I strongly disagree that QE policies and central banking are socialist. In fact, I would argue that QE, as it has been enacted since its inception after the collapse of Japan’s credit bubble, is closer to the opposite since it strengthens capital’s control over labour. The mechanisms of which are asset price inflation, financialization, austerity which reduces spending on public goods, poor wage growth, and so on. These are all examples of capital increasing its power while labour loses power. I agree the policy choice is terrible, but I don’t see how they can be construed as socialist.

Also, keep in mind that the theoreticial justifications for these policies do not originate in socialist/marxist economics. Nor are the technocrats that implement them motivated by socialist theory.

It seems the only connection that exist is that central banking is central (so is the military) and that marxist-leninist regimes make heavy use of centralism. Central banking predates all such regimes, by the way. But that seems like a superficial connection that does nothing to elucidate. I disagree heavily with QE but labeling it socialist does not help in understanding it so that I may effectively oppose it.

> Whenever socialist policies, in this case the central planning of credit and interest

You are conflating centralization with socialism. Mario Draghi is the centralist banker behind QE and he is a fervent neoliberal. He has nothing to do with socialism.

> This is the Soviet Union playbook to a T, except they would always blame "wreckers" or reactionaries.

Crazy how distracted I've been lately, I've lived in a communist economy without noticing. I must have missed the proletarian expropriation somehow.

Jokes aside, it's interesting how people like to call the current system socialist when it doesn't work, capitalist when it does.