Who’s The Socialist Again?

Who’s The Socialist Again?


“We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
– Sarah Palin quoted in the latest New Yorker

Now, I don’t know about you, but “share in the wealth” certainly sounds exactly like “spreading the wealth.”

Do you think Palin will be asked if she’s a Marxist?

Moving on…

  • http://www.iconicmidwest.blogspot.com Rich Horton

    Uh…no. In other states such income (say from logging right in state parks) would go straight into the governments general revenue coffers. That is the statist solution, and thus fairly socialist.

    The Alaska arrangement would embrace a trustee-ship, which is explicitly non-statist. Basically, all Alaskan enjoy personal property rights (thus they can individually benefit from them). Such a view is ananthema to any socialist understanding.

  • Sean G

    Why are you associating “power of the state” with socialism? Socialism is the idea of collective ownership, exactly what you just called “anathema to any socialist understanding”. Please don’t base your assumptions about the actual political philosophy of socialism off the workings of pseudo-communist or pseudo-socialist states that have arisen in recent history. The idea of the state owning and controlling everything is fascism, which truly is anathema to any socialist understanding. It’s funny how the lasting effect of the cold war (and its propaganda) is that most Americans now define the Soviet Union as a perfect example of all communistic and socialistic governmental models, and thus are repulsed by the very mention of socialism. The way this Alaskan arrangement works is socialism at its core. Real socialism. The socialism of Debs, Orwell, and Marx, rather than the “socialism” of Stalin, Mao, and Castro.

  • kranky kritter

    So collective ownership is non-statist because the profits are distributed in cash? Got it!

    Silly me thinking that private property referred to individual ownership. Let me ask this…can Alaskans sell their share of the wealth to a speculator? Do you think they should be able to?

  • http://across-the-grain.com BenG

    No, Justin, I think it’s obvious she didn’t intend the meaning that you’ve implied here. The difference btw sharing the wealth and spreading the wealth is that the former is earned, since Alaskan’s OWN the resource they deserve to profit on its’ sale. Spreading the wealth is unfair b/c it’s not earned, simply put, it’s another example of the welfare state, according to some.

    This is, however, an absurd argument to make, especially from the Republicans and especially during this election. You can’t seriously make this argument while the Republican Admin. has just nationalized a good portion of the financial businesses in the country and leaders in your own party have critically called this bailout a road to socialism.

    The other important point to make is that it’s not like McCain is running on this libertarian platform or supports a completely opposing tax policy. He supports a progressive tax system and he’s stated that the rich should pay their fair share and didn’t deserve the tax cuts from the first Bush tax budget that he voted against. He supported the Feds bailout plan, before he supported those house Repubs who voted against it, then he supported it again, or something! And he now wants to enhance the plan by adding 300 Billion more tax payer money to buy out struggling mortgage holders. Many in his own party have said that this idea is bad because it lets everybody off the hook equally. I think it’s these ideas that make the latest smear campaign tactics fall flat. To John McCain I ask; who’s the Socialist again?