these examples have very little to do with a candidate of a democratic party in the USA, who does not even pretend socialism. Social programs are not socialism...
The U.S. Government currently spends the majority of the money that it receives, on social programs (which are increasingly proving to be unsustainable).
Barack Obama's intent is not merely more governmental social programs (for which additional programs, he proposes to expend about a trillion dollars more, per year). Instead, his further intent is what he calls "spreading the wealth," "redistributive
change" and "social and economic justice."
While such policies would not necessarily characterize "socialism," by its strict definition, nevertheless they represent its ethical philosophy.
"Socialism," by strict definition, is an economic system wherein capital is owned by the government. "Ownership" is the (exclusive) prerogative to dispose, which means that in a socialist economic system, it is the government's prerogative, to dispose of economic materials.
If an object is "owned" by you, it is you alone, who may decide what is to be done with that object. You may keep it, or trade it, or simply give it away, to whomever you wish.
"Spreading the wealth" ("redistribution") presumes, as an axiom, that "the wealth" is owned by government, and it is government alone, which may decide what is to be done with it. The government may keep it, or give it to whomever it wishes, this being
its prerogative. For example, the wages that are paid, in exchange for labor, may be permitted to be possessed by the one who performed the labor, or they may instead be confiscated and given to someone else; the government will decide what is to be done with those wages.
"Wealth" is not necessarily equivalent to "capital," so that such presumed governmental ownership of "the wealth," is not precisely equivalent to governmental ownership of capital, and thus "socialism" per se; but the philosophical axiom is the same.
BTW, you're the one, who introduced the subject of "communism," which was explicitly defined by Marx and Engels, as "the abolition of private property" (with the stated intent to distinguish it, among other purported representations of "socialism"). Additionally, since you also introduced the subject of "fascism,"
its ethic is pretty similar (although not specifically economic) - being the philosophical proposition that a person's value is defined by his contribution to his society, and that the political State, as a representation of that society, is the arbiter of that value, and has the prerogative to define and to construct it.
To my mind, such philosophies represent governmental arrogance, also called "tyranny." Thomas Jefferson wrote that people tend to be willing to
tolerate a considerable amount of tyranny, but I don't suppose that it is a good idea to
vote for it (even for the sake of joining the crowd/"wave").
than any white man in history.
