WARNING: long post follows, in an attempt to wrap up my portion of last night's exchange.
ITN, without getting back into it too far (I'd really like to see this discussion itself progress in the original sense of the word, and it isn't likely to do so if it gets stuck in a recursive loop over your post from last night and my reaction to it), Rev, Pasta, TenPenny and others here have pretty much made my case for me in my absence (it being Thanksgiving day, instead of being online I was busy volunteering to feed those less fortunate than myself - something that would get me labeled as a socialist in some circles, I suppose).
While Jay's definition of the word "Socialist" is not the only one in existence, it is the basic textbook one I first learned in high school, and I don't fit it, either. (For the remainder of this post, I will capitalize the word when I mean that definition.) To be fair, I think you knew that already. But the reason I reacted the way I did to your post is exactly as I said: I am fed up with anything that even remotely reminds me of the inaccurate knee-jerk labelling of anything even slightly left-of-center (on the American spectrum, that is, not the one used by the rest of the Western world) as automatically "Socialist" - implying Jay's defintion - by certain groups of Americans. It happens a lot, it reflects a certain lack of thought upon the person doing the labelling, and frankly, it makes my blood boil. I've frequently been labeled - not by you, but by others both online and IRL - as a Socialist simply because I hold that the best reason for humans forming a society in the first place, way back in the Stone Age, was to help increase the prosperity and security of all members of the group beyond that which was able to be obtained in a situation of "every man for himself" and that human beings learned at some point what some appear to be forgetting now: that cooperation often tends to lead higher than simple raw competition. For me, the ideal society would incorporate elements of both.
No, I do not advocate communal or state ownership of all means of production, or rigid governmental control of all aspects of human life from cradle to grave. I do not equate a level playing field with stifling all differences or advantages that one individual may naturally hold over another, and I do view competition as a component of that which drives the human spirit. But it is only a component, not the end-all, be-all of human capacity, and its partner and the necessary other side of the coin is cooperation. You cannot have a coin with only one side, and likewise you cannot have a society with only one element. I suppose that by some lights, that would make somewhat of a socialist - note the small "s".
I believe competition is necessary on some levels to spur human progress, and I believe that cooperation is also necessary to protect the progress that is made and safeguard a social, economic and physical environment that fosters further development and growth in the next generation. Stagnation and regression are poor options, and a lack of competion genrally results in the first, while a lack of societal security generally results in the second.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people in the U.S. today who do not seem to understand that equation, and so they falsely label any viewpoint that differs at all from their own as some extreme version of that which they view as being diametrically opposed to their own. Thus, just for example, someone who considers unfettered pure capitalism to be the pinnacle of human systems is often heard to label anything or anyone who advocates even the slightest cooperative effort in society (such as safety nets for the poor, the disabled, or the elderly) as "Socialist" when nothing could be farther from the truth.
And all too often, they then dismiss all that they have so labeled as unworthy of any sort of attention or consideration whatsoever, which pretty much puts paid to any sort of productive dialogue.
For the record: I do NOT consider ALL right-leaning individuals to be "neocons", nor do I consider them all to be fascists, nor do I consider all conservatives to be evil, or neocons, or fascists, or anything else with such negative connotations. I do believe that neocons, fascists, and other such negative types exist among the various philosophical positions inhabiting the rightward half of the spectrum, but I am neither naive enough nor imperceptive enough to fail to recognize that there are plenty of other positions in that half of the scale that are none of these things.
I ask only that others invest the same time and effort to see the varying shades on the leftward half of the scale, if they want to actually participate in a worthwhile discussion, and to put away the broad brushes in favor of something a bit more accurate.
So as I mentioned, by some measures I'd be considered a socialist, and depending on which definition you use, perhaps I am. But if anyone wants to call me one, or even call an idea by that term, I'd appreciate it if in future they would inform me of which definition they are using. That way, we'd ALL know what is meant, and it might well avoid a few arguments.
*steps off soapbox and puts it away*
We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion.
:wink: 
