There's a lot of throwing about of the term 'socialism' nowadays, mostly from the Wingnut quarters, and mostly in connection either with the bailouts, or with Obama's health care plan.
What does Washington have to do with it? Well, on the face of it, calling him a 'socialist' is absurd - it's anachronistic, as the term wasn't invented until the 1830's (an all too little-known fact; Socialism predates Marxism). In another way, it'd almost be offensive as well - to socialists - to refer to a slave-owning colonial plantation owner as such.
On the other hand, actual socialism has little to do with what the wingnuts are ranting about. Apparently, their definition of 'socialist' is anyone who thinks that government ownership of a corporate entity, in whole or part, should be an available tool in promoting the public good. In which case it would in fact appear that the label would apply just as well to good old George...
The reason I can give for that is simple practical example. After the War of Independence, Washington retired from his military job, and spent a lot of his time engaged in one of his pet projects: Improving the infrastructure of the new nation.
This was the great age of canal-building; the English Bridgewater Canal started it all in 1761, and from there, the canal-building trend spread to the continent and over to America. Washington saw canals as a great way to promote expansion into the interior of America, and there was a dream of ultimately connecting the Atlantic to the Great Lakes.
Washington planned two canals, on the James river and on the Potomac. He even surveyed the planned routes himself. And he worked to set up two companies to do so, the James River Company, and the Potomac Company, in 1784-85. The latter in particular needed some political maneuvering, since the Potomac was and is the border between Virginia and Maryland, consent from both states would be required.
So in late 1784, the Potomac Company was formed by both states passing the charter of the company into law, setting up a company and granting it permission to build the canal, and collect tolls on the resulting river traffic. The starting capital was $222,222 (and two-ninths) divided into 500 shares.
Now, if you read the laws passed (Hening's statutes of Virgina, oct 1784), you'll also find that:
XX. And be it further enacted, That the treasurer of this commonwealth shall be authorized and directed to subscribe to the amount of fifty shares in behalf of the same, and the money necessary in consequence of such subscription, shall be paid as the same shall be required. And the treasurer for the time being, shall have a right to vote according to such shares, in person or by proxy, appointed by him, and shall receive the proportion of the tolls aforesaid, which shall from time to time become due to this state for the shares aforesaid.
Maryland and Virginia both signed up for a 10% ownership stake each. Actually, Virgina then unanimously passed legislation buying another 50 shares (and 100 of the James River Company) with the intent of granting them to Washington as a gift. Washington felt that was untoward though (and I'd have to agree) - but Washington agreed to a compromise where he would hold the shares in trust, and on his death, willed them to a university in Virginia.
But Washington appears to have had no objection, on any principle, that there was something wrong with the state(s) owning part of the company. I imagine he felt it was in the best interest of the public, and a project worthy of such support. I'm pretty sure he did not, in his wildest dreams, imagine it as a slippery-slope to the abolishment of private property, as Glenn Beck might think.
There's actually another amusing tidbit in the company charter:
the allowance to be made to [the president and directors] for his services, shall not exceed three pounds in the hundred, for the disbursements by him made; and that no officer in the said company shall have any vote in the settlement or passing of his own account.
A salary cap! How 'un-American'! George went on to become the President of the Potomac Company for some time, and a few years later, of the United States. (which famously led to another dispute over compensation!) The canal companies went on to be moderately successful, although the dream of opening the West through the Potomac, with its enormous economic significance, never really came to pass. - It was accomplished not by Washington's canals, but later, by the Erie canal, turning New York into one of the great cities of the world in the process.
So, what relevance does this all have for us today? Well, personally I'm not much of a fan of framing politics in terms of 'what the Founding Fathers wanted'. I think what they wanted above all else was the right to determine our own future.
But if one must define what it means to be American in terms of the economic policy of any era, I'd certainly prefer Washington's pragmatism to the ideological zealotry of Reagan's laissez-faire system.