Socialism, Communism and More

One of the things some people like to say is that socialism just doesn't work.  Of course they usually then cite examples from communist countries.

Communism is at heart a socialist system but it adds a lot of political items that have nothing to do with Socialism per se.  Its based on the writing of Karl Marx and subsequently altered by the Bolsheviks in Russia who sent many socialists to prison camps.  It supposes the end of all private property and a dictatorship of the Proletariat.

As bad as it was it actually sort of worked although its socialism soon disappeared as powerful party officials became the privileged.

Socialism on the other hand was likely the first system adopted by early humans as they organized into clans.  I remember studying modern day tribes in Anthropology that essentially practiced a form of socialism in distribution of goods and services.  Hunters would share kills among all tribe members, gatherers similarly shared there product and when need all helped the weak with building structures etc.  They took care of each other, although there was of course a pecking order.

In modern society we have the example of many European Countries that have implemented systems with socialist overtones and some capitalism  Incentive are preserved as the wealthy can indeed accumulate a percentage of wealth although they pay high taxes.   These taxes pay for everyone's health care, social welfare and education.  They are prosperous and generally do well in measure of material and spiritual well being.

At one time we had a marginal tax rate of as much as 75% and it didn't stop investment or wealth growth.

We are supposed to have a democratic form of Government.  It was not a pure democracy since it was designed to protect certain interests. Almost no one in this country is proposing a communist Government.  Progressives want to reduce the wealth inequality, provide health care and education to all and shore up our retirement system.

For everybody.

Democratic Division

One of the reason's the Democrats lost the last election was that certain supporters of the nominee's primary opponent held resentments that prevented them from voting for her.

These resentments were fanned on social media by groups that opposed her election.

Some of that was probably done by the Russians, but I'm fairly convinced that other right wing groups also contributed.

Now Americans criticizing a candidate is fine, we have free speech, but people have to understand  these items for what they are.

Groups dedicated to right wing issues want to suppress or diminish the democratic vote.

They have used various tactics like making voting more difficult, gerrymandering and negative ads.

Perhaps the idea of making the divisions seem so great that progressive voters stay home allowing their ideals to be squashed is the most insidious.

There are some real differences in the candidates that need to be explored and debated so the best candidate can emerge.  However if the discussion turns bitter and acrimonious it could lead to some supporters of the losing candidate staying home.

Of course that is their right but they do have to realize that such actions can lead to a regressive regime threatening progressive ideal such as choice, equality for all, universal health care and the cementing of a Supreme Court that will prevent future progress for years.

Understand that whoever the candidate turns out to be in the process, the failure to support him/her is in fact support for the republican candidate.

Real Americans

It remains to be seen how the public reacts to the recent controversy over the Supreme Court but it is clear that the Court is now fundamentally different than it has been in quite a while.

This is a reminder about how elections matter.

Obviously some are happy with the turn of events and they may remain happy for many years to come.

The real issue is whether America is in fact reverting to a conservative ethic or if we are seeing the results of a clever well financed plan to manipulate the political landscape.

The appeal is to older white American who have been convinced that the America they grew up in is being destroyed by progressives who want to make the country a haven for people who don't "deserve" it.

Its that word that tends to resonate and which of course is entirely subjective.

For those who were fortunate enough to be born into this country in a traditional type of family, somehow that makes you different than the newcomers or those who because of historical circumstances grew up in urban ghettos often in single parent homes.

There has been an initiative to overcome some of these historical forces and allow disadvantaged people to have similar opportunities to mainstream Americans but this is viewed as preferential treatment and they should have to earn their place in America.

How they are supposed to do this when blatant discrimination and bigotry has kept them in a cycle of poverty and crime from the day they were born is difficult to fathom.

Still they shouldn't be handed things on a platter when it comes at the expense of real Americans.

In addition we have all these people with perverted values about lifestyles and families who are demanding the right to live their lives freely without prejudice.

Fairness and equality for all, how un-American can you get?