Tag Archives: 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:


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.


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.


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.


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.




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.


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.


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.


Communism: Abolished. All religious and metaphysics is rejected.

Socialism: Freedom of religion, but usually promotes secularism.


Communism: All class distinctions are eliminated.

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


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.


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.


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.



The term, socialism, has been much bantered around since Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders became a candidate for president of the United States. According to dictionary.com, socialism is defined as a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Dictionary.com also states that socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ party affiliation is listed as “Independent,” and he claims to be a Democrat socialist. He caucuses with the Democrats on Capitol Hill.

When I graduated from college, I was an obnoxious brat who thought I knew everything and I wanted everything right then. My mother tried to explain to me that I needed to start at the bottom, get my foot in the door, and work my way up. Do any of you want to take a guess as to who was right? I was a pill to deal with and sort of hate myself to this day for it.

The United States of America was founded on the principles of hard work and dedication. Every person in America would have the chance to succeed at his or her own level. If you desire to be the CEO of a large corporation with the corner office with a view, you would have the opportunity to make that happen. If your desire was to lead a simpler life, you were very much free to pursue that. Unfortunately, achievement of your goals is not guaranteed. In your pursuit of the corner office with a view, things can happen that prevent you from getting there. You may have to settle for a small office on the third floor with a view of the parking lot. Never-the-less, the opportunity is there. Furthermore, in the pursuit of your goals, you may be called upon to make difficult decisions that keep you from achieving your dreams. You may have to settle for less as a result of other factors in your life.

Having said all of the above, we all know that what’s worth having is worth working for. We most certainly appreciate those things that we have to work for. These things may include accumulating vacation days and sick days, a better than average health insurance plan, a nice automobile(s), a nice house, a vacation house(s), etc.

In campaigning, Bernie Sanders has promised free healthcare, free college tuition, paid family leave and other items that most of us are used to working for. To pay for all of this, he claims he can go after the billionaires in this nation and let them pay for all of the goodies he’s going to distribute to us. The health care will most certainly be a standardized, one size fits all. I’d rather choose my health plan according to what I can afford and what coverages I need. And I don’t want to have to purchase it through a government exchange. I want to handle it through the private sector.

As far as the free college tuition, what are the limitations going to be. Will students be able to choose where they attend college and the course of study they want to pursue? Or will the government direct this for the sake of social engineering? Will private colleges disappear? Will the funds distributed to the colleges by the government be enough to provide quality education to the students? We all know that Obamacare was not implemented so that those poor unfortunate souls who didn’t have health insurance could now have health insurance. It was implemented for the purpose of putting 1/6 of the economy under the government control. Liberals are already admitting this and telling those of us who were hurt by it that we’ll get used to it. According to Forbes, before the ACA was implemented, 17.87% of Americans were uninsured. Now that the ACA has been implemented, 14.22% of Americans are uninsured. This is a difference of 3.67 %. Worth destroying the best healthcare system on the planet? You tell me.

Back to socialism. The billionaires alone aren’t going to be able to pay for this and the implementation of these socialist programs is going to eliminate the billionaires. All classes will be taxed heavily. Sure, your education will be free, your healthcare will be free, and you will get a lot of paid time off from your job. But what are you going to do with all free time. Will you have any extra money left after the government takes its hefty share and you provide for your other basic needs to take a vacation and enjoy your time off? Will there be any room to stretch your wings and pursue your dreams? Also, what’s going to happen to small businesses?

One thing that particularly disturbed me during the Democrat debates was the promise that companies would be forced to share their profits with their employees. Many companies do this and I think that’s great. However, companies shouldn’t be forced into this. And what amount of profits is the government going to allow a company to keep? The above will surely result in fewer people willing to take chances because the government will squelch resultant prosperity. So why work your buns off and take risks if the government is just going to take it away from you in the form of taxes and re-distribution demands?

Socialism will punish achievement and put the screws to entrepreneurism. If you want to punish the billionaires, I guess socialism would be the way to do it. But what’s going to happen when we run out of other people’s money?



As a political blogger, I must be more politically astute that the person on the street. To do that, I must constantly watch the news, watch political commentary, and read blogs and articles. There are those who continually challenge me, forcing me to always stay ahead of the game. These challengers are good, but not as good as me. Remember, I must be better than them in order to succeed.

I’ll be the first to admit that I screw up at times. I get things wrong and even though I know better, I don’t always research as thoroughly as I should before putting my words out there. Notwithstanding the above, I’m still better than my challengers.

I am constantly challenged by those who seek to pin the racist label on any of us who disagree with the current president’s policies. It’s really quite fascinating to see how liberals can spin something that has nothing to do with race into racism.

About a year or two ago, I was having lunch with a staunch liberal and current president supporter. She had read some posts on this blog and told me she couldn’t believe the things I said about liberals. She also asked me what I meant when I used the phrase, “take back our country.” This phrase has been coined as a racist phrase by liberals. When I gave her an answer that didn’t mention the current president, you could tell she was frustrated because she was looking to accuse me of not liking the current president because he is half black. Her response to my bemoaning about what was taking place in the country was, “so that’s because of Obama. It’s his fault.” Some of my answers were yes, particularly about health care, but not all of them. There were some things that I felt went back to the Woodrow Wilson administration, the implementer of what we now call progressivism. She was clearly frustrated that none of my answers contained any racial overtones.

Later in the conversation, sensing her frustration, I told her to quit trying to get me to say something disparaging regarding the current president being half black. That wasn’t going to happen. I further told her that I could see through her like glass. I got the better of her and I should have because it’s my job.

During the 1960s, while the cold war was raging and the civil rights movement was taking place, many people thought that the civil rights leaders might be communists. Communism made people shake in their shoes and the possibility of communism infiltrating the United States was unthinkable. Democrats and Republicans alike were anti-communist.

Now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, the word communism doesn’t draw the fear in the hearts of Americans as it once did. In fact some of our far left politicians seem to accept communism as a viable form of governance.

Communism fell in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union crumbled in the late 1980s, roughly a quarter of a century ago. While it still remains in China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea, people, particularly those on the left seemed desensitized to it. It’s no longer scary to the American people.

We have an avowed socialist running for president and according to many media outlets, Bernie Sanders is drawing large crowds to hear him speak and the gap between him and probably Democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. While Bernie Sanders is still considered a long shot, he is forcing Hillary to move to the left.

In 1972 and 1988, the Democrat party nominated far left candidates for president, George McGovern and Michael Dukakis respectively. Both were blown away in the general election by the Republican nominees, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush. The American people were not going to elect anyone as far left as McGovern and Dukakis.

Fast forward about twenty-five years and we have elected as president twice, one of the most far-left men in the United States, whose goal is to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

According to lessgovisthebest.com, “At the very core of their Godless ideology, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels selected a few important ideas from the Bible they hated and created a false religion out of their own imaginations, a counterfeit copy of Christianity, without God. With God and sinless servants, communism will work. Communism also may work in a society where simple survival is everyone’s goal. I say “may” because I’ve just finished reading a fiction novel where a communist-like government was set up by a remaining remnant after the earth was destroyed by fire and water.
I don’t know what school children are being taught about the Civil War these days, but I remember studying about the session from the Union of certain states. After the war was over, those states were taken back into the Union, but there were horrific things taking place with reconstruction. If it taught us anything, it should have taught us never to let that happen again. The word, “secession,” has been bounced around some in the last few years. While no one is taking any of this talk seriously (at least I hope not), secession articles still appear.

Combined with the flak about the confederate flag and the current president’s obvious disdain for the southern United States and the South’s disdain for him and his policies, could we be taking baby steps toward history repeating itself?

In summary, being labeled a racist in the United States has become the worst thing you can be labeled. Furthermore, the left can assign that label to you for just about anything you express that they don’t like. And guess what, once labeled a racist, you are always a racist. Racial tensions in this country are mounting and I do attribute this to the current President and his administration.

Communism and socialism are no longer words to be feared with practically half of all American citizens accepting their respective philosophies while turning away from the Judeo-Christian principles on which this country was founded. Efforts to completely remove God from our society are ongoing and replacing God with government is happening.

Americans are now fighting amongst themselves over a piece of fabric with some opining that this piece of fabric was responsible for the shootings at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. Could this brou-ha-ha be another tactic to further divide the nation, making us weaker and subject to some kind of take-over?

And while we’re fighting over that piece of fabric, Congress is giving additional powers to the current president, including powers to negotiate deals related to the Trans Pacific Partnership, a treaty that will surely put the sovereignty of the United States in immediate danger.
Sounds like a perfect storm to me.



There’s a photo going around on Facebook this morning that featured a quote from Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent from Vermont, and an avowed socialist democrat. The Senator states the following: “Today the House voted to give $269 billion in additional tax breaks for the families of the wealthiest 0.2% of Americans. Not only are the Republicans giving huge tax breaks to people who need it the least, they are simultaneously raising taxes on working families by ending earned-income and children’s tax credits that benefit 13 million Americans.

I wonder how many people will share this without actually checking things out.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted Thursday, April 16 to repeal the federal tax on estates, which affects few inheritances. According to Fox News, which most liberals hate, the federal estate tax is 40%, but exemptions limit the share of estates that pay it to less than 1%. The exemption is $5.43 million for a single person. Married couples can exempt up to $10.9 million. Larger estates pay taxes only on the amounts above the threshold.

I’ve always been against the estate tax. I think it’s immoral. First of all, it’s not the government’s money. It belongs to the people who have already earned it and have already paid taxes on it. For the government to come in and take 40% of someone’s estate is confiscation and it’s stealing.

Furthermore, I can demonstrate that it’s Communism. The philosophy of the Democrats in opposing the elimination of the estate tax is that these folks will still have millions left after the government takes what it wants. The government is deciding how much money someone should make and/or have. Remember, “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.”

This is not going to affect most of us, and it’s certainly not going to affect me. However, putting a quote from socialist Bernie Sanders out there stirs the pot and has the masses wanting to tar and feather anyone who is rich.

The quote goes on to say that the Republicans are simultaneously raising taxes on working families by ending the earned-income and children’s tax credits that benefit 13 million Americans. I’ve got news for you folks, that’s not true. The EITC and the children’s tax credits are not to expire until 2017. I did some research on this and through Google, I could only find liberal publications that were trashing the Republicans. While it appears that not extending these taxes has been talked about and that nothing is in place to make them permanent, what Senator Sanders says about this is false.

The federal government, in taking money that has already taxed, is stealing and one of the Ten Commandments says, “Thou shalt not steal.” Another of the Ten Commandments says, “Thou shalt not covet.” While it is certainly not for me to judge, but it seems that the taking of this money is stealing which many are proponents of. Also, when the Democrats say that it’s okay to take this money because these fat cats still have enough left is being covetous.

Instead of focusing on how much you hate the wealthy and how you would so like to punish them, wouldn’t it be better to focus on your own circumstances and channel all of this energy into making some money for yourself?



I’ve often said that it seems the liberals/Democrats change the definition of racism to suit themselves. When they can’t win an argument with a conservative, which is well over 90 percent of the time, they begin hurling insults at you and one of those insults is usually racist, even if your discussion did not even touch upon race. My conclusion regarding this is since the current President of the United States is half black, if you disagree with his policies, you’re a racist.

Well, now it seems that if you disagree with the current President’s policies that you are deemed a hater. I’ve told this story many times and I’ll tell it again and again. When I was a little girl, the cold war was raging and Nikita Khrushchev, the first secretary of the central committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, declared to American parents that their children would live under Communism. I didn’t know what Communism was, but knew it was bad. When I was about five, I asked my grandmother about Communism. I don’t remember that much about the conversation, but I do remember my grandmother telling me that here in the United States, if you didn’t like or disagreed with your elected officials, you could say it right out loud. In the Soviet Union and other Communist nations, you couldn’t say bad things about the government. Even though I’m sure that my grandmother talked about free elections and other things, being able to say that I didn’t like what the government was doing stuck with me. As you know, I do exercise that right.

Hate is a powerful emotion and we should not hate. I can remember my mother, whenever I said that I hated someone, would remind me that it was a sin to hate. Instead, Mama told me that I should say that I didn’t care for someone.
I remember all the hate that was directed to former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. When I saw liberals depicting President Bush hanging from a tree, I would wince. When I saw the left depicting President Reagan as a clown, I would wince also. But you go on with your life, it’s politics. Now, it seems that if you disagree with the current President on policies that you are automatically dubbed a hater.

In a Daily Kos article dated January 4, 2015, Bernard Pliers wrote an article entitled, “Dear Obama Hater – You Just Wasted a Decade of Your Life.” I’m not sure if this article was directed at someone like me. I do not agree with this President politically and there is not a single issue on which I agree with him. I believe that he is a racist, a bigot, an Islamic terrorist sympathizer, and a socialist bordering on communist. I agree 100 percent with Rudy Giuliani that this President does not love the United States of America and has as his ultimate goal, the substantial weakening of this country. He is certainly not a President to all Americans and doesn’t care at all about the middle class. But, he might be fun to party with.

With regard to the above cited article, Mr. Pliers trashes conservatives and Tea Party members and indicates that they have wasted ten years of their lives and have nothing to show for it. Mr. Pliers goes on to chastise those who he deems Obama haters, indicating that while they wasted time hating the current President, they could have accomplished many things such as getting a college degree, writing a book, running their first marathon, and learning a foreign language. Now, I earned a college degree quite a few years before the current President was first elected and inaugurated. But I did write book during his administration and hope to have several more while he is still in office. I’ve also started a business, even though, according to the current President, I didn’t build it.
Then Mr. Pliers infers that we conservatives wouldn’t have done any of those things anyway because we were waiting for impeachment and for the GOP candidates to “take off the gloves.”

Mr. Pliers, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a political junkie, nothing wrong with keeping up with current events, nothing wrong with disagreeing with your elected officials and letting them know it. In fact, that’s what our country’s forefathers intended us to do if we were to preserve our freedoms. Mr. Pliers, I’m not going to accept that the ACA was jammed down our throats utilizing every legislative trick the liberals could possible use. I’m not going to accept that this President or any President can, with the stroke of a pen, grant benefits to illegal aliens, change laws passed by Congress, shut down commerce, etc. I don’t like executive orders and think that they should be used sparingly, not when the President knows that something can’t get through Congress.

Furthermore, Mr. Pliers, I have a computer, in fact, I have three, and I have word processing software. I intend to make my feelings about our government officials known, whether I agree with them or not. I also hope to convey knowledge along the way. As Americans, we must hold our elected officials accountable, we must not accept everything they say and do. We must question all of them. Anyone that runs for public office should be prepared to answer questions and be held accountable. In fact, he or she should expect to be grilled and should welcome it.

You ended your article with this: “And the next time there is a GOP president, just remember that there will be fatal embassy attacks under the GOP president, just like the dozens of fatal embassy attacks that occurred under previous Republican presidents. Except Democrats won’t be working themselves into a frenzy of conspiracy theories when it happens, they won’ be cheerleading for the terrorists, and they won’t be trying to overthrow the U.S. government every time something happens.

Yes, Mr. Pliers, there will probably be additional embassy attacks, but it is my hope that any President, if embassy attacks occur under his or her watch, will be engaged and will take all precautions necessary to prevent the attack. If the attack does occur and Americans are killed, call the attack what it is and authorize the appropriate investigations into why the attack happened and how to prevent such attacks from occurring in the future. And then don’t lie to the American people about what actually caused the attack. If the current President and the “then” Secretary of State has been fully engaged before and after the attack and had not lied to the American people, telling them it was caused by a video, I doubt that many people, Republicans or Democrats would have said much of anything.

Conservatives are not cheerleading for terrorists. I don’t know where you got that from, but you are telling a lie. I don’t recall anyone making a prominent case for overthrowing the government. Again, that’s a lie.

Instead of trying to convince people who don’t agree with you, like me, with facts and statistics, you, like other liberals can only hurl insults. There are so many untruths in your article and I have only been able to get to a few of them. Hopefully, I will be able to address them in the future. Meanwhile, I have many other things to do, such as run my business, work on my next novel, and market my just released novel.