Socialism vs. communism

To those averse to socialism: First, socialism is not communism (Marxism). Simply, the latter advocates violent revolution as the means of resolving the economic inequities that cyclically afflict capitalism. Socialists advocate evolutionary change through the ballot, not the bullet as communists insist. The former are “democratic socialists.” This is not oxymoronic. It is inaccurate to equate socialists with communists.

Western European states are democratic socialist economies that equitably serve all citizens. My sister, a Dutch citizen, has cancer. When she was diagnosed a team of six professionals in diverse health fields supported her throughout her treatments. Her prognosis is excellent and she accrued no expense for this healthcare.

Second, if one receives any government “entitlement” (e.g., Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, unemployment compensation, disability insurance, SNAP, TANF, Pell, free/reduced school nutrition programs, VA benefits, federal pensions, agricultural price supports), one is a beneficiary of socialism.

Third, one retort to the above is, “That’s my money. I pay taxes.” In fact, all entitlements are subsidized by other people’s tax contributions.

Fourth, if government retracts from its social contracts (e.g., Reagan- government as the problem, not the solution), what would replace it? Corporate philanthropy? Privately funded charities and non-profits? Or rather a New Feudalism in which the few of means are ensconced behind electronic security moats protected by privately armed paramilitaries while the many are relegated to an impoverished Darwinian state of nature, extremes portending violence vaguely Marxist?

Perhaps irony can incapacitate civilizations as insidiously as pandemics?

John B. Hagney

Spokane