• a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation[5] of workers by the owners of the means of production
• a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
• an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
• an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
• a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
• a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)

But no one in the media is saying Obama is a Marxist. The rhetorical beauty of saying he's a socialist is that the term doesn't have a precise threshold for determining when it applies. When the Republicans control the federal government, federal spending is about 20% of GDP. When the Democrats have control, federal spending is about 22% of GDP. Apparently that additional 2% equals socialism.

This is simply another attempt to tag Obama as the "other." No one would be putting out this nonsense if Hillary or any other well established Democrat was the candidate, even if that person took positions that called for more federal control of the economy than Obama has.

Good points, except I'm certain some people would be calling whichever Dem got the nod a socialist.

I've just been getting fed up with the term being thrown around by people that think Marxism, socialism, and soviet communism are interchangeable ideas. So I figured I'd through the definition out there.

In politics, the emotional response to the word is infinitely more important than is the definition.

Rock459 and NightSwimmer have it exactly right. The word "socialist" has become infinitely malleable. As Lewis Carroll had Humpty Dumpty say to Alice: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

To this day wing-nut conservatives regard FDR's New Deal programs like Social Security as being socialist. When George Bush and John McCain talk about "privatizing" Social Security they are continuing this time-honored GOP tradition.

So when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist" they could mean anything from being a defender of Social Security to being a crypto-Stalinist. That very ambiguity just makes it another cheap shot.

It's a shame when a rich word is drained of meaning. It not only ruins the word, it makes whatever it once described more difficult to discuss. To be fair, the Left did the same to "fascist."

Actually, Rock459, the GOP has spent nearly 20 years trying to paint Hillary as a socialist. Had she won the nomination, you'd better believe that Kristol's rag would have labeled her the "most liberal member of the Senate", just as they did with Kerry in 2004.

The democrats could have nominated Ron Paul and the GOP would be still trying to pain him as a socialist. It's their SOP.

I haven't heard anyone from the old MSM label Obama a socialist.
And no matter who the Republicans nominated, they would have been "Bush third term" or "Bush light" or worse. There doesn't seem to be a threshold for using this label, either. This is just business (politics), don't take it personally, as Don Corlone would say.

That small 2% you speak of represents a 10% increase in the size of the government/tax increase. Seems a bit bigger when you characterize it that way. If the economy were growing at a 2% rate faster THAT would be a big deal. Surely they showed you in math class how to make your case stronger by fooling around with the baseline when you graphed data.

Many on the right are not happy that Bush seemed as eager as the Democrats to create new entitlements--the Medicare drug benefit, in particular.

Pwoxby said:

"So when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist" they could mean anything from being a defender of Social Security to being a crypto-Stalinist. That very ambiguity just makes it another cheap shot."

Precisely.

There are people on the right who consider most Democrats socialists, but I can't recall a previous Republican nominee demurring on the question of whether his opponent is a socialist.

The 20% and 22% figures I gave were ones that I once heard. The exact figures are available (both with federal expenditures and federal income) at <link> It may turn out that the difference between Republican and Democratic administrations are even smaller than 2% of GDP.

Personally, I think terms like socialist, fascist, marxist, and nazi should just be retired from our political discourse. They've become so overused by both the left and the right that they've lost all real meaning.