Socialism is NOT Communism
The writer posits that "disparity in economic conditions" is leading to a "growing interest in socialism", a system which he says already partially exists in our country.
To the Editor:
In response to an inquiry seeking to provide a simplistic distinction between political/economic systems, it has been publicized that Ann Landers provided the following analogy:
Socialism: You have two cows. Give one cow to your neighbor.
Communism: You have two cows. Give both cows to the government, and they may give you some milk.
Capitalism: You have two cows. Sell one, buy a bull.
In our current political climate where insults and attacks are being hurled left and right, it is important that we at least have a basic understanding of the above distinctions. But, before I proceed, let me state my position concerning an individual’s relationship to the economic order governing our society. I strongly believe that: every able-bodied individual should work hard to make an honest living and to prepare themselves to contribute to society. Moreover, I feel that society, including the government, should have an obligation to assist the sick and disabled, elderly, and other needy individuals who have not had the fortune to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.’”
Of the three systems noted above, all things being equal, I would consider capitalism to be the preferred system. In the most simplistic terms, it would seem more economically beneficial to sell one cow and buy a bull as that would provide the means of perpetuating the creation (“birth”) if new livestock. This action provides the means to maximize the production of not only milk, but beef products also. BUT, and unfortunately, all things are NOT equal! In America, the greed of the billionaire class and the corporate elite has resulted in the economic resources of a wealthy country not being equitably distributed. Simply stated, very little wealth “trickles down” to the masses on whose backs the country was built. As Gomer Pyle put it, the economy is controlled by persons who have profited from “ill-gotten gains”.
It is the disparity in economic conditions that is leading to a growing interest in socialism, a system which already partially exists in our country. The government has traditionally provided a safety net to address some of the needs of low- and no-income individuals. Yet, the efforts have not been adequate. In hindsight, it will have been the greed of the corporate elite that will ultimately lead this country to the adoption of more principles of socialism. I do not consider that migration to be unhealthy, especially with the advancement of AI (Artificial Intelligence). Under AI, the increased efficiency of productive resources, and possible elimination of human jobs, will likely result in the government needing to play an even more active role. This will be required in order to ensure that benefits are allocated to the lower economic classes in order to ensure their survival. This is the case since AI will be owned and managed by the corporate elite who are incapable of exercising the ethical and moral considerations necessary to provide for fair and equitable distributions.
In conclusion, it might be beneficial for us to focus more attention on making sure that we are not being steered towards Communism and other authoritarian forms of government rather than whether we need to be adopting more principles of socialism. It is when we continue to show more affection for Communist countries such as China and Russia than we do for democratic, capitalist countries such as Canada, England, and France that we have a right to be concerned. It appears that the most optimal strategy will be to continue to evolve under a hybrid form of government that allows for capitalism to survive while, at the same time, allowing for the “sharing” principles of socialism to also thrive.
-Charles Harrison Blackwell, Yanceyville NC
