John worries:
Now we have a paradox: If you're at all serious about alleviating poverty and inequality in capitalist society, then the measures proposed in the article [worker owned corporations, namely] are a beginning, not the end. But they are, self-evidently, socialism. Worse yet, many of the policies go even further than that hotbed of Bolshevism, Sweden. Nevertheless, I happen to believe they would build a more efficient, stronger economy while addressing social ills. So how do we do it without freaking the norms?
Eh, everything's socialism. Social Security is socialism, as is Medicare. Worker owned companies competing in a capitalist context are socialist, and so are roads. I just don't think the dreaded "S" word has much resonance today, not after the fall of the Soviet Union. Warning that we'll turn into Sweden just doesn't strike terror into the hearts of the masses. The ideological fight has, in my estimation, been won by hybrid market-liberal economies. The question is where you strike the balance. And my guess is that the room for movement there, so long as you're dealing with programs and proposals the public approves of, is rather large.
