Eric at Classical Values laments that it's almost impossible to have have an adult discussion of whether we want socialism, as the very mention of the word has become illegitimate.

Ah, so what else is new? The same thing has happened with Communism (even actual Communists could not be called that), Fascism (the left accuses the right of it reflexively, yet is somehow shocked when people try to examine the historical movement), etc. I suppose domination of the universities and media has something to do with it, but I'm continually surprised at the extent to which the left manages to control and frame (and even circumvent) the most important debates we should have as a nation.

So, to blunder in where angels fear to tread: Socialism a system where the government owns the means of production, and social justice is used as a justification for policies which are intended to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

When asked, during the debates, what if increasing taxes decreased federal tax receipts, Obama responded that the rich needed to be taxed more highly than today as an issue of "fairness." He said essentially the same thing to Joe the Plumber. And certainly, it's simple enough to note that, despite his insistence to the contrary (words), his administration seems very interested in controlling the means of production of a very important American product.

So, while I can understand people saying otherwise (as Eric notes, how socialist does one have to be to be called "socialist"?) I also think it's fair to point out Obama seems very interested in socialism, by whatever name we'd care to call it.

It should also be noted that fascism is a system of government which incorporates socialist elements. Obama's interaction with private companies strikes me as lot closer to fascism's (corporatism) than that of, say, Sweden. In Nazi Germany, if you complied with the regime's demands, you could rake in a healthy profit. If not, well, your company suddenly had a new CEO.

Please note: I'm not saying Obama is a Nazi. Not at all. But one should be aware of similarities as well as differences, and the left should be urged to make the case as why it's not going introduce some of the same problems, not simply reflexively dismiss all such similarities, regardless of how legitimate, as beyond consideration. Just as the right constantly has to explain why it's policies aren't "fascist", so should the left, especially given fascism's actual historical proximity to the progressive movement.