Government ownership -- regardless of reluctance or pretended reluctance -- of the means of production is a feature of what political system?
A political party that determinedly avoids either ownership of the means of production or determining by fiat the salary of anyone in production is a party that is far from socialist. Obama's embrace of this, by contrast, says "socialist" in sufficiently large letters to attract not only the attention of the Libertarians but of Middle America in general. Middle America is going to TEA parties to raise hell about it.
The presence of avowed Communists in the Obama Administration also declares a push for socialism, and the even greater presence of people who inveigh elaborately against capitalism and all its works declares the push even more strongly. Those people don't believe in capitalism, but clearly prefer something... other. Funnily enough, it's also all the same "other." When it's non-capitalist, you gotta compare them against the properties of fascism-socialism-communism, and you find sufficient match points to draw the correct conclusion. The Administration is Socialist-Democrat, and Redux supports the heck out of this pack of economic illiterates, denying until his last breath their socialism. They are shown as socialists in their own words, Redux; words you apparently don't read. We decline to run off the cliff with you, Redux -- a sign we're bright.
__________________
Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.
|