Actually it has nothing to do with capital, most countries that really have earned the true socialist label nationalize corporations and industries with little to no regard for their worth.
Umm, where have you been the last 10 months?
Let's talk about nationalization (and just to neutralize your inane ad hominem ranting about "partisan paranoia and conspiracy theorists", I'll use liberal media sources).
"Nationalizing Banks, AIG, Carmakers: The News and What It Means"
Source #1: http://www.huffingto...c_n_169388.html
The part about the government owning around "40% of Citibank" is interesting, as well as the statement from New York Times reporting about the government owning 80% of AIG, and the cash infusions still not being enough.
Here's some more Huffington Post commentary [Source #2] on ABC's show with George Stephanopoulous:
"Bank Nationalization: As American as Apple Pie"
In this one, nobel-prize winning economist (and liberal) Paul Krugman actually said, "We have nationalized 14 banks already this year. We don't call it that but there were 14 banks, two a week, that the FDIC seized because they didn't have enough assets to pay their depositors. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation says, 'ok, we are taking over. We are cleaning out the stockholders.' We are going to do exactly, as Nouriel said, we should be doing for some major banks. So actually nationalization as properly understood is probably as American as apple pie."
What was your definition of the "true socialist label" again, dormouse? Hmmm....
In a lengthy recent Newsweek interview, Krugman actually stated his belief that the Obama administration hasn't gone far enough with nationalization--a claim that has won him the ire and scorn of several other economists.
But wait, we're not done yet boys and girls. On the same episode, economist Nouriel Rabini proclaimed, "There are some banks that are so insolvent, their assets are well below their liabilities. We have already put a huge amount of money as a government into these banks. This is not any more even a partisan issue, when you have Alan Greenspan, [Sen.] Lindsey Graham and others saying we want a temporary nationalization..."
"Insolvent", ehh? For a minute there I thought he was talking about the current state of Medicare and Social Security, or all that business with government entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and bad real estate, not banks. What was that you said about nationalizing something of little or no worth?
Conservative George Will on Bank of America, "With credit now treated essentially as a public utility, the difference between what we have and what nationalization would be is marginal. One number: the market capitalization of Bank of America is $19 billion. Since October they have received $45 billion in public funds. So what's the difference?"
I don't even need to provide a Source #4, as the GM news is so recent. Auto expert Harvey Finkelstein (radio show host for "Auto Talk") is one of many who've been claiming the Big Three and their supply and distribution chains account for 1 of every 10 U.S. jobs. Now the government owns 60% of GM. Let's see, 60% of 10% of the total labor force works out to be 7.8 million workers that just got "nationalized" and added to the 16% of original gov't employees--but wait, I haven't added AIG and all the nationalized banks....damn.
Obama may talk about not wanting to be in the auto business, but we've heard those words before, from Richard Nixon. The year was 1971, the industry that got "nationalized"? Amtrak and the rail companies. They're still on the government payroll, to the tune of $2 billion annually, and still, for many senators (*cough* special interests) that's not enough money. Once government gets its fingers into something, it only rarely gets out.
Another example: Education. Well, it's already mostly run by the government anyway, but the second largest school system in the country is run by the Catholic church. Turns out that the economic crisis, frivolous lawsuits, and government protected monopoly are hitting them pretty hard. Doesn't matter that their students score higher on a broad spectrum of achievement measures compared to their average public counterpart, nor that that achievement is managed at about 60% of the cost of educating a student in the public system. 212 Catholic schools closed in 2007 (when many endowments--based on the Stock Market--failed to pay). Numbers for 2008 and 2009 aren't in yet, but as I know the administrators in the Archdiocese of St. Louis (and was an assistant principal myself before one of our schools closed), I know that 20 were in danger of closing this year, and three already have.
Now the main problem with the dissolution of the private schools, from the perspective of the publics is this: They don't get any extra money for taking them (they were already getting those tax funds), so now they have new expenses without new revenue. I know public administrators that wanted us to remain open.
Source #5: Obama's Universal Healthcare Plan. National Healthcare spending in 2008 came to represent 17% of the annual GDP. Obama and the Dems want to add services for the 46 million uninsured in America. How many extra government employed healthcare workers do you think that'll take? There are already 10.38 million of the 130 million labor force employed in healthcare. And I haven't mentioned the "Value Added Tax" proposed in order to fund that government program. A twenty to twenty-five percent sales tax on top of our existing taxes. Even if it's only half of the labor force that's working for the government (directly nationalized), the rest of us will be working for them at least a quarter to half of our time, just to pay for the social programs.
If you don't think that's socialism, I've got some more facts and figures, but those'll have to wait.