"I nationalize strategic companies and get criticized,but when Bush does
it, it's OK," Chavez said on weekly television program Sept. 21. "Bush is turning
socialist. How are you, comrade Bush?"
Hugo Chavez
Like many people, Hugo Chavez is directionally correct is thinking that George W. Bush is acting excessively in the manner of a socialist, but wrong in one particular that may not be incidental.
Granted both men are statists. That is, they hold the power of the government, the state, of the few, to be pre-eminent over the rights of the individuals, of the worth of the human being when compared to their will to power.
Therefore both men would support the subordination of individual rights and wealth and distributing them as they see fit, as the state decides, outside of the normal process of taxation and public pursuits.
There is something inherently social in society, because some common purpose is the reason that societies exist. It is the limitations on that commonality with regard to individual rights that makes the difference between a social democracy and socialism.
Chavez decides to give favors and wealth putatively to the people, therefore he is a socialist. To the extreme, a socialist is one or two failures away from communism and then Stalinism, when the government fails so badly it must continually beat the people into submission because it has nothing productive to give.
Bush gives it to his friends and powerful corporations through no-bid contracts, selective tax cuts, and de facto or actual deregulation and decriminalization of the familiar frauds and schemes. He is a corporatist, one or two emergency orders removed from fascism, in which the people must be reduced to a form of debt peonage and service to the state and its surrogates, the corporations.
Is it an accident that the Bush administration sanctioned torture, illegal wiretapping, invasions of personal privacy, almost unprecedented secrecy, and executive actions? Is there any wonder Paulson would have the nerve to submit a proposal demanding $700 billion for a few Wall Street banks without any oversight and the suspension of the due process clause of the Bill of Rights?
Here is a chart that helps one to understand how little difference there can be between the approaches at the extremes. Both are unacceptable when measured by laws that respect the rights of individuals with the context of society. This is why it has been so easy for the neo-cons to move from the far left to the extreme right.
Rather than choosing socialism or fascism based on how well we think we might do, at some point the individual must stand for the principles that made America what it has been, or be consumed fear and greed, and then by the state.
We must agree to protect uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
The 'how' of that is not so straightforward, and has led to many interesting confrontations and evolutions throughout our history. But we have never abandoned it completely, never said it was worthless or outmoded, and always returned to it over time. This is what makes America what it has been, what it is, what it still can be.
Let's return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and renew the enduring commitment to freedom.
