I suppose I can only reiterate that it was Goldstein's entire point that the positions she were taking in her Council campaign were not inherently radical but that she holds views that are. He then provided a specific example (her making the economic argument for collectivizing Amazon) that falls in line with the positions she taken on the record, criticizing the private investor ownership of corporations. I'm unsure a more logical way to read the passage. The passage in the article is a verbatim reflection of that portion of the article. To project hypothetical hypotheticals onto the passage doesn't make sense to me.