The original definition of Socialism was what it needs to be returned to.

There were folk for whom State control was the logical Democratic result and perhaps there are wingers who actually think in those terms.

However the actual programs that they foam at the mouth over are seldom actual government take over but rules of behavior to "Socialize" institutions and keep them from descending into outright Piracy of the sort that the current financial mess is such an example

Libertarianism not Capitalism is the opposite of Socialism.. Or to be more precise Feral is the opposite of Socialized. The Orwellian newspeak where words were given their opposite meaning made it very popular for dictatorships to put Socialist in their name to lay claim where they had none.

Actual Socialized States are like Socialized Children, acting responsibly with others, and holding themselves and others accountable if they should slip from honorable behavior. Is there a range for discussion as to what that means? certainly! But the Libertarian concept that each person act as they see opportunity with no thought or responsibility to the needs or concerns of others is the very definition of Feral, and as Somalia is a poster society for Feral, we know how well that works out.

Bruce Wilson Put it amazingly well here:via Sara Robinson
"Enlightenment values mean, in part, a tradition of respect for societal diversity and political pluralism and a spirit of self-restraint rooted in an altruistic commitment to the common good, an ethic of civic and political engagement, and a belief in free inquiry and the scientific method, and a belief that while we can never achieve absolute objective truth we must nonetheless distinguish opinion, ideology, and religious belief from that which science can tell us.

"Further, Enlightenment values hold that our society must be sustainable and in harmony with our essential human nature, and that we must learn what science can tell us of what our human nature actually is. Enlightenment values must, if they are truly held, include mechanisms by which they can be sustained and perpetuated in human culture lest they be overwhelmed by forces of ignorance, bigotry, religious and ideological zealotry, and barbarism. Enlightenment values are the opposite of those tendencies, which appeal to the lowest human instincts and drives; barbarism means fidelity solely to oneself, not to an enlightened social code worked out over centuries, representing the accumulated wisdom of generations of men and women....Enlightenment culture at its best as "lucidity of mind, intellectual curiosity and hospitality, largeness of temper, objectivity, the finest sense of social life, of manners, of beauty." And this view of culture is clearly incompatible with abstracted ideology and zealotry of all kinds, and with mere egoism."

What can those Feral values be but egoism, ignorance, bigotry, etc and what can the Socialized values be but a commitment to the common good and the enlightened notion that lucidity, community, & reality produce advancement of everyone, and thereby yourself.

It would appear to be a plane you can drive, rather than a car you can fly. Convenient for the Millionaire retired to the countryside, not the ultimate commute vehicle to beat rush hour traffic unless your job was at the local small Airport and you lived out in the country.

While I would agree that a congress paid for by taxpayers (like Arizona) is better than offered to the highest bidder, FDR still managed pretty good and even managed to avoid a coup.

We will still need Capitalism however, just not the Libertarian/Feralism that got us here (and there). However much of the problems of the Left when they had a great deal of power was that they did not think things through and set us up for the Feral attacks of Reagan and beyond.

HIgh Speed Rail is a good example, providing much needed infrastructure, but getting far less, and less practical results than the money could realize if thought through deeply enough. It is not even a matter of Financial elites here but just plain lazy thinking, a 150 year old metaphor, with fancy dressing, rather than really thinking about the possible.

It is not the taxes collected that brings power to, or runs Government, it is assistance to power, and that means campaign donations. If taxes paid for campaigns, then we will have bought our government, rather than selling it to the highest bidder.

Why else would there be such a mantra against taxes, but allowing the most extreme campaign donations from the tax haters.

Having just watched Dr. Zembardo talk at Google about his book The Time Paradox I am struck by how much his work enlightens the notes above, and goes a long way to explaining Dr Altemeyer's objections to it. I think there is a lot of synthesis that can be done here but will take more thinking than I have had time to do.