thanks,

Raze

PS Does the Bill have an operational heart?

Dear PhillyFan (our new #1 customer!),

We regret to inform you that Ms. GatorJamie has returned the Condoleeza Rice "Matrix" model, as seen on the recent foreign tour. Apparently, Ms. GJ doesn't get into whips and chains, especially from secretaries of state.

She has also requested that you refrain from sending the "Hillary Skank" model, regardless of the size of the attachment.

Instead, we have sent her a pair of these.

Best wishes,

LKEC

but let's not forget the current laws and programs that have come out of the old Socialist play book

40 hour work week
most, if not all, government programs to help students pay for education
safer working conditions
social security
welfare

some have been great successes and others haven't been quite as successful

FT, Thanks for the poem, which I enjoyed for its ability to capture both a mood and the man,* and the pronouns, for their like qualities of attachment. It's somewhat confusing with the German forms getting in the way, but I was on the right track, even if I'm still a bit unclear on the difference between the genitive and possessive in your example; the difference between an English minor and a professor.

But I will claim some prescience: my college papers of the '70s were typically titled with colons. Thus, "Two Navies That Never Fought: - The Anglo-German Arms Race and the Battle of Jutland."** And I trust my oeuvre here evidences my dedication to hyphens, dashes and parentheses-as-options. As one of my history professors wrote on my (Honors-winning) senior paper on the Spanish Civil War, "And you want to be a lawyer? What a waste!"

At the risk of being called a wealth-redistributor, I'll pick up the tab for our first brew/vint/condensate should we ever meet. I'll look for the wise-guy wearing dreadlocks! :cool:

_____
*Cf. Carl Sandburg's "The Mayor of Gary," with his "cool cream pants."

**Get me rewrite on that title!

Exactly. :cool:

I always liked social studies....

Dear PhillyFan,

Enclosed please find a lifetime supply of Pepto-Bismol. We hope you will use it in good health, as it may finally kill that bug up your ass.

Sincerely,

The Pepto-Bismol Corporation

From the much-maligned wiki: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" originated with Spanish-born French politician Louis Blanc for what it's worth.


The most recent comprehensive study I could find, which comes from the UN-linked group the International Labour Organization, suggests that

1- as of 1999 USA gross productivity was highest in the world, other countries were catching up
2- USA worker efficiency, very difficult to measure, is not nor has ever been the highest
3- USA quality of life as a result has not been the highest

Obviously these are conclusions I draw from the article.

It is the disparity in wealth that maintains the illusion of US capitalist superiority in efficiency by taking averages.

If there are more current statistics, then I hope someone will post them.

And the democratic process is the "adult" that should theoretically supervise. That has happened more often in Europe than in the US.

Still the worlds fastest growing economic giants might arguably be China and India, which both are more or less following the US model of wealth disparity: creating a small well-off managerial class that effectively enslaves a large working class - call the system what you wish.

It is effective in stimulating high gross productivity but creates a top-heavy society that has always collapsed in the past.

Early progressive movements that attempted to adhere to the dictum "From each..." were eventually destroyed by greed from within then violent assaults from without.

That pattern is showing again in the current progressive movement in the USA.

Two hundred years is a relativley short time in the scheme of things.

I consider myself one in theory, but since I live in a country that will (likely) never embrace the philosophy, it is of limited use as an identity.

Wow, whatever happened to GatorJamie and gmginsfo and PhillyFan? I miss those days.

Anyhow, no, not a socialist here. But I do live in Massachusetts which, according to the GOP, barely makes me an American.

I live in Canada and do not want the public healthcare system dismantled. Reformed to something more along the lines a the French or Italian system, maybe, but not dismantled.

Anyway, I am pretty sure that this makes me a socialist to the eyes of most Americans, but I'd tend to argue that there is a market failure in American healthcare and as such there is room for government in the economy.

Also I will take my socialist free health care, solvent banks, ability to get credit, 37.5 hour work week, and subsidized post-secondary all the way to the bank. Government investment in its human capital is not a zero sum money in, money gone sort of deal. It pays extremely good dividends down the road. Other socialist platform items like indefinate welfare 3-year mat leave, and ridiculous tax rates for high income brackets harm the overall productivity of the nation and therefore should be avoided. So to that end I would call myself a pragmatist. Each policy should be evaluated on its own merit.

Are these people who scream "socialism" willing to give up Medicare and Social Security when they become eligible? I doubt it. After all, we as Americans are entitled to these programs, right? When I see lines of senior citizens at the local social security offices ready to hand back that check, then I will believe all this crap flying out of the mouths of these right-wing blowhards. Until then, they should zip it. They are only succeding in dividing America, which is quite un-American.

If the north had just let us keep our slaves...


Ok, offside but still. It really is that same segment of society that just can't face any sort of change whatsoever.

And it's too bad because it's overshadowing the more reasoned debate concerning the particular shape that change should take.

Oh Dan, please tell me you are kidding about that comment...better yet, can you edit it and remove the silly line? You are opening pandora's box with a comment like that, my friend.

I am a social democrat. Not a marxist or communist. The term democratic socialist is a positive term everywhere in the western world except the US of A.

They have every right to protest what they perceive as wrong. Stifling dissent is un-American.

Are the vast majority of these protesters racist? No. Sure there are some racists amongst them. But the question is about the role of government in individual lives. And it is also about an elite/non-elite perspective.

Are Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh race baiters? Ah, you bet your sweet asses they are! So, too, is Al Sharpton. There are the fringes on the right and on the left. The vast majority of Tea Party protesters and supporters of Obama's Health Care Reform and Extension do not fall into either fringe group.

It's not that they shouldn't be able to say their racist s**t, but when they do, they shouldn't be surprised that it evokes a reaction. Personally, I'm fonder of the known devil over the silent one.

When all the "teabaggers" or whatever name they give themselves, gather to protest "policy" and they don't speak out against the racist signs, and the racist speakers, then they are ratifying the racism with their silence. I'd buy your argument that most aren't racists if most were speaking out saying there is no place for racism in constructive political discourse. But as long as they let others carry their water then they are part of the problem too.

I certainly agree with you, SeaCraig. A Republican leader must step forward and tell Beck and Limbaugh to stop the race-baiting. And also to put an end to any racist placards at rallies. Until then, they will continue to lose moral authority and any chance to to further their own agenda. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any such Republican leader.

Nonetheless, the protests are not motivated by racism. Don't forget, Obama was elected by wide margins among all ethnic groups. Did "race" suddenly go away because of this? Certainly not. There is real apprehension among many people, though, about the Administration's Health Plan. And it has everything to do with the economy and the role of government in society.

My guess is, for many of the protesters they don't make a conscious choice to be against policies because the President is "other". This is particularly possible in that most of them are protesting against their own economic interests, so they are not acting on rational, examined thoughts.

I do, however, feel that they feel comfortable taking it to the higher level because of underlying beliefs that people of color are less-than white people.

I come from a mixed family and as one of the white members of the family I am treated with more respect and deference than the Filipino or Black members of my family when we're out in social settings. I almost always get the check at a restaurant (of course the white guy would have the money or the say-so) , if a decision is called for it will be addressed to me (again, say-so) , when I'm with my sister and niece, both mixed, people never assume that my niece is my child (a white guy, a mixed woman, and a mixed child....the child MUST be with the mixed woman. None of these are "overt" racist acts, but they are all motivated/controlled by racial beliefs that person holds.

When people act on these un-examined, sub-conscious, ingrained, socialized...call it what you want.... views it's not necessarily racism. However, when you add vitriol, lack of respect, name calling, etc... it's racism....of course, IMHO