Tea Party wins primary in Delaware - Page 7

On September 17 2010 12:26 Musoeun wrote:


To be fair, most people who use "socialism" - no matter what their political views - in the USA by now mean "European-style democratic socialism" (is there a better name for it?), which in turn they understand to mean that the state runs some stuff and redistributes other stuff.

(Except for the loonies who really do think that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx (who of course only talked about socialism as an intermediate step, but the loonies don't remember that either), but I'm going to assume we can ignore them.)

Given that that's a common usage, I don't think it's unfair to characterize Obama, or Canada, or France, and many other "left-wing" (by American standards) politicians as "socialist". Inaccurate in the end, confusing, and not conducive to maintaining civil manners in debate, maybe, but not unfair. Of course, Bush wasn't particularly less socialist (in this inaccurate "Americanized") sense in kind, just in extent: he too signed Federal education bills and bailouts and stuff.

Basically, in the American political forum, "socialist" is a propaganda word. It's not used accurately, but there's a kernel of truth that keeps the scam going: regulation and taxation are forms of control, even if they come nowhere near real ownership. Of course, it goes both ways, as with accusations of "fascism" on the other side: almost no one would advocate real fascism, but again, regulations and limitations are control, so the illusion holds up (and the militarism, justified or not, doesn't help the image).

Back to the original point: After all that I've said, I'm really agreeing with you: yes, the Patriot Act was more fascist than socialist.