Letter/Commentary: Some in Washington hooked on socialism

Many people, for various reasons, are stuck in environments they cannot escape, no matter how destructive these environments might be. This is seen in domestic abuse where the battered wife is unable to escape her destructive husband. It is seen in the drug environment where addiction has such a strong hold it cannot be escaped. The lady whose liver was functioning at only 10 percent said she could not afford needed medicine, but also said, "I'm going to buy my cigarettes; I can't do without them." It is seen in addiction to an environment a person wishes to escape, but the hold of wanting to be with certain people does not let go. The alcoholic said, "I want to quit drinking, but I want to be with my friends and they insist if I am going to be a part of the group, then I have to drink with them or they don't want me there."

We generally don't give a lot of thought to the fact that a way of life can be addictive, even if it is harmful to us. This is why ghetto life is repeated from generation to generation. Those who grow up in this life can see there are better ways to live but are incapable of choosing something different. The lure of family and friends cannot be broken because of strong attachments that will not let them go.

In Washington, we find a majority of politicians are stuck in the wrong environment, one in which they have lived off money taken from the pockets of hard-working American taxpayers, something which is the essence of socialism. They think this is the best way to live and are trying to expand their environment to include more and more people. It is a bad, destructive environment, as made evident by the failure of socialism in the old Soviet Union, and in what is now happening in Greece, Spain, Italy and other European countries. We have already gotten enough of a taste of socialism in the U.S. to know those who espouse it are leading us down a dead-end alley.

We should not have been surprised that our president is leading the charge toward socialism. He has lived off other people's money all his life and thinks this is the best life for all. He is not able to weigh socialism against our constitutional republic because he has never participated in what has made America great. It is a strange world for him, just like the successful environment is a strange world for the ghetto dweller. He has been thrust into an environment he does not understand and in which he cannot function. He can only do as he has done in the past, and he has surrounded with those whose thinking is as limited as is his. What he and his people want to do to this country is wrong.

We need to make ourselves aware of the extent to which socialism has already been forced upon us, but, perhaps more than this, we need to educate ourselves regarding what men in the past have done to impose their will upon people, and what men will do in order to have their way. The picture is not pretty when we value human life. Many in history who have forced their wills upon peoples and nations have done so only after deciding the lives of those who oppose them have no value at all, and can be disposed of. We saw this when socialism came to power in the USSR, in China and in many other countries where destruction was a part of changing peoples and nations.

Life under the Constitution of the United States has offered freedom for individuals to determine what life will be like, nothing currently seen in socialism anywhere. True, a lot of our citizens have been stuck in environments where they have not realized this, and, even though they have seen other people of their ilk join a free life, they have been unable to decide to make their way into a free life. Addiction to a philosophy or way of life can be just as debilitating and destructive as addiction to alcohol or drugs. It can destroy them and the people around them.

We cannot count on politicians currently in Washington finding a way to escape their addiction to socialism, a kind of environment totally alien to life in a constitutionalrepublic. Those who are so addicted to what has proven to be a failed way of life wherever it has been tried must be sent packing, but we must realize they will go kicking and screaming. The environment in Washington must be changed with the November elections, and we voters are the only ones who will make this change.

Roger Bolton lives in Conyers.


jjhayden3rd 3 years, 4 months ago

Humans are social animals. We have survived because we banded together so that we could help each other and ourselves. The first level of socialization is the family unit: one adult alone could not both take care of young and provide food and shelter. We learned that if we banded together do more food production and protecting than hwn we were just two against the world. This model extends to tribes and nations. We are all socialists, get over it. It would really help if people that throw words like Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, and many other “isms” would actually learn what they really mean and what they actually are in the real world.


John 3 years, 4 months ago

Here is a definition of Socialism. "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.] A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time. Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution."

Sound a whole like the economic system Karl Marx advocated! Marxism didn't last too long.


jjhayden3rd 3 years, 4 months ago

Freedom does not mean free from responsibility. I hear and read the word “Freedom” almost daily. What do the people who call for “Freedom” really mean? If their definition is that they can do anything they want without repercussions or responsibility then I don’t think I want them to have the “Freedom” they claim to want. For example I’m not willing to allow someone the freedom to rob and injure me without any consequences. I’m not willing to allow a business the freedom to sell products that the people running the business know – in advance – that customers will be injured or killed without any accountability. As was said almost a century ago “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” The idea of freedom with responsibility is essential to the survival of any society.


Sign in to comment