The endless cries of creeping fascism from the Left have become exhausting, particularly when progressives keep reminding us that their problem isn’t authoritarianism itself, but who gets to wield the authority.
The most recent example? Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton – a man who routinely warns about fascism – advocating for the government to seize control of private companies.
Reich wants a Democrat-controlled government to cut off Elon Musk’s government contracts and prepare to nationalize SpaceX and Starlink if they regain power. In the spirit of Marx himself, Reich wants the state to take ownership of Musk’s lucrative companies.
The thinly-veiled democratic socialist also proposes a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires. The solution to all our societal ills is to apparently empower wealthy Washington politicians to go shopping in someone else’s wallet.
The nationalization proposal reveals something important about the political left’s approach to power.
Musk’s companies are undeniably influential. His government contracts deserve scrutiny, just as those awarded to any major defense contractor do. Reasonable people can debate whether the government relies too heavily on private companies for critical infrastructure, whether contracts are structured properly, and how to ensure accountability.
But nationalization is a different proposition entirely. It’s not simply regulating a company or enforcing the terms of a contract. It’s transferring ownership from private hands to the government because officials (or, in this case, a prominent progressive intellectual) don’t trust the person running it.
We’re supposed to believe that concentrating even more power in the hands of government is the solution to the dangers of concentrated power?
The irony is difficult to miss. We’re constantly told that wealthy individuals exerting influence over public affairs constitute a threat to democracy. Yet Reich’s proposed remedy would give the government ownership and control over companies whose technology has enormous implications for communications, space exploration, and national security.
Apparently, concentrated power is dangerous when Elon Musk holds it but potentially liberating when Washington does?
Not every regulation is socialism. But government ownership of private enterprise is a distinctly collectivist answer to the problem Reich identifies, and it deserves to be recognized as such.
There’s also a basic question of consistency here. If the government can seize or nationalize a company because its owner has become too powerful or politically objectionable, what principle limits that power? Who decides when a private citizen has crossed the line, and what prevents a future administration from applying the same logic to businesses it dislikes?
These are precisely the questions one would expect from people concerned about authoritarianism.
Instead, we get years of dire warnings about rising fascism on the Right, followed by proposals on the left to put private enterprise under government control. The rhetoric can’t shroud the underlying temptation: concentrate power in the hands of people convinced they can be trusted with it.
