Category Archives: Education

CONFIRMATION OF EDUCATION SECRETARY, BETSY DEVOS

According to PJ Media, after an all-night marathon by Senate Democrats holding the floor to protest the nomination of school-choice advocate Betsy DeVos, Vice President, Mike Pence, was brought in to break a Senate tie and confirm President Trump’s cabinet pick for Secretary of Education.

Pence Breaks Senate Tie to Confirm Betsy DeVos

It was the first time the Senate historian could remember a vice president needing to break a tie on a cabinet confirmation. The 50-50 vote was the result of the promised “no” votes from Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Both of these senators have been referred to in the past as RINOs, Republican in name only. Susan Collins, Senator from Main, stated that she was troubled and surprised by Mrs. DeVos’ lack of familiarity with the landmark 1975 law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Senator Collins also said that she was concerned with Mrs. Devos’ lack of experience with public schools. Senator Murkowski, from Alaska, indicated that she was concerned about Betsy DeVos’ support for public schools, saying Trump’s pick has been “so involved in one side of the equation – s immersed in the push for vouchers – that she may be unaware of what actually is succesfull in the public schools, and what is broken, or how to fix them.

Now that Betsy DeVos has been confirmed by the Senate, here are seven lies, according to PJ Media that the Democrats have spread about the nation’s new Secretary of Education. 7 Desperate Liberal Lies About Trump’s Education Pick Betsy DeVos

  1. She’s against public education. USA Today senior political reporter, Heidi Przybyla, on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, declared that Betsy DeVos is very much against public education. The Washington Post’s, Valerie Strauss wrote a story entitled, “To Trump’s education pick, the U.S. public school system is a ‘dead end.’” Strauss bot her ammunition from a speech given by DeVos at South by Southwest in Texas in 2015 where Devos stated, “We are beneficiaries of start-ups, ventures, and innovation in every other area of life, but we don’t have that in education because it’s a closed system, a closed industry, a closed market, a monopoly, a dead end.” However, according to PJ Media, DeVos wasn’t condemning the U.S. education system, she was supporting reforms to being in more choice. Per Ed Patru, spokesman for Friends of Betsy DeVos, Strauss knew full well that Betsy doesn’t believe public schools are a dead end, but she ran the headline anyway. Patru further indicated that Strauss took a quote, divorced it from context, and then labeled Betsy an opponent of public education. Patru continued to indicated in the PJ Media article that DeVos does not push for school choice in the thousands of school districts across the country where public schools are doing a great job.
  2. She’s got an unfair donor advantage. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer wrote an expose’ about Betsy DeVos, labeling her “Trump’s Big-Donor Education Secretary.” Mayer used DeVos’ record of contributing heavily to conservative causes to attack Trump, whose campaign attacked “the donor class” during the election. DeVos is, indeed, a big donor and has been attacked on that score for quite a while. “I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence,” she wrote in a 1997 article for Roll Call. “Now, I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment.
  3. She’s against all regulation. The New York Times’ Katie Zernike painted DeVos as an anti-regulation extremist. “A believer in a freer market than even some free market economists would endorse, Ms. DeVos pushed back on any regulation as too much regulation. Charter schools should be allowed to operate as they wish,” Zernike wrote. This was an organized labor talking point verbatim, Patru told PJ Media. Patru further indicated that Ms. Zernike’s story was well-reported but completely one-sided because it made no attempt to understand or explain shy Ms. DeVos opposed a labor supported plan to create a third bureaucracy overseeing charter schools in Detroit. What Ms. DeVos opposed, Patru explained, wasn’t oversight itself, but rather a double standard for public and charter schools: It wasn’t because Betsy was opposed to oversight, it was because Betsy was opposed to imposing additional oversight on charters while Detroit public schools have none. One hundred charter schools have closed in Michigan, but not a single traditional public school has closed.
  4. She’s an elitist. The New Yorker’s Rebecca Mead, after noting that DeVos has no ties to Putin and has not actively called for the dismantling of the department she was chose to lead, went on to suggest that her history made her unqualified to run the department. “Devos has never taught in a public school, never administered one, nor sent her children to one.” Patru replied, “Neither Obama, nor Hillary were ever said to be unqualified to lead on education issues, despite the fact that they both sent their kids to private school and never seriously considered enrolling their kids in DC public schools. In 2015, Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan pulled his children out of public school and put them in private school. Education Secretary, John B. King, the last in the Obama administration credited his public school teachers with his success, but even he is a proponent of charter schools and helped to found one. Does this make him an unqualified elitist?
  5. She’s a racist. Of course, no one on the left when trashing someone on the right leaves out the racist accusation whether or not it’s a valid accusation. Plus, liberals make up the definition or racism as they go along to whatever suits their needs of the moment. The New York Times’ Katie Zernike quoted Tonya Allen, president of the Detroit non-profit, Skillman Foundation as follows: “If she was showing herself present in places and learning from the practitioners, that’s a fine combination, but Betsy never showed up in Detroit. She was eager to impose experimentation on students that she has not spent time with and children that she does not have consequence for.” Patru indicated that this was an obvious insinuation that DeVos is racist, considering lack children unworthy of her care. Patru further indicated that while this racial line of attack has not been explicit, it could not be further from the truth, and pointed out the broad base of support she has earned among African Americans, urban Democrats, Latinos, and other minorities because of her work in promoting educational equality.
  6. She is a religious extremist. This is another standard attack by liberals regarding those they hate. Shortly after then President-elect Trump announced DeVos as his education pick, liberals launched a coordinated attack branding her as a religious extremist. The ACLU of Michigan said her support for school vouchers perverts the bedrock American value of separation of church and state, because vouchers allow parents to choose religious schools. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued that DeVos fought to divert resources away from public schools into private, mostly religious institutions, adding that she is the leader of the crusade to create school vouchers across the country. Other journalists joined in this attach. Katherine Stewart of The New York Times thought it necessary to roll out a 30-year quote from a pastor distantly related to Mrs. Devos. And she even described DeVos as a member of a fringe religious group aiming to enforce “biblical laws” and replace public schools with all-religious schools, an obvious ridiculous statement. Patru further indicated that Betsy has never and will never attempt to impose her personal beliefs on anyone. To the contrary, she has been an outspoken advocate for empowering parents to choose how their children are educated.
  7. She supports child labor. After DeVos was chosen by trump, Alana Horowitz Satlin, assignment editor at the Huffington Post, breathlessly informed Americans of a horrible secret: Group Funded by Trump’s Education Secretary Pick, “Bring back child labor.” It seems as though Satlin was terrified that DeVos would put kids back in the coal mines and the 19th century factories. There were lots of problems with this narrative. First, it was never even DeVos making the argument. While she was an Acton Institute board member for ten years, and her family’s foundation had donated money to the group, the article arguing for child labor was written by Joseph Sunde, a project coordinator at the Acton Institute. Furthermore, Sunde was arguing that teenagers should be more able and probably encouraged to work a few hours a week at at fast-food restaurant or grocery store.

The fact that all liberals, including the teachers’ unions hate Betsy DeVos is a good thing in her favor. Furthermore, I agree with her statement that there have been major innovations in most occupations and institutions except public education, due, in part, to the teachers’ unions who don’t want any changes in innovation, technology, etc in the classroom. I believe if most had their way, they would still be working out of the old teacher grade books, averaging grades using a hand-held calculator, and filling out report cards by hand. Of course, they would still “bitch” about all the work they had to do and somehow blame those of us who work just has hard, if not harder in the private sector, for not wanting to pay extra taxes for their raises.

Most of us, in our chosen fields, have had to undergo changes. Sometimes we resisted, only to determine later that the changes were good things. Sometimes we resisted and the change was not a good thing. But bottom line, we had to accept those changes whether we want to or not.

Teachers are always holding themselves out to be morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, and to be unsympathetic to the plight of teachers is tantamount to pulling Santa Claus’ beard. However, the foul language and hate that they have shown toward conservatives who support Betsy DeVos is almost unmatched to the vitriol that I see every day on social media from the left. Public school teachers, especially those who espouse teachers’ unions are neither morally or intellectually superior to the rest of us. In fact, just the opposite is true.

A special thanks to PJ Media for much of the information contained in this article.

Facebooktwitter

TEACHERS’ UNIONS – OPPRESSOR OF BLACKS AND OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR

The failure of public schools to properly educate American students, particularly nonwhite minorities, can be attributed largely to the policies and priorities of teachers’ unions. This is according to the website, discoverthenetworks.org.

The largest teachers’ unions in America today include the 3.2 million member National Education Association (NEA) and the 1.5 million member America Federation of Teachers (AFT). Devoted to promoting all manner of left-sing political agendas, these organizations rank among the most powerful political forces in the United States today. Forbes magazine routinely ranks the NEA among the top 15 in its “Washington’s Power 25” list of organizations that wield the greatest political influence in the American legislative system. The Association has earned that rating, for the most part, by making almost $31 million in campaign contributions to political candidates since the early 1990s. The AFT has given more than $28 million to its own favored candidates. Furthermore, these figures do not include expenditures on such politically oriented initiatives as television ads or “get out the vote” efforts.

If the $59 million in combined NEA and AFT campaign donations, more than $56 million has gone to Democrats. This imbalance reflects only the political leanings of the union leaders, not the rank and file school teachers. Surprisingly, just 45% of public school teachers are registered Democrats, and more NEA members identify themselves as conservatives (27%) than liberals (21%).

The NEA derives most of its operating funds from the member dues that, in almost every state, are deducted automatically from teachers’ salaries. Because member dues constitute the very lifeblood of the teachers’ unions, the latter strive mightily to avoid losing any of those members regardless of their professional competence or lack thereof. Even in school districts where students perform far below the academic norm for their grade levels, and where dropout rates are astronomically high, scarcely one in a thousand teachers is ever dismissed in any given year.

In most states, teachers are automatically awarded tenure after only a few years on the job. Once tenured, even the most ineffective and incompetent instructors can have long and relatively lucrative careers in the classroom if they wish to stay in the field of education. For example, between 1995 and 2005, just 112 of the 43,000 tenured teachers in Los Angeles lost their jobs, even though 49% of the students in their school district failed to graduate from high school. The story has been much the same elsewhere.

In addition to aggressively defending the rights of incompetent instructors, the teachers’ unions have likewise objected to merit pay proposals that would reward good teachers and punish bad ones. When Florida legislators in 2009 called for a merit pay system, the head of the state teachers’ union accused the lawmakers of punishing and scapegoating teachers and creating more chaos in Florida public schools. When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie suggested a similar arrangement for his state in 2010, the teachers’ unions asserted that his effort was intentionally designed to demean and defund public education. In Chicago, union officials have argued that merit pay programs can narrow curricula by encouraging teachers to focus on testing.

Teachers’ unions also oppose voucher programs that would enable the parents of children who attend failing inner-city public schools to send their youngsters, instead, to private schools where they would have a better chance to succeed academically.

While progressive democrat politicians, who receive much financial support from teachers’ unions, are opposed to school voucher programs, they continue to send their kids to expensive private schools.  When former Vice President, Al Gore, who was asked why he opposed school vouchers for black children, while sending his own son to a private school, he said, “If I had a child in an inner-city school, I would probably be for vouchers too.”

Everyone reading this article probably has one or more friends who are public school teachers and members of one or more teachers’ unions. Low pay appears to be the major gripe of public school teachers, and here in Alabama, teachers do have a reputations of being only concerned with pay and not concerned with teaching our children. They agree that there are problems in the states’ public schools that need to be fixed, with their solution being just give us raises and we’ll fix the problems. Most of us who work in the private sector have to perform adequately before we are given raises by our employers.

I have observed over the years that public school teachers are very inflexible when it comes to new and innovative ideas for improving the quality of education. As indicated above, they are against a voucher system which would allow students who would, because of residence, have to attend failing schools, be given vouchers to attend private schools. Furthermore, public school teachers are against any type of home schooling, even though home schooling has been proven to be successful.

The only method of teaching they appear to advocate is that which occurs in a school room where there is one teacher and possibly an aid teaching a small group of students. During the technological revolution (1989 to 2005), the teachers I knew were adverse to any kind of modern technology and resisted any kind of change to their methods of operation.

Those of us who have been in the workplace for years know that “ways of doing things” are constantly changing. Think back to that first job you had out of college then fast-forward to today. Wow!

Like Social Security, certain parts of teacher compensation packages are considered “sacred cows.” Don’t you dare even whisper about changing them. If you suggest making changes or that changes might be coming, you’re automatically accused of being against public education and hating school teachers. Sound familiar?

In many states across the nation, including in my state, Alabama, it has been suggested by private financiers that fully funded retirement systems might not be able to sustain themselves. For those currently drawing retirement benefits, those benefits won’t change. But for younger state employees, retirement funding might have to change. Public school teachers, including union leaders, have demonized anyone who suggested that changes might be needed in the future.

Most public school teachers I know vote Democrat and hate Republicans. They vote Democrat because Democrats promise to procure higher salaries and better benefits for them. It’s been this way for decades and nothing for teachers seems to have improved.

While towing the liberal line along with having an inflexible attitude toward change by members of teachers’ unions, is most certainly oppressing blacks and people of color, because so many who are falling into these groups do not have the means to send their children to private schools or the time to home school their children.

Have the leaders of teachers’ unions, along with the rank and file members, ever thought about listening to what private enterprise is suggesting for improvements. Maybe if they did, both sides could use their expertise and influence to create a robust public education environment. Sadly, though, I’m not holding my breath.

Note: Much of the information provided for this article was taken from discoverthenetworks.org.

Facebooktwitter

GROW UP, WHY DON’T YA!

According to an article on breitbart.com dated November 27, 2014, University of Massachusetts students who were upset by an image of a Confederate flag sticker on another student’s laptop were offered counseling services at Framingham State University. The offer came after the university’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, Sean Huddleston, described the display of the small Confederate flag sticker as a “bias incident.”

According to Metrowest Daily News, students filed two “bias reports” within the past month as a result of a student displaying the flag in some way. The most recent bias incident, reported on November 19, was a report of a student having seen a Confederate flag sticker on another student’s laptop. In an email to students, Huddleston did not declare a ban on displaying the flag, but claimed that it upsets some students.

Huddleston said the Confederate flag and other symbols are not condoned by Framingham State University, as they violate the core values of our institution and not considered consistent with our desire to maintain a safe, respectful and welcoming campus community for all. The primary goal continues to be to expeditiously address and resolve incidents of bias that impede our progress toward a welcoming and inclusive campus community.

Huddleston further described “bias incidents” as situations that may not rise to the level of a criminal act, but still clearly communicate offensive or derogatory behaviors.

The article goes on to state that observing that students on campus in general may have suffered a traumatic reaction from seeing an image of the Confederate flag, Huddleston continued, “We recognize that bias incidents are upsetting for the entire campus community, but especially for the targets and witnesses of these incidents. Therefore, Huddleston is encouraging students who may have been traumatized by these incidents seek counseling.

Huddleston then indicated that the university may hold a campus-wide form on the history of the Confederate flag, so that students can discuss the reasons why they either defend or reject it.

This is about the most ridiculous thing that I have every read. If a small sticker on someone’s laptop traumatizes you to the point that you have to seek counseling, my feelings are that you should be put away forever in a mental institution and never be allowed out in public. I’m serious.

It looks like our college campuses are turning into safe places for spoiled whiny babies. And these are the folks that are going to be taking care of me when I go to the nursing home. With my current health problem and our wrecked healthcare system, I’ll probably die early and won’t have to go to a nursing home and be subjected to these imbeciles.

So, it looks like liberals are advocating making life perfect for everyone once they come out of the womb. There will be no bullying. Plus diversity and inclusion will make every child feel welcome at all times, so that child won’t have to suffer the trauma the children have had to suffer in the past for various reasons.

I think everyone who has gone from an academic environment to a working environment will tell you that they underwent a rude awakening when they got to the real world. The real world is not always pretty. However, I shudder to think how going to the real world is going to affect these whiny babies who had to go to counseling because they saw a Confederate flag sticker on someone’s laptop. How are they going to handle that first difficult customer or client? How are they going to handle a difficult boss? How are they going to handle the criticism that comes on a performance evaluation? Will companies start having to set up trauma departments where a distraught employee can go to get counseling whenever something unpleasant happens to them on the job?

Most of us who have had to go through employee evaluations know that there is always something negative on them. It’s just standard custom and practice. What’s going to happen to the whiny babies when they get their first employee evaluation and it says that they need to be more courteous to lower level employees? The rest of the evaluation may be glowing, but that one little negative item may send them into deep depression. I guess the government will have to pass a regulation on employee evaluations that nothing negative about an employee can be put on an evaluation. And how is this going to help the little whiny baby? It won’t help the little whiny baby one damn bit. In fact it will, in the long run, hurt the little whiny baby because the little whiny baby will have no chance to develop as an employee and as a person.

I’m getting so tired of the words diversity and inclusion. How many of us have been to social gatherings where it seemed like everyone knew everyone and you didn’t know anybody? It’s tough and you sometimes feel awkward. But an experience like that will sometimes force you to be more assertive by walking up to people, introducing yourself and starting a conversation. Also, how many of us have been to dinner or to an event with friends and the friends worked together or their occupations were similar? The friends had their own little conversation going and you were left out. It happens and you have to grin and bear it. I guess when that happens to the little whiny babies, they’ll be so traumatized they will have to seek counseling. I guess the government will have to establish the “Inclusion Police.” That way no little whiny baby has to sit and be silent for twenty or thirty minutes.

It seems like liberals, after having attempted and being somewhat successful in taking God out of our society, are trying to establish heaven here on earth. And when it can’t possibly happen, they blame George W. Bush, Fox News, and conservatives.

Facebooktwitter

TOTALITARIANISM IS HERE, IT REALLY IS

According to breitbart.com, the campus police at the University of Missouri sent out a campus-wide email this yesterday morning asking “individuals who witness hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions” to immediately report the incident to them.

The email didn’t define what constitutes “hurtful” speech, but did say if anyone experiences or hears it, they are immediately to get in touch with cops and provide “a detailed description of the individual(s) involved, along with the license plate and vehicle descriptions. Also, if possible, take a photo of the individuals. The email apparently goes on to say that if it is an emergency situation of “hurtful” speech to dial 911 instead of calling the campus police. The email also says that delays, including posting information to social media, can often reduce the chances of identifying the responsible parties.

Is this some kind of a joke?

So, if you’re on the University of Missouri campus and witness someone saying something “not nice” to someone else, you’re to document it with your phone, notify the authorities and upload it to social media as soon as possible.

I’m still a bit confused about exactly what happened at the University of Missouri that led to the resignation of the University president and the chancellor. According to my research, the president was considered by certain students to have been slow in his efforts to address and take action on certain racial incidents at the university. Apparently, there has been racial tensions at the university for several months.

Is there anyone out there who hasn’t had something hurtful said to them? People say “not nice” things to others constantly. When I was a child, I had hurtful things said to me by other children, adults, relatives, etc. Many of the things said to me were because I was overweight as a child. It certainly wasn’t fun back then, but as an adult, I believe those things made me strong and gave me much insight.

As an adult, I’ve had hurtful things said to me by friends, boyfriends, bosses, co-workers, etc. It happens and you get over it. Once again, it can serve to make you strong. Also, I’ve learned a lot from this. Some of the things that were said and done to me over the years, I would never do to others.

I blame the current administration and all liberals for the above. We all know that liberals think that we, the people, are too stupid to run our lives. They think we’re unable to decide what to eat and drink, what to drive, how to invest our money, how to choose our healthcare options, etc. Do they now think we, the people, are too inept to take care of ourselves should someone fail to be nice to us?

I’m a small-peas political blogger and have been called many things, including, but not limited to: moron, idiot, delusional, stupid, dumb, etc. by liberals, who don’t agree with me on political issues. I wonder if I can make demands regarding those who have called me such things. Should I call for those people to lose their jobs, lose their livelihood, and be destroyed? Under the foregoing circumstances, calling for these things would never occur to me.

The far left and maybe some of those who espouse to be center-left, seem to be steering us in a direction where all transgressions are punishable with extreme measures. According to statistics, liberals comprise approximately one-half of the American population. Do I think all liberals want to destroy those who don’t agree with them politically and those who have said things that aren’t nice to someone else? I’m afraid I do.

The following is a summarization of the demands made by students at the University of Missouri:

  • That President, Tim Wolfe, write a letter of apology to Concerned Student 1950 demonstrators, acknowledging his white privilege and also acknowledging that systems of oppression exist. He is also to admit gross negligence in failing to act swiftly upon certain racial incidents.
  • Even with the above, the students want Tim Wolfe removed as UM president.
  • That UM create and enforce comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration.
  • By the year 2017-18, UM increase the percentage of black faculty and staff members by 10%.
  • That UM compose a strategic 10-year plan that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
  • That UM increase funding and resources for the UM Counseling Center for the purpose of hiring additional mental health professionals, particularly those of color.
  • That UM increase funding, resources, and personnel for the social justice centers on campus for the purpose of hiring additional professionals, particularly those of color.

The above came from an article on saturdaydownsouth.com, a primarily southern college sports website.

These are some pretty ridiculous demands. Students do not and should not run college campuses. If the students at the University of Missouri don’t like the campus life there, why not just transfer to another school? If they think there’s systemic or institutional racism present, then leave UM behind and go somewhere else. But that’s not the liberal way. The liberal way, fostered by the current administration and all liberals, is to severely harm and or destroy anyone who doesn’t agree with their racist, bigoted, and anti-American agenda.

What’s happening at the University of Missouri should scare everyone. It scares me. When is it going to happen to me? When am I going to say or do something that the left decides, on the spot, is somehow offensive to others on the left and be libeled, slandered, or destroyed in some other manner? And does this also mean that I, a conservative, have the right to not be offended. Do I have the right to destroy someone who says something “hurtful” to me? Of course not, silly rabbit!

Facebooktwitter

SOCIALISM – PART THREE (SOCIALISM VS. COMMUNISM)

This post is part three and the last in this series about socialism. The following will compare and contrast with socialism with communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties, but very few are truly communist. Socialism is sometimes used interchangeably with communism, but the two philosophies have some stark differences. While communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.

The following will further outline the differences:

PHILOSOPHY

Communism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Free access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance.

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.

DEFINITION

Communism: International theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state. Rejection of free markets and extreme distrust of Capitalism in any form.

Socialism: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.

IDEAS

Communism: All people are the same and therefore classes make no sense. The government should own all means of production and land and also everything else. People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally.

Socialism: All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.

KEY ELEMENTS

Communism: Centralized government, planned economy, dictatorship of the proletariat, common ownership of the tools of production, no private property, equality between genders and all people, international focus, anti-democratic. One party system.

Socialism: Economic activity and production especially are adjusted by the State to meet human needs and economic demands. Production for use; useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.

 

 

ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Communism: The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance.

Socialism: The means or production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.

POLITICAL SYSTEM

Communism: Usually takes the form of totalitarianism as Marx described in the Communist Manifesto. Cronyism common.

Socialism: Can coexist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Lennists advocate Democratic centralism.

PRIVATE PROPERTY

Communism: Abolished. The concept of property is negated and replaced with the concept of commons and ownership with usership.

Socialism: Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State, but with worker control.

RELIGION

Communism: Abolished. All religious and metaphysics is rejected.

Socialism: Freedom of religion, but usually promotes secularism.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Communism: All class distinctions are eliminated.

Socialism: Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions than the class distinctions. Some mobility.

FREE CHOICE

Communism: Either the collective vote or the state’s rulers make economic and political decisions for everyone else.

Socialism: Religion, jobs, and marriage are up to the individual. Compulsory education. Free, equal access to healthcare and education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Production decisions driven more by State decision than consumer demand.

ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS

In a socialist economy, the means or producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. On the other hand, in a communist society, there is no centralized government, there is a collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

For a Capitalist society to transition, the first step is Socialism. From a capitalist system, it is easier to achieve the Socialist ideal where production is distributed according to people’s deeds (quantity and quality of work done). For Communism (to distribute production according to needs), it is necessary to first have production so high that there is enough for everyone’s needs. In an ideal Communist society, people work not because they have to, but because they want to and out of a sense of responsibility.

POLITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS

Socialism rejects a class-based society. But socialists believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own, the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state. Socialism is primarily an economic system so it exists in various degrees and forms in a wide variety of political systems.

On the other hand, communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class, but not as individuals, is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in.

**********

With an avowed socialist running for president, I think it is important that voters have some idea about socialism. I also believe that while what Bernie Sanders says sounds great on the surface (soak the rich, substantive regulations on private businesses, womb to tomb access to healthcare and education), it doesn’t work l in the real world and leads to an overall decrease in prosperity. Millennials, who were never exposed to the horrors of Communism and were probably never taught economic history of this country, are embracing old, white, Bernie Sanders.

Except for the above paragraph, the contents of this article was taken from website: diffen.com.

Facebooktwitter