|
A Question, directed at those who insist that Mr. Obama is not a Socialist:
If Socialism may be understood as an economic system wherein the Means Of Production (both Capital and Material) are controlled by the State (or in some understandings by Worker's Unions)
and
Mr. Obama's Gov't has been systematically either gaining control of the Means Of Production (both Capital and Material; buying up shares of banks, automobile firms, investment groups, insurance companies, etc) or handing control of such Means over to Unions (such as the UAW coming into ownership of 55% of a major automobile manufacturer, Chrysler, in a Gov't-mandated "deal"),
How are Mr. Obama's policies -not- Socialist? How is Mr. Obama -not- a Socialist when he is enacting programmes which are, on their face and by the Socialist's own definition, Socialist? The Majority Shareholder controls the company (ie the UAW now controls, or owns, Chrysler). Government ownership of a company, to whatever degree, -is- nationalization of that company to whatever degree the Gov't owns shares therein.
How, then, are these programmes and this president not Socialist? I'd really like to understand, because from where I sit (me and plenty more folks just as well-read and well-educated, moreso in many cases) it looks, walks, quacks, and smells like Socialism.
|