Nope – in a classical Marxist sense, “property” means those things that represent the means of production. Land. Factories. Not your clothes.

What is the Democrats Constitution? What limits are included in the Democrats Constitution on State power and authority? Are there any? Is just “we dont agree with the US Constitution will ignore it and “re-interpret” it as we see fit” change we can believe in?

Democrats have the same Constitution as the Republicans, best I can tell. The whole “ignore and re-interpret” thing is usually just playing the refs … though there certainly were some serious “ignore” things going on during the last Administration in the name of national security.

Hell, I’ve been having an argument with Ireign here over whether or not a Federal Mandate that individuals purchase insurance from the private sector would be constitutional. I don’t believe it is. I also don’t believe that it would be constitutional for the Federal Government to require me to pay money into a federally administered private investment account.

“Let’s have President Obama lead an honest discussion about the “No Whites Allowed” sign on Jackson’s home pictured above (and please do note that Jackson is an official Democrat Party and Obama campaign poll watcher, as well as an elected member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Committee).”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/02/the-new-black-panther-partys-teachable-moments-on-race/

So if someone thinks that individuals should be able to own the clothes on their backs but nothing else, then they arent Marxists? Is that your position?

The US Constitution itself provides for Limited Socialism. The right of the Federal Government to levy taxes to pay for national defense.

However the US Constitution is a document that everyone can look at and agree or disagree with….and their are mechanisms to change it.

What is the Democrats Constitution? What limits are included in the Democrats Constitution on State power and authority? Are there any? Is just “we dont agree with the US Constitution will ignore it and “re-interpret” it as we see fit” change we can believe in?

If you would like to lift limits on government power, and the people are behind you, then the process for amending the Constitution are clearly laid out….and should be no problem with the support of the people. You can even ditch the who Constitution and write a new one…but that requires telling people what you are about, and not a nebulous emphemeral cloud of hopeful changiness, round and round she goes where she stops nobody knows!

Camille Paglia comments on this same phenomenon, here.

Obama’s healthcare horror

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index.html

I don’t know any influential people on the left who favor Government ownership of all property and enterprise, which is why it is inaccurate and ignorant to use the label “socialist” for Democratic leadership, much less “Marxist”.

If favoring limited socialism makes one a socialist, then let’s start identifying who in America is NOT a socialist. It’s going to be a much easier to handle list.

Its an exorable push with the ultimate goal of the Totalitarian Socialist State, Utopian Visions.

I would like to know where the Democrats and Left think is the level of Socialism that they would be happy with, and not push for more statist control, confiscation of private property, etc

They should put out a policy statement that says this is what we want to create. This is our “Constitution.”

That is the real question.

Uh – no. I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that you’re completely irrational on this subject.

I’d still like to find out which of the “socialist” institutions I asked you about earlier – public condemnation of property under eminent domain to build critical infrastructure … public roads and highways … fire departments … the public school system … federal, state, and local parks … public libraries … public universities – you are willing to do away with in order to stamp out any vestige of socialism.

Then we can talk about appropriate compromises, once we’ve established what you consider illegitimate roles of government.