Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Catfish who wrote (116901)	12/16/2000 3:11:39 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Communism, in my mind at least, is the total annihilation of private property and religious institutions, and wage equality regardless of merit. It is government control of all industry, so that their are no private shareholders--for example, the government would own Coca-cola, the government would appoint its CEO, and there would be no shareholders other than the government. There would be no democratic elections. Socialism, in my mind, is far less extreme, as we have many countries calling themselves socialist that are not like what is described above--Sweden is often mentioned. Socialism is characterized by high taxes to support government programs in many areas, such as health care, and welfare benefits. There is also great but not total government control over private industry. Of course, any government program where anyone gets anything they wouldn't have but for the government can be tarred as "socialist." It's almost as bad as references I hear to religious fascists, anti-abortion terrorists, etc. I remember when Bob Dole advocated the Americans With Disabilities Act. He was called a Communist! Maybe he was just an old Socialist. Or maybe it's a different idea that doesn't deserve a pernicious label, and can be debated as either good or bad without dredging up McCarthy-era, red scare terminology. The same for most programs that get bandied back and forth, such as Social Security, etc. Frankly, I think most Americans oppose giving someone a hand out, but don't mind giving them a hand up. I went to school on government-backed school loans, and paid back every penny. I'd hate to tell you how much income tax I've paid since then. Did I get a hand up or a hand out? I think the former. Is that Socialism, or is it Capitalism at its best--i.e., allocating certain capital to people who don't have it now, so that they can become more skilled and more productive in the future? These labels are unfortunate because each issue has its merits or demerits, that should be debated without tarring proponents or opponents as Communists or Fascists. In American discourse today, these terms are meaningless, except as applied to a certain lunatic fringe (i.e., the Tim McVeighs and Ted Kaczynskis of the world).