...in the economic and social sense. It's a form of paternalism that's compatible with political democracy, but it doesn't play well with no-holds-barred capitalism. The New Deal had some very prominent socialist initiatives, for the very wise reason that a little socialism will go a long way toward defusing radical Communism in hard times, which the US endured during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl disaster. It was pretty obvious at the time to the people of the US that capitalism and its practitioners didn't give a rat's ass about most of them.

Marxism is a political philosophy with economic components. It's not a form of government any more than Keynesianism is. Marxism's basic operating tenet is that the workers must own the means of production. Its basic social tenet is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", which, sadly, many Americans think is part of the Declaration of Independence.

Communism, as a governing system, supposedly seeks to put the tenets of Marxism into practice. This, in fact, works in small communities of volunteers, but all the participants must be willing adults. Monasteries and convents are prominent examples of this. On the state level, this is impossible because, though the limited applications of socialism will allow for differences of opinion, Communism requires that everyone (the "to each" and "from each" in the social tenet, above) participate. The only way to ensure that on a state level is to develop a political system in which choice is not an option, in other words, a one-party dictatorship. The assumption made by Lenin, the first leader of a Communist state based on Marxist philosophy, was that the system would need to be enforced only until the people were educated by experience and saw its benefits. Unfortunately, large communities of people can't be counted on to have uniform experiences and to form uniform attitudes. Also, since blatant force is involved from the outset, it's not long until those who wield the force become those who reap the lion's share of the "collectively owned" economy, because they can. The most important equality, equal standing under the law, goes out the window almost immediately with the application of force rather than debate and suffrage as the primary tool of civil government.

The differences among these three, and their potential impact on American policy, is pretty plain to me.

Marxism is a philosophy. It's fun to talk about. It's an academic exercise that has political impact only when one attempts to put it into practice in government.

Communism is that attempt, one which seeks to establish absolute economic and social equality in theory, and so requires the iron hand of dictatorship with its implicit political elites, violence that comes with forced participation, and social hypocrisy, in practice.

Socialism takes some of the aspects of traditional religious charity and attempts to codify them and make government the agency that will deliver a certain amount of safety to all citizens in the form of minimum living conditions and care. Socialism has been with us for thousands of years. Current socialism takes what used to be called religious duty and noblesse oblige and tries to put it in the context of modern rationalism and political democracy. It's more about equal opportunity -- think "20 acres and a mule" -- than it is about the ideologically pure equality espoused by Communism.

Americans, particularly, tend to get confused about "all men are created equal" in their thinking about socialism and Communism. The former is about having an equal chance; the latter is about being the same.

Progressives are social reformers. That comes from American history, circa the turn of the 20th Century. The aims of Progressives have been many and varied, and some of them have been better or more important than others. Humane treatment of prisoners and of the mentally ill, and women's suffrage are three I would consider worthy; Prohibition, not so much. Modern Progressives are more likely to be aligned with civil rights movements and environmental concerns, because this is where they perceive a need for reform. The effects of Progressive activities on American policy are also pretty plain to me. I can vote.

Personally, I think that the workers owning the means of production would be a good thing. It means that they would have an overriding interest in the success of the company, as their jobs are on the line, and that they would profit from its success in a much more real way than mere wages and benefits. It also means that they would be willing to maintain excellent working conditions, and to look out for the local environment, since most of them will live there. This is unlike our current system in which people who live removed from the means of production and its effects make money owning the company, which then answers more to their interests than to the welfare of the workers. But that's neither socialism nor Communism, but anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-socialism will only work if one makes it a contractual condition of employment that a worker become a stockholder, and that all stock is sold back to the company once a worker leaves the company, so that only employees own a piece of the company. I know that some conservatives scoff at this, saying that it would be impossible for a company to be run efficiently with all those people trying to make their opinions known. I suppose they have a point, if you think that the people are incompetent to govern themselves.