I posted this in Politicalwire.com website comments section and got a few replies thanking me for my comment.
"Obama Calls Back Reporters
The audio of President Obama's phone call to New York Times reporters to explain why he dismissed a question about whether he was a socialist suggests the White House really doesn't want the term to stick.
Said Obama: "It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question."
I was surprised at the positive feedback because I was posting it out of annoyance and looking to rebut the conservatives on that site, and not to inform liberals. I assumed that those of us on 'the left' understood all these political distinctions already. So, if you want a primer, here's one that has gotten some appreciation.
It would help if the media understood what 'socialism' is. Unfortunately, most political journalists are pretty dim and are little more than stenographers. It's no surprise the Moonie Paper, the Washington Times would try and make an issue out of this. I'm sure the New York Post will pick up on it as well.
Anyway, for those who are not aware, economists and political science theorists have slightly different definitions on what 'socialism' is.
To a poli sci theorist, a socialist is a member or supporter of a political party (communists) that nationalizes all industry and outlaws private enterprise. This occurs before the political party and the state supposedly 'wither away' and the nation finally reaches communism.
To an economist, this is abstract nonsense, and a 'socialist' is whatever members of socialist political parties claim it to be. Historically this meant a party that wanted to nationalize the 'commanding heights' of industry, as occurred in the United Kingdom in the 1940s under Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee. The 'commanding heights' is defined as the industries that are regarded as important for national security (heavy industry, communications, transportation, energy and a few others). Free enterprise in small business and consumer goods manufacturing continued.
So, that essentially is the practical definition of a 'socialist'.
In so far as the most Obama is proposing is a bailout of the auto industry (not a nationalization) and, at most, a temporary nationalization of bad banks with the intention of privatizing them at a future date, the question is, as Obama said "ridiculous".
Still, get a stupid reporter, expect a stupid question.
I added on another board:
Two additional points:
1.Some people may argue that it was Lenin, and not the socialists who came up with the term 'commanding heights', so it that is arguably not a distinct socialist party concept. However, socialist political parties did exist long before Lenin came to power, and they did argue for nationalization of the sectors that define the 'commanding heights' while leaving light industries (consumer goods) and small business in private hands.
2.The primary rationale for nationalization of the 'commanding heights' according to Clement Atlee was that a nationalized industry would be more efficient than private industry (the nationalized company would be a monopoly and so it would avoid duplication of positions as occurs when there is more than one company in a sector. As well, it wouldn't have a need to spend money on advertising just for the sake of beating the competition).
Once it was generally agreed that, for a number of reasons, the nationalized industries were mostly a bust, they were sold off and put back in the private sector. This happened under Thatcher in Great Britain and in Scandanavia (I'm not sure who was in power then in the various countries) and in France under Mitterand (at least he gave up on the idea of nationalizing industry if not actually privatizing them himself.)
So, while it is certainly true that Obama is trying to make the United States more like Western Europe (and Canada), and, to that extent, is following the policies of the 'socialist' parties in Western Europe, it would be more accurate to say that the socialist parties in Europe are actually now liberal parties and, contrary to the Newsweek article headline (good article but lousy headline) 'nobody is a socialist now'.
In conclusion:
Nationalizing all industry is 'communist'
Nationalizing the 'commanding heights' is socialist.
Wealth redistribution, which Obama is pursuing, is liberal and has been so for the 200 or so years that liberal political parties have existed.
Wealth redistribution is nothing new and it is not an indication of socialism. An argument could be made that if the wealth redistribution becomes so onerous that private industry becomes impossible, that the wealth redistribution is de facto socialism. However, given that capitalism more or less thrived in the United States when the top income tax rate was 91%, I highly doubt that a 39.6% rate is anywhere near that onerous.