In theory, "socialism" is still a perfectly legitimate word, but I worry that it is becoming delegitimized. As it is, the responsible critics of Barack Obama's economic programs are very, very careful not to use the word "socialist," and if they do, it is only to distance themselves from those who call Barack Obama a socialist.
Even as it excoriated his policies, The Economist recently defended Barack Obama against the charge that he's a socialist, because
"No true leftist would be as allergic as he has been to nationalising tottering banks, nor as coldly calculating in letting Chrysler, and probably General Motors, end up in bankruptcy court."
Sorry, but this avoids an important issue. At what point can nationalization be said to have taken place? By what standard is government ownership of 72% of a company less than "true" socialism?
Even as it excoriated his policies, The Economist recently defended Barack Obama against the charge that he's a socialist, because
"No true leftist would be as allergic as he has been to nationalising tottering banks, nor as coldly calculating in letting Chrysler, and probably General Motors, end up in bankruptcy court."
Sorry, but this avoids an important issue. At what point can nationalization be said to have taken place? By what standard is government ownership of 72% of a company less than "true" socialism?
Legitimate questions from an objective thinker, or just more rancid words from another "stupid" "right wing nut"?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.