There is much confusion about the differences between Socialism and Communism. I created this page to help clarify these differences.


Socialism and Communism
The quick 'n' easy way to remember the difference between Socialism and Communism is: Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS."

Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It builds upon the previous system (Capitalism) by nationalizing the "means of production" (i.e. corporations, resources, banks, etc.), but not by making everyone equal. In other words, people will be paid wages based on several factors (social need, difficulty, amount of schooling required, etc.), so not everyone will make the same wage -- as is often a misinterpretation of Socialism.

Communism is the point where the state "withers away." This will be quite a few years in the future. If I had to guess, I'd say at least 10 generations of established Socialism has to occur before people evolve enough to realize that hurting others or the system ends up hurting themselves.

As Communists we advocate Socialism because it is the next necessary step to get to Communism. That is, it's not that we've given up on building a house, we just realize there is a need for a sturdy foundation first.

Communists believe in human evolution. We evolve in accordance to the system we live within. Capitalism has allowed us to evolve out of our feudalistic ways (for the most part), and slavery does not exist in our country anymore (for the most part). But Capitalism, which is driven by the need to always increase profits, creates a "dog eat dog" mentality. This is not a sustainable system, either for humankind or for the environment.

Under Socialism people will evolve to the point where they care about each other regardless of their location or race or whatever. If we are to survive as a species, we need to evolve. That's one of the many reasons I'm a Communist.

Finally, one misconception people often have about Communism is that we are looking to make everyone poor. On the contrary, we want everyone to enjoy as much as possible the fruits of our vast wealth.

Agree? Disagree? Click Sputnik to send e-mail to me:


Red FAQs!
The following are pages to help answer questions I frequently get.

Marxism Defined
Why am I a Commie?
Socialism vs. Communism
Revolution or Reform (or both?)
The Incentive to Work under Socialism
"Love it or Leave it" / "Anti-" or "Un-American"

One problem some people have in getting a firm grasp on Marxism is understanding the language. Here I have defined a few terms one comes across in books about Marxism, Socialism and Communism.


Some Definitions
From Merriam-Webster OnLine:
Marxism is the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.

I define Marxism as the basis for Scientific Socialism (as opposed to non-Marxist Socialism, which is called Utopian Socialism). Communism is the logical conclusion of Scientific Socialism, as they are both based in Marxism.

Translation of the above ideas:
Labor Theory of Value is that labor creates all wealth in a society, and we laborers should be entitled (yes, ENTITLED!) to benefit from the fruits of our labor to the fullest extent.

Dialectical Materialism is the study of change (dialectics) in the real world (materialism). The "study of change" means analyzing life from theory that nothing remains the same for long (the only thing that doesn't change is change itself). In "the real world" means only what is scientifically provable through "thesis, antithesis and synthesis." What it is not is idealism, metaphysics or pseudo-sciences.

Class Struggle is the fact that there are two classes: the working class and the owning class, and their interests are in opposition; hence they are constantly struggling.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the idea that the proletariat (the working class) should alone run society during the transitional stage of Socialism. This is often misinterpreted to be thought of as one dictator runs everything. But what it means is that instead of democracy for all (including the class enemies), it is only democracy for the working class, which is why it is by definition a "dictatorship."

Classless Society is when there are no longer classes in opposition of one another (e.g., the owning class and working class), which is brought about through the implementation of Socialism via the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

One thing Merriam-Webster missed was the abolition of private property. This doesn't mean you have to share your clothes, car and home, but it means that the "means of production" (industry, banks, resources) will not be owned by a single individual, or a small group, but by the entire population in common.

For further definitions, a great resource is the Encyclopedia of Marxism.
Red FAQs!
The following are pages to help answer questions I frequently get.

Marxism Defined
Why am I a Commie?
Socialism vs. Communism
Revolution or Reform (or both?)
The Incentive to Work under Socialism
"Love it or Leave it" / "Anti-" or "Un-American"

How did I go from a fairly apolitical small-town lad to a Commie pinko? It's been a combination of things: upbringing, early jobs and political activism culminating in my logical decision to join the Communist Party USA. Read on for the whole story...


My Story
I guess being raised in a town that was so provincial, the "Soviet threat" wasn't even discussed much in my school (though the "evils" of abortion were -- even four years after Roe v. Wade). That said, I did see anti-communist propaganda films like "Red Dawn," a few times; but my friends and I thought it was funny rather than scary. Also, being anti-Reagan, it was a rule of thumb that what he was against, I would be for (hence: Soviet Union = "Evil Empire" for me translated to: Soviet Union = must be doing something right! Yes, a little simplistic, but that same theory still holds true for me today when it comes to pResident Shrubya).

My upbringing wasn't a constant diet of anti-communism (I didn't read the paper or watch the news much), so when I began to analyze Capitalism in my early 20s, I realized that there MUST be a better system. I informally studied Communism and liked what I learned. There really hasn't been anything I've learned about it that has made me question my decision. (For more on this theme, read my page where I've written some about Stalin and the Soviet Union.)

I was never "rah-rah, USA #1" growing up. None of my closest relatives were in the military; we never owned a proper US flag (the closest we had was when my mom bought a remake of the first flag, with 13 stars). Also, I grew up rather poor. My mom was a waitress when she left my dad. Raising 3 kids on tips and minimum wage wasn't exactly fulfilling the "American Dream" for any of us! And even though my mother was basically apolitical, she did raise me to be compassionate to others. She taught us that love was better than hate and that racism and intolerance were bad. That has stuck with me.

Plus, I had no "macho" male figures in my life, so the thought of fighting (for myself or in the military) was quite repellent; hence my aversion to military "solutions" as the US's only tool of diplomacy.

I've worked and been mistreated by nearly every boss I've had - even the non-profits! One thing I remember quite well from my very first paycheck job (I'd done cash-only jobs since I was 14 or so) was that the boss cared more about the machines than he did about the employees. He would walk into the room I was cleaning (this was a turkey processing plant) and point to a machine and say, "this cost me X dollars and this one cost me Y dollars, so you'd better be damn careful that you don't break them!" At the same time, he looked at me, after being there for a year, and said, "What's your name?!" It was clear to me I was less important to him than the machines I cleaned. After a few more jobs, I came to the clear realization that capitalism is concerned with money first, people second (if at all).

It's quite obvious to see super-exploitation happening at a McDonalds - one of my first paycheck jobs. I remember the manager saying that the goal for labor cost was 18% or less. That's one reason why, as is the cliche from the business world, owning a McDonald's is like having a license to print your own money. However, the rest of capitalism is not much better to workers when it comes to exploitation. The bottom line is that without exploitation for profits, capitalism wouldn't exist.

Capitalism uses racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-unionism, anti-communism, etc. to reap "super-profits." Super-profits are made by pitting workers against one another. For example, we know that women and people of color make less money than white men for doing the same work in most cases. The extra money bosses make by not paying equal wages for equal work is called, "super-profits." It keeps workers divided because the boss says to white men, "if you don't like the job, I'll find someone who does -- and will do it for less!" -- meaning one of the typically lower-paid of the workforce. Communists have always struggled to unite all workers, as we have a common opponent in the Class Struggle: the bosses.

I guess when I really became aware of the failings of capitalism was when I worked as a canvasser for several political activist organizations, such as many affiliates of Citizen Action (now known as US Action) and Clean Water Action. It was always this corporation is bad, so if we just fix that problem, things will get better. Except that EVERY corporation is doing the same bad things, so I understood that just trying to reform capitalism wasn't ever going to work.

Through meeting other canvassers, I got to know a few different stripes of Socialist/Communist thought. I found the most reasonable people were always close to, or in, the CPUSA. After thinking about joining for a couple years, I finally sent in the application from the People's Weekly World to join the Young Communist League. A year later, since I was already 29, I joined the CPUSA. It has probably been the best decision of my life.
Red FAQs!
The following are pages to help answer questions I frequently get.

Marxism Defined
Why am I a Commie?
Socialism vs. Communism
Revolution or Reform (or both?)
The Incentive to Work under Socialism
"Love it or Leave it" / "Anti-" or "Un-American"

How do we get to the next step in human evolution, Socialism? Is the revolution the only thing Communists strive for, or can reforms play a role? This page explains this issue a bit from my perspective.


On Revolution and Objective Reality

To put things in a modern context: Look at the capitalists who ruin the lives of thousands or millions here in the US (Bush, Kenneth Lay, Ashcroft, etc.). I don't advocate the death penalty for anyone, but I imagine when the revolution comes, in our violent society, we will also have plenty of bloodshed to round up the sources of suffering for the masses.

As far as in the USSR; Stalin was paranoid and brutal. He undoubtedly killed people who were loyal to Communism and the USSR. However, he had good reason to be paranoid. From day one Soviet Russia was attacked from the west. Winston Churchill's immediate statement after the October Revolution was "Bolshevism must be strangled in its infancy." This was before any "gulags" or "purges." It was because capitalists correctly see Communism as a threat to their ability to rule. We feel EVERYONE should benefit from what life has to offer, not just the top 5%.

In 2000, the Communist Party USA advocated voting for Gore, because we are dialectical materialists -- we analyze things in objective reality. And the reality was that Nader didn't have a chance in hell, and Gore, for all his faults, was not nearly as repugnant as Bush. History has proven us to be correct; during Clinton's administration, working people had one or two fights a month against Clinton at the most. With Bush, we've got one or two A DAY, which has had the effect of immobilizing and dividing much of the left.

We all live in the real world so we advocate real world solutions. Some parties say that "revolution is the only solution" and fail to do the work to GET to the point of having a revolution. They believe "it has to get worse before it can get better." The CPUSA does not agree with this. We believe that it needs to get better in order to get better. Otherwise, the most revolutionary places would be the places with the most suffering going on. We see that is not the case. This is because people who spend most of their time just trying to find the means to survive do not also have time to organize for a revolution.

The CPUSA, as I wrote above, works within the system, and advocates reform for the here and now, and revolution when the objective conditions are correct. The conditions aren't correct now, because the working class is not organized enough, nor is it ready to advocate systemic change, yet. But we believe that socialism is not only inevitable, it is necessary for human life to continue to exist on this planet.
Red FAQs!
The following are pages to help answer questions I frequently get.

Marxism Defined
Why am I a Commie?
Socialism vs. Communism
Revolution or Reform (or both?)
The Incentive to Work under Socialism
"Love it or Leave it" / "Anti-" or "Un-American"
Oftentimes, people bring up the idea that if one is not constantly threatened with hardship (as it is under capitalism for the majority), there is no "incentive" to work. This page is to dispell that myth.

Joe and Jane are workers in the capitalist system. They work hard, but know that at any time their jobs could be outsourced to a cheaper country; or they could be downsized due to a speed-up, technological advancement or just plain ol' corporate greed. Why do they have an incentive to work in the here and now? Well, they want to eat, live indoors and provide for their families. In other words, they don't want to be homeless and starve to death. This is the "incentive" of capitalism. Sort of like paying ransom is "incentive" if someone kidnapping a loved one of yours. Yes, it's extortion.

Now, imagine Joe and Jane work in a country that has Socialism (the intermediary stage between Capitalism and Communism - see this link for more on the transistion). They do the same jobs they did before, but now they have guaranteed health care, housing and retraining if their job becomes redundant. They know that the better they work, the better it will be for their children and the future of their country. We all know how much of an incentive patriotism can be. For some reason, this is going to be a DISincentive for them to work hard? (Caveat: This doesn't mean they can just show up for and sleep or goof off. Workers who do not do their job will lose their jobs. But they will not be thrown out to the cold. If they want to learn new skills, this will be provided for them. If, they just do not want to work, they can spend their days in prison.)

Another aspect of the "incentive" argument is anti-communists claim that inventors won't be motivated to invent anymore, because they won't become fabulously wealthy for inventing something. I say that is a false argument, because most of the people who invent worthwhile things did it because they were predisposed to invent things, not because they were driven by the lust for money. Sure, you've got people like Ron Popeils and Bill Gates who put out crappy stuff to make lots of money (to varying degrees of success), but on the flip side, you've got the open-source movement online and bio-medical successes in Cuba. Why do these people create things with no hope of becoming billionaires? Maybe some people are naturally curious and wish to create new and better things for the sake of creating them?
Red FAQs!
The following are pages to help answer questions I frequently get.

Marxism Defined
Why am I a Commie?
Socialism vs. Communism
Revolution or Reform (or both?)
The Incentive to Work under Socialism
"Love it or Leave it" / "Anti-" or "Un-American"

"Love it or Leave it"?

How many times has this happened to you: You're debating whether some policy of the United States is worthwhile, and your opponent says something like, "This is America [sic], love it or leave it!"

Another scenario that happens to me quite regularily, is when I'm debating whether some former or current Socialist nation's policies are better than those of the United States. Invarialbly, my adversary will say, "well, if you like what they have so much more, why don't you move there?" (or words to that effect).

For that reason, I have created this page. (I got tired of having to type it up over and over and over...)

1. It's my home. All my family and most of my friends are here.
2. I believe that bringing Socialism to the USA will benefit the entire world by ending its imperialism. The US has troops in every corner of the world, and US corporations exploiting people in nearly every country. In other words, better to fight in the belly of the beast.
3. True patriots don't up and run when the going gets tough.
4. The United States has a great potential. We have a good foundation with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moving to a Bill of Rights Socialism will only make things better.
5. I'm very happy to live in Seattle. The weather, variety of people, dancing, foods, environment are all what I really like.
6. The countries the are currently Communist-led aren't English-speaking, have different customs, food, culture, climate, etc. I would have to learn quite a bit to adjust.

* * * * *

The Terms "Anti-American" & "Un-American"

Just what exactly do "Anti-American" or "Un-American" mean, anyway?

Lately, I've heard and read about people or organizations being referred to as "Anti-American" or "Un-American" (especially at online message boards), but whenever I ask the person doing the name-calling what they mean by these terms they will either ignore me or say something stupid like, "if you were a 'real' American, you wouldn't have to ask."

Well, at the risk of appearing "Un-American," I'm asking.

You see terms like "Anti-American" and "Un-American" bring up a dark time in the history of the USA: The McCarthy Era witch hunts, and its predecessor, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).

Then, as now, free speech - especially speech that goes against what the leaders tell us we must think - was under attack. Having not lived through these eras, I wonder how these dissent-squelchers of that time defined their terms? After all, what is "America"? Isn't it a vague description for the land mass that at the north borders on the Arctic Ocean and at the south the Drake Passage (between Argentina and Antarctica)? Is being Un- or Anti-American is being against all of these nations that reside on this land mass? Somehow, I think that's not the case.

OK, let's refine it then - these terms mean you are against the USA, right? But what does that mean? After all, the USA isn't a monolithic entity where everyone thinks and believes the same thing, is it? (And if it is, we're a lot closer to Nazi Germany than most would like!)

No, we're a nation of hundreds of cultures, languages and peoples. The beliefs of these disparate peoples most likely include every philosophical and political stripe; which means that some are diametrically opposed to others. Therefore, to be Un- or Anti-American would mean being against all of the philosophies and politics of all of these peoples - which is impossible, as far as I know.

So, if we the term "American" is too vague to mean anything, and to couple that concept with being against (Anti- or Un-) it, meaning against everything, then the terms Anti-American or Un-American basically are meaningless.

And we should regard them as such when politicians, pundits or others begin to bandy them about.

Home


From the online debate at the CPUSA message board May, 2001.

Jodi wrote:

>>Well, I was hoping to receive some insight into what makes the communist movement tick - I have been studying Lenin and Marx and didn't understand how those views could be held at this time. I guess I still don't. If anyone on the list can help me to grasp WHY I should hold to the views of the communist party, I would appreciate it. If not, I'll unsubscribe and stop wasting your time.<<

I could tell you dozens of reasons why I share the views of the Communist Party. In the end, however, it is something you need to decide for yourself, of course. Instead of telling you why I'm in the the Party, I'll attempt to answer your questions, in hopes that will give you more understanding of our Party and it's program.

>>1. In Cuba, people are (admitted in earlier posts) escaping in small rafts in order to leave. Perhaps not all that many - reasons for the relatively small number of people trying to leave are arguable. The basic problem I have, though, is that they are having to ESCAPE. If communism/socialism is such true liberty, why are people not simply allowed to leave to live elsewhere?<<

Maybe you missed it, but one comrade already posted that it is impossible to get permission to travel to the United States from Cuba. This is because the United States (not Cuba) does not issue visas for Cubans. Therefore a Cuban cannot simply request to go to the United States on a boat or plane. That person needs to "escape Cuba" (as you put it, though more correctly it is "break into the United States") by illegal means.

>>On the other hand, all those in favor of communist government are perfectly free to leave America (where capitalism is still favored over socialism - although we don't have a completely capitalist system anymore) and live where socialism exists. I don't see a lot of people moving there. Why not? (By this I mean, why aren't YOU all moving there if it's so grand?)<<

I'm afraid you have erroneous conclusions. First of all, people in the United States in the past and PRESENT are denied exit. A few examples: Paul Robeson (I hope you've heard of him, if not, I'm sure the board will be glad to give you ample information aobut him) had his passport taken away in the '50s, even though he had committed no crime. He couldn't even travel to Canada (where no passport is required) to give a concert. So, he performed the concert at Peace Park on the border of Washington and British Columbia so the Canadians could see him perform. And, during the FTAA summit in Quebec, many people were not allowed to leave the United States to go into Canada. One example that of Jeff Crosby (reported in this weeks PWW), who was kept from leaving because he had a misdemeanor 25 YEARS AGO! So, the "freedom" we have in this country is also restricted. We just don't hear ab out it because our corporate-owned press doesn't like to print things like that about our country--but to smear socialist countries is one of their favorite past-times.

And the reasons I don't leave (the "love it or leave it" argument has been used on everyone who has ever criticized the United States at one time or another), are many. First off, it's "my" country. All my friends and family are here, so why should I leave it? Secondly, until the United States changes to a socialist system, it will be continue to be the cause of many of the problems around the world. Whether its outright bombing (like Yugoslavia and Iraq), or meddling (like Colombia and Israel), or saber-rattling (China and Cuba), the US is #1 -- in imperialism. We will do the world's working class a HUGE favor by having socialism here. Thirdly, for me it makes sense to stick around and improve it. Isn't that the patriotic thing to do?

>>2. I have come to the understanding that there are some communists who HOPE to have the freedom of free thinking and religion. Along with freedom OF religion comes the freedom FROM religion if one desires to take that route. But it sounds as if the majority of people working towards a communistic government adhere to the teachings of Marx and Lenin in this area as well - religion MUST be undermined. WHY? Why should I want to give over the control of those areas of my life to a governmental system? At this point, communism is sounding MUCH more tyrannical than capitalism.<<

Even if "the majority" of the posts you've seen on here are against freedom of religion (which I don't agree with, I think it's been about 2:1 in favor of it), that doesn't mean the Party program is thus. After all, you yourself are evidence that not everyone on this board is a member of the Party. I AM a Party member, and I believe the Party has no qualms with religion.

>>3. The motivation cited for making people work ignores basic human nature.<<

I don't believe "human nature" is something anyone can point to and say, "this is it." As far as I know, human beings are mostly guided by nurture and only slightly by nature. For example, no one is born a racist--they have to be taught that ignorance and hate.

>>Sorry, but human nature is not selfless. People naturally think of "what's in it for me?"<<

Yes, we live in a society that molds us to be that way. Socialism isn't going to get rid of that in a day, a year, or even a generation. It will take many generations. However, we know capitalism, with its promotion of the mythical "rugged individual," is NEVER going to get rid of it. It benefits from people being divided -- so we don't rise up as a united force against it.

>>Some people learn to not be selfish, some don't. For a scientific study of this, simply go to any nursery and see how the children behave together. Taking toys from one another, being mean to each other when there is nothing in it for them to be nice, etc... Then, go to a place of business, a church, or any other organization where you will find a large number of people (perhaps the communist party convention?) and you will find SOME people that have learned to be selfless - and you will find SOME people who have never grown up.<<

True. However, what your example shows us is that we have the ability to learn selflessness--even under capitalism! Imagine how much easier it will be when we don't see others as our "competition" for the basic necessities of life.

>>This leads me to believe that the reason countries which are run on a completely socialist or communist system are poverty stricken is because there is not sufficient motivation for people to get off their couches and get a job. <<

I'm afraid you are mistaken about socialist countries being "poverty striken." Russia started out as backward and poor, but during socialism, the Soviet Union rivaled and surpassed the US in many areas. Cuba is not poverty stricken--especially when compared to the other nations of Latin America. You may hear how low wages are there, but you don't hear how low the cost of things are. When I was in Cuba, I asked about these things. The family I stayed with paid rent of 200 pesos a month, or--which with the exchange rate of $1.00 = 22 pesos-- around $10/month. The father's salary was about 800/month (he's a teacher at a technical college). His wife also worked as an elementary school teacher (though I didn't find out what her salary was). What I'm saying is the wages are low (compared to what we think we need in the US), but their expenses are even lower.

>>The same could be said for our current system of welfare. Many people on welfare are capable of working...of making a living for themselves and their family...they simply choose not to because they don't feel like working. (I have people in my extended family like this.)<<

Probably these relatives you have on welfare are not social scientists. So, if you ask them why they don't get off the couch and get a job, they are not likely to pull out charts and graphs about poverty and surplus value. They're probably not likely to give you the statistics on unemployment or the cost of day care and commuting to a job. These are important factors, however. Though, it is easier just to blame the victim and call them lazy. Again, it's nurture, not nature that can explain a lot of what is happening here, I believe.

>>I am talking about motivation for working here and not asocial program. So how do you get around human nature?<<

Currently we work in a system where we are exploited on a daily basis. We never see the true rewards of our work (because of the extraction of surplus value). Yet, some people still "love" their work. Imagine now, you are working the same job you currently have, only now you are guaranteed health care, a living wage, opportunity for free job training if you wish to move to another position, etc. Would that motivate you, or would you prefer to go back to the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism?

>>Please understand that I realize working for something bigger than myself is a noble thing to do. It is something I strive to do with my life. However, I don't want to spend my life working for something that would ultimately end up in disaster.<<

Have you seen the documentary, "Roger & Me" by Michael Moore? It talks about families in Flint, Michigan who spent their whole lives working for something (building cars for GM) and it ended up in disaster. This scenario is played out over and over again (especially with globalzation and "free trade" being the mantra of corporations today). I understand what you're saying, but what you fear is already with us.

>>My understanding of history is that under the rule of Lenin - and later Stalin - there were many inhumane things done to people (even the working class). There is no way that I want to strive for something that would ultimately hurt human beings.<<

There is no certain way to predict the future. However, if we compare and contrast what happens to people in capitalist countries to what happens (or happened) in socialist countries, I think the benefits outweigh the (potential) detriments of socialism. After all, capitalism DOES hurt people everyday -- right here, right now. (For more on this, click here for another debate I had on this subject.)

>>I also have trouble with the idea that someone is evil simply because they have money.<<

Money isn't the root of all evil. It's "lust for money" or greed, that is. Just because one has money, doesn't necessitate that they are evil (it depends how they get it, right?). Balzac wrote, "behind every fortune lies a grand crime." Which is probably accurate.

>>Large corporations sometimes have boards that make bad decisions. That is something I cannot deny. However, those large corporations also give jobs to many people and put food on their tables.<<

Jobs aren't like lollipops from the dentist. They aren't "given" to people out of the goodness of the CEO's heart. Without workers, how would the corporation exist? This reminds me of another good scene in "Roger & Me" is where Michael Moore is asking a PR person from GM about job losses. Finally, Moore asks, "would getting rid of EVERY job at GM to save it be a good thing?" The PR man says, "yes, if it is to help GM, it would be a good thing." The great irony is that the PR man eventually lost his job, too!

>>Those same people who work for those large corporations have the option to either work for someone else if they don't like the treatment they are receiving, or start their own business so that they can be self sufficient and not dependant on anyone else.<<

Another option, is to organize a union where they work. The notion of shopping from corporation to corporation to find treatment that you like is a bit of fantasy. Sure, you may be treated well, but without a union contract, every perk and benefit -- or even having the job at all -- can disappear in the blink of an eye.

Starting your own business does sound like the best way out, but of course the success rate of new business aren't very good. I read an article in a free weekly here in Seattle about restaurants. The success rate of new restaurants in Seattle is about 20%. And our economy is supposed to be among the best! Even if your business does succeed, the chance of being muscled out by a corporation is ever present. After all, capitalism -- and the elected officials who kowtow to it -- works best for the big guys, not the mom & pop businesses.

>>Being dependant on the state is something that frightens me - because I am then dependant on the whim of ONE person - whomever the ruler happens to be.<<

Your fright is from disinformation. There is no "one ruler" of a socialist system -- though you wont read that in the corporate media. For example, Fidel Castro is but one of thousands of people running the government of Cuba. Indeed, democracy goes to the neighborhood and sometimes even apartment building level there.

>>At least living under capitalism (with all it's problems - I know it's not problem free), I have the opportunity to be "self governing" and "self sufficient" if I so choose. Can anyone give me compelling arguments otherwise?<<

I don't know about your work and living situation enough to respond for you particularily. I do know, however, that the unwritten history of our country provides many examples of people who end up homeless after being self-sufficient. For example, what if a major health crisis were to hit you -- would your HMO or insurance company stick by you no matter what the cost? Would your employer pay your bills while you are out sick? The argument that capitalism is a "free" system and socialism is not is correct in one sense: you are free to freeze or starve homeless on the streets. Under socialism, you wouldn't have THAT freedom.


Home