1. I don't think that Marxism today needs to be full-blown in order to be felt.  Even if they don't expressly promote the idea of a classless society, they still want to "give it to the man" and swipe the haves with the sword as a matter of "justice" and let the have-nots collect whatever spills on the ground.  In liberalspeak this normally involves language like having the "rich pay their fair share" (because 39% to the government is not "fair") while enlargening the public dole for the poor to drink out of...all administered by the hand of the government bureaucrat.  2. What you are observing is one of the contradictions within liberalism.  Liberals claim to be populists and like to pit themselves against wealthy and special interests.  We know, however, that this is not the case.  In a similar way, how many liberal celebrities have we seen advocate to the masses that they should adopt "green" lifestyles.  This sounds fine until the masses realize that it means a substantial increase in the cost of living.  To the celebrities with their millions, it's no problem at all.  Only the commoner ends up suffering.1.  Then in the interests of accuracy and to preclude confusion, you ought to choose another word.      Marxism is one of those explosive words that we have been conditioned or taught or learned to    equate with something bad or un-American.  In my limited experience few people can really tell    you what the principles of Marxism or "scientific socialism" are.  They are content to use it as    describing something not to their liking.  The words Conservative, Liberal and Socialist have the    the same problem--they have morphed to the point where using them without adjectives is    hardly worth the time as no real communication takes place.  I do not have the temerity to suggest     just what word you might choose, but in my mind Marxism does not cut it.2.  There are many good thinking and generous people who we might call, with all the problems     associated with the words, Liberal and Conservative.  Neither group is composed of all devils or all    angels.  My group--roughly called Liberals--has lots of people who wish to be considered kind    sophisticates, enlightened, educated and freed from the shibboleths of their narrow minded    upbringing.  They also wish to be cool and typically display their concern by driving certain kinds    of cars, displaying certain modes of behavior and mouthing platitudes that annoy and disgust the    true believers in our ranks.  We also have lots of people who sincerely believe that in order to    preserve our way of life, we must support policies and fund causes that reduce the gaps that    exist between the haves and the have-nots.  In their opinion, this is as great a threat to "America"    as any terrorist organization.  They really fear corporations and see in their machinations a threat    to their own middle-class status.  Their worst fear is being ousted from their perch and tumbling into     the pit with the great unwashed.  Not all are celebrities, but they do seem to share the idea that the    progressive income tax and levies of like kind are the appropriate way to close the income gap and    fund the programs they see as necessary to maintain our democracy.  I am one of them.

Right–peudo Socialism or Liberal dreamworks would be better.Your comments vis a vis human nature harken back to the Greeks but are bestexemplified in the writings of people such as Calvin, Knox, Rousseau and Hobbes.The question was and is--what is the essential nature of man--is he a creature born good and then corrupted by society or is he by nature evil.  Having been raised aCatholic ,I was told I was a sinner at birth and it was my nature to sin.  My only salvation was in the arms of mother Church. That lasted about 12 years.Most people I know who claim to be LIBERALS see man as  a tabula rasa with an footnote--some people are just born bad.Most people I know who claim to be CONSERVATIVES see man as essentially inclined tobe bad.Both these terms are essentially useless in common parlance, but I feel confidant using them here as I know there will be no misunderstanding.Life in the wild: Rousseau:    The Noble Savage--life is good--no sin--cooperation--dance in the sushineHobbes:        Nasty, Brutish and Short--Dawinian--nature red in tooth and clawKnox/Calvin  Man is essentially sinful--only the "elect" are savedWhat would happen if we had the ability to start over?  Ha!My opinion of your thesis is that we would be wise to arm ourselves, sieze the foodsources, control the waterholes, build walls and force the weaker of the group towork for the benefit of the strong.  In short--we would replicate our society of today ina truncated version.Concern for others usually takes place when one's own needs and desires are fulfilled.Remember the old adage--no sweeter meat exists than that which clings to my bones?

You're forgetting that without someone to supply the arms, without someone to buy the food or drink, without someone to employ to build the walls - non of that "brutish" world can get done.  I would think that man would recognize his need for his neighbor and the necessity to cooperate with him.  If I protect my own interests exclusively I will be at a disadvantage, but if I protect the interests of my family and community I will be far better off.  If I want to increase my wealth, I need to trade, which requires cooperation with others.  Protest the interests of the Community?  Welcome my brother!

But this is aside the real point, which was that liberals would not survive because they tend to look to the government for answers to their problems, while conservatives tend to look to themselves for the answers.This may be more true than false, but it is not a character question, but deals with one's view of thepurpose and functions of government.  We both agree that the government has the duty to protect,but from what?  I would argue that the protection is required against foreign foes. domestic lawbreakersand those who take advantage of the halt, lame, blind and stupid.  This is where regulation and lawflow together and where Liberal and Conservative viewpoints diverge.  I might also point out that thishas become a chliche as bad as the" Republicans are the party of big business."  All parties feed at thetrough of big business--it is the American way--and Conservatives ask the government for help when they feel the necessity--banks, car companies for example.

NOT PROTEST--protect--my error!

Willy,You know you can hit the modify button in the post in which you made an error and fix it right?  You can also hit the quote button in the posts you want to quote; this puts the quote in a box and makes it much less confusing for others to figure out where the quote ends and your reply starts.

Other areas of life where conservatives find morality to be concerned are dismissed in the liberal outlook. Please expand on this

Well, this could go way off topic, but for example, liberals tend to reduce sexual morality to the issue of mere consent, whereas conservatives have a higher threshold of morality here.

I think the difference is that conservatives do not see corporations or capitalism as the "enemy", and so there isn't much need for "protection" against them.  But I don't think that you mean this simply, or at least not other liberals.  The whole idea of a "windfall tax" that democrats threaten companies with every so often has more to do with socialist class-punishment rather than "protection".  Also, I should ask when conservatives have felt the need for govt to take over car companies, per your example.  As for the bank takeover, not all conservatives were on board with this, and that may be cited as an exception to the rule. I think corporations ought to be watched carefully.  Because of their charter--no community obligations--no national obligations--just shareholders--we should view them as valuable and wonderous things that must be overseen lest they turn and bite us.