You don’t have to have forced nationalization of corporations, a la Venezuela or Russia, in order to have socialism.     That’s a dramatic image, to be sure, but not needed.

It is unclear to me at this point whether economic improvements (if and when) will be enough to boost GM’s fortunes enough for the assets of the corporation to be worth more than its liabilities and then whether the net assets will be worth more as a going concern than as parts.

Fritz – I would use economic (rather than political) criteria to determine the distinction between temporary and permanent. When investors are ready to pony up the cash to buy the shares, that means the economy has recovered enough for Uncle Sam to quit playing sugar daddy.

To the degree that it is socialism for the rich as he uses the word, it is a strange form of socialism. Business gets the profits if doing well (as they should) but taxpayers are the ones at risk for paying if they look like they are going to go under.

Socialism for the Rich

Kein Phillips underscores this when he was on Bill Moyer’s Journal last Nov. (‘08).  He saw what was starting to happen as socialism for rich, and there’s even more socialism for the rich now. 

Question: how long before “the little” people start demanding their “share.”  Phillips is correct: “It’s clear that we have socialism coming in a big way.”

BILL MOYERS: Pat Buchanan said this week the conservative era is over. What do you think about that?
KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, I think it’s over in the sense that supply side and trickle down economics is gone for a while. I think that’s fair to say. It’s also clear that we have socialism coming in a big way. But it’s socialism for the rich. You know, the profits go to finance but the liability of something goes wrong, well, that’s the taxpayers. You know, that’s the so what you’ve seen is conservatism in the old sense of free markets was totally trashed by Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson, you know? Not your everyday garden variety Riverside Drive leftists.
So we now have socialism on right center. And I don’t see that we come back to the free market stuff for quite a long time. But I would say is the bailout liberal? Is the bailout conservative? Or is it some hybrid? Or do those words not mean anything?

Obama administration: “We have to help GM at all costs, even if it means part ownership!”

(State-)Socialist: “F**k GM, they just screw their workers anyway, the government should seize it & run it for The Benefit of The People!”

See the difference?  Obama is just updating the old saw of “what’s good for General Motors is good for the nation”.  Overlap in action doesn’t = overlap in intent.

BTW: if you ask me, GM should’ve been taken over and broken up by its employees a long time ago.  The kind of action we’re seeing now is inevitable when one big corporation dominates economic life over a region, any response that ignores this is kicking the can down the road.

Well, I won’t argue. I’ll just ask you why it’s  funny.  What’s the funny part?  The man, the woman, or — the irony?   There’s some irony in your position

Nice story (which I’ve heard many times before). It doesn’t apply at all to this situation.

The situation would be different if Obama had campaigned on a plan to nationalize the auto industry, making it a goal–but he didn’t…it’s a means he’s using to shore up our economy. Being in a dire situation makes mistakes (and over-reaching, as in partial ownership) more likely, but the consequences of doing nothing look even less appealing.

This would be a completely different situation if we were in good economic times and the administration nationalized a profitable and well-run industry that wasn’t begging for help.

George Bernard Shaw, the great dramatist and theater critic, was at a party at one night.  He meet an attractive woman and they began to talk. The subject soon got around to money. He told the woman that he believed everyone would agree to do anything for money –  if the price was high enough.

“Surely not, ” she said.

“Oh yes,” Shaw said.

“Well, I wouldn’t!”  she said.

“Well, would you sleep with me for… for a million pounds?” Shaw asked.

“Well,”  she said, “maybe for a million I would, yes.”

Shaw then asked, “Would you do it for ten shillings?”

“Certainly not!” said the woman “What do you take me for? A prostitute?”

“We’ve established that already,” said Shaw. “We’re just trying to fix your price now.”

This is not in any way a step towards socialism. There is no plan for taking over businesses. The actual plan is to return them to total private ownership when possible. This is a response to a request for a bailout, not nationalization of a company.

A while back when I was occasionally guest posting at The Carpetbagger Report (when it was a major liberal blog before Steve Benen went to Washington Monthly) I made a point of getting in a reference and link to No Treason.  Not that it was going to change anything, but I thought that it would be good for the more mainstream liberal blogosophere to be exposed to such ideas.

How about “Government ownership of 50% of GM is a significant step toward socialism in this country”?