Blah blah...-Unlike the writer of course. An article undone by authorial virtue signalling. It's true Greenwald probably has no idea what socialism means...never mind being a "revolutionary socialist" but in fact he wasn't claiming he was: it was AOC's dress that he termed a "revolutionary and subversive socialist gown "
On that most fashion is (faux-)subversive in one way or another and to call for taxing the rich is certainly considered "subversive" in the US whilst Greenwald's is an American so we can forgive him for thinking a call to tax the rich was socialist or even a revolutionary idea.
We used to have erstwhile socialist posers in the country called the Labour party who made calls to squeeze the rich until recently ("tax the rich until the pips squeak" was how Healey was widely quoted... in fact he never even went as far as AOC: he actually said "Squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak" ... :Labour as a "Socialist" Party was always more legend than reality. )
and AOC? well she got the photo-opportunity and world publicity for the $30000 ticket price. Not bad. What did she do with it? Virtue signaling like the author of this piece. Otherwise is she a waste of space? Probably. Because do the Democrats actually mean it? No.