
In America, aging red state populists are the last survivors of the good old Cold War days when anybody who was anybody checked daily for Reds under the beds.
In those days, ‘socialist’ was an insult with a sting, not the dusty province of a historian trying vainly to explain that all communities are ‘socialist’ by their very nature.
‘I’m a socialist? Well, thank you, I’m glad you’ve noticed.’ These days, among younger generations, it’s likely to be taken a compliment.
For those concerned about housing, this bodes well for a future in which the 1% are squeezed — if not until the pips squeak — then a least for a larger share of tax dollars, to help those who cannot afford to own mansions in Los Angeles. Read more about this in GeekWire: Seattle’s Socialist City Councilmember Introduces New ‘Amazon Tax’ To Raise $300M/Year For Affordable Public Housing
Even more hopeful, the detoxification of the word ‘social’ as a component of ‘socialist’ holds promise that one day soon America may embrace the idea of throwing out bad, old failed public housing, and replacing it with a massive amount of shiny new humanitarian social housing, that has, over the years, been so successful in Europe.
What? ‘public’ and ‘social’ mean the same thing? You didn’t hear it here . . .