24 42

Socialism: A Primer -
Socialism is an umbrella term for everything from anarchism to democratic socialism to communism. It is the movement away from corporate ownership in the economy towards more community and social control.
For the vast majority of human history, humans lived a communal life that was conducive to sound mental health. Much of the mental health issues in capitalist society derive from its violation of our caring, communal nature that developed during this period of hunting-gathering life.
As hunter gatherers, we owned the land, which generated wealth, in common. With the advent of civilization and its class distinctions however, the vast majority of people were dispossessed from control of the land.
In class society, the vast majority of people became slaves or serfs subject to exploitation and control by the land owning classes. Wealth disparity developed and accelerated tremendously with the advent of capitalism.
European capitalism was only able to develop by dispossessing its own peasants and the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa.
From its birth, therefore, capitalism's freedom is only available to a privileged few. Their freedom and wealth depended on others being subject to war, slavery, and exploitation.
Different types of socialist governments developed not as a matter of cerebral choice but rather as responses to very different historical situations in different countries.
The negative aspects of communism derived from it having been developed in countries subject to brutal, Western imperialist control. Communists became dictatorial in order to defend against Western imperialist attacks.
The positive aspects of democratic socialism derives from it having been developed in the imperialist countries of Western Europe. Capitalists in those rich countries allowed democratic socialism in order to prevent communist revolution. Each type of socialism thus developed in response to specific historical situations in different locations.
We know now that capitalism is destroying our physical habitat. Socialists of all types can unite in order to prevent that from happening and to transition to a more sane society.

Krish55 7
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Author often replies/likes Reply Author often replies/likes Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


no system is perfect we can all agree that 1% should not control 90% , thats basic math

The central point! You just cut to the Chase!

Yeah but who says they're controlling anyting there is a propensity and an ideal that everyone could come up with an idea to obtain wealth that's how the 1% got to where they are at.


As hunter/gatherers, which mode of subsistence represents 99% of our history as a species, for the most part there was no concept that the land could be "owned", at all. To suggest that is evidence of the strength of the ideological control imposed by capitalism.

chazwin Level 6 Apr 14, 2019

I cannot accept this statement: "The negative aspects of communism derived from it having been developed in countries subject to brutal, Western imperialist control. Communists became dictatorial in order to defend against Western imperialist attacks."

Russia was not under Western Imperialist Control during the 1917 revolution. They were in the war and backed out to have their own civil war. Authoritarianism develops for many reasons but it is heavily dependent on personality, in this case Lenin. There are also logistical problems. Russia, the largest country on the planet, then and now, had poor communication and good transportation only in a small region. It also needs to be remembered that statistical decision theory, things like hypothesis testing (at least the popular Neyman/Pearson version), were not invented until the 1930s. To plan a country's economy---in order to ensure a livelihood for everyone---was way beyond the computing powers and theories available in 1920. Note, for example, that the most famous critique of communism, Hayek's, The Road to Serfdom, complains about the problems arising from poor planning. The basic argument (from Hayek) was that capitalism's unplanned distribution policies is a far better than communistic planned distribution. But, importantly, Hayek and the other early critics were very careful to say that, of course, the economy must be defined so that all individuals and classes must have adequate food, shelter, access to health services, etc.

That critique is no longer true. I have students who do market analysis for Krogers and predict very accurately the demand for grapes or cheerios. Tools, data and computing power are now very effective. So the original criticisms mentioned above are no longer valid. Why then have things not changed for the better?

The economy has gotten worse for the impoverished and middle classes because the laws have changed to favor the rich. The legal structure was changed to improve the lot of the poor by Roosevelt in the 30s. Things continued to improve in many ways through the 60s. But then the rich got organized.

The initial big legal changes occurred during the Reagan era where, under the influence of Ayn Rand and others, greed was apotheosized and became the US god of choice. The lowering of the high end tax rates and the firing of the air traffic controllers were two primary events. The legal structure was then revised---consistent with the famous article from Lewis Power in 1971, the Powell Manifesto---and the attempt to rewrite the legal structure to favor the rich has been very successful. The Koch brothers, among many others, consciously invest in the program and ALEC, The Heritage Foundation, and all the rest of the neo-liberal think tanks.

So I see the situation rather differently than you. Of course I agree with the basic critique of Capitalism and, as suggested by the note above, I could go on all day about it.

riehemr Level 2 Jan 12, 2020

Yeah but you're making excuses for communist rule the excuse is that you're blaming Western countries for a how they act that's like saying all cops are bad and they're all racist which is falsehood in itself there's here to serve and protect their paid for by our tax dollars to keep the order because there's always a little disorder and crime that can't be stopped there's always idiots that like the steel there's always idiots that like to rape there's always idiots I like to do bad things so you have to have Law and Order that's why Anarchy cannot work and never has word it's a failed bastard idea

Damn voice recognition


More than a kernel of truth here!

Bump Level 4 Nov 8, 2019

Name calling is inevitable, I suppose, when the few who know of employee-owned companies are silent.
Unregulated capitalism selects for sociopathy, so corruption and name calling are inevitable.
Try a search on employee ownership.
Call me, if you must, a collective capitalist.

yvilletom Level 8 Aug 12, 2019

i like tge idea only problem with politicians today is that you don't know where their allegiance lies they say one thing and change their opinion on another I don't trust Bernie Sanders anybody that's got his wealth from capitalism and wants to change it to socialism there's an underlying agenda with him he also gets angry very fast so a my opinion he'd be more of a chance of dictatorship and changing our constitutional rights to fit his narrative.

@Drew69 Are you serious, or are you putting up straw man arguments?
Bernie wrote a book and it sold so well, I’ve heard, that it made him wealthy. If you don’t like his wealth coming from capitalism, should he have inherited it?
Of course we don’t know where politicians’ allegiance lies. If they win election, people will offer them money for how they’ll vote on laws.


Really I see a lot of opinion in that statement seen as Russia doesn't allow homosexuality doesn't allow wealthy doesn't allow the right to think or say as you please you have no freedom of speech Anarchy does not work in any country is a complete bastard of nature and doesn't hold any aesthetic pleasing or intelligence of personal rights,. Now let's talk about socialism it does not allow you to become wealthy you are to share all your belongings with everybody you are not allowed to dream of a better future just dream of a future where everyone's equal so if the quality is on the lower board or standard that is where everyone is going to lie let's look at Venezuela let's look at Guatemala Sweden has an 80 to 90% tax rate so the government is in control you've given a dictator complete control of what you can say earn or obtain United States has been a capitalist country for 244 years it is been a working capitalist country everybody from everywhere else wants to come here because of the freedoms because it works our founding fathers did not want socialism because of the corrupt nature it imposes upon its people that is Extreme evident throughout history and throughout the countries amongst the world

Drew69 Level 7 Feb 25, 2020

Russia is a capitalist oligarchy, it hasn't been socialist since the 1980s.

it was NOT an oligarchy. that implies ONE FAMILY RULING.

it was/is PLUTOCRACY.

and it was NEVER capitalist. it was TOTALITARIAN. nor was it EVER communist or socialist.

but dolts will be dolts and call it whatever the fuck.


I find your drawn conclusion that capitalism is the down fall of our society to be mightily fallacious. i would adamantly and vehemently argue that it is religion, specifically xSTAINity. the perverse odious vile disconnect of xSTAINity with the division, heirarchy, separation, and utter lack of human unity. with xSTAINity and its perversions of human life you arrive at papal bulls and blood quantum, and genocide of (here in the americas) over 500 million humans in a period over 500 years. (that's not to mention the wildlife that was mercilessly also genocided - over 10 million bison bison destroyed down to under 300 known animals in under 10 years.

humans mixed with xSTAINity is the problem.

lakota_5 Level 4 Nov 13, 2019

Vatican decree Admiralty 1450 has defined all empires except Muslim Hindi & Buddhist ....the banksters of Europe have decimated most continents and are closing in upon the melting of polar ice ..... not voting enables this crime ongoing and the only sane vote is peace through Green jobs


Behavioral Economics teaches that people have many different and competing motives operating when making economic decisions.

Yes, making money and what it can garner us is a motive. The word capitalism is often used to suggest that this one motive rules over all else. This would be the extremist view of capitalism and bears no resemblance to reality.

People have many mixed motives when deciding what is important in life. A major generic one is security. Seeking security brought about Social Security for old age. The motive to feel secure drives the Medicare For All debate.

Another major generic motive is the time to enjoy yourself. People really want to do things other than work. So the 40 hour work week was legislated and vacation time and holidays are set aside. This became the sort of social engineering within economics that most people overlook.

I would start calling a realistic behavioral economic system 'Socialized Capitalism'. A mixed economy more accurately reflects the motives of all the citizens that make up an economy. But it would have to be democratically driven to ensure everyone's interests are represented.

arnoldt1st Level 1 Sep 11, 2019

interesting idea i like it


It is called communism. History perfectly showed where the implementation leads: terror of the proletariat, communist concentration camps, poverty and absence of technological and social development. Social engineering, the creation of a new, socialist person, simple doesn't work. This is an uneducated, dangerous and very naive, childish idea.

zesty Level 7 Apr 11, 2019

Look at the history in more depth. You're commenting on one type that developed in a specific situation. Some of your comments are inaccurate. You do know that the USSR was the first to send a man in space...?

@Krish55 Gagarin was number 15 launched. The 14 fighter pilots before him all died. Do you know their names? Isn't it interesting that all the specific situations resulted in disaster?

@zesty Do you know the names of 15 Africans and African American slaves who died in order to create the wealth in the society that we all enjoy? Do you know the names of 15 native Americans at subject to genocide? Do you know the names of 15 Mexicans who died in the US wars of conquest? Do you know the names of 15 Filipinos who died in US genocide around 1900? Do you know the names of 15 Vietnamese who similarly died? Do you know the names of 15 Iraqis who died out of the over one million who died since our invasion in 2003? Etc., Etc.,..
Capitalism has created far more deaths and suffering than all the various types of socialism ever have!

@Krish55 You are comparing apples and oranges. Of course, there were wars and victims. The cosmonauts I mentioned were sacrificed by their own society. As far as number of deaths created by socialism - Soviet Union - 80 millions, China - 180 millions, North Korea - 45 millions, Cuba - 2.

@zesty Those numbers are ridiculous! 2 million in Cuba? How so?

@zesty And if you make the similarly ridiculous claim that the cosmonauts were sacrificed, then the same is true of those who died in US space missions!

@zesty Furthemore, your acknowledgement that Yuri Gagarin was the 1st person in space contradicts your earlier claim that there was no technological development in Communist countries.

@Krish55 No. The communist leaders sent 14 men up knowing that the probability of staying alive was extremely low. ALso, they never mentioned the unsuccessful, tragic launches. The US space missions were widely publicized and unfortunate accidents happened. An absolutely different ballgame! Comparing the US space missions to the Soviet ones is equivalent to comparing gold to excrement.

@Krish55 I never said that there was no technological development in Russia. Also, Gagarin was not the first in space. Just the first who returned alive. The commies forced the jaled scientists to perform and stole almost all technological secrets from the US.

@zesty The US got it from that Nazi Germany.

@zesty If the Soviet missions were excrement, then the US space missions were inspired by shit! After all, it was the successful Soviet human orbit that caused the US to compete

@Krish55 So did the Russians, of course.

@Krish55 No. Simple in Russia, as in any socialist country, the human life had and has zero value. So, they risked much more, killing a bunch of people. Free countries, as the US, couldn't and wouldn't follow this kind of reckless, inhuman approach. Well, the system generates the approach.

Since the natural mode of humanity has been co-operation, for the majority of history. One has to wonder at the degree of indoctrination you personally have suffered to denigrate socialism as uneducated, naive and childish.
I suggest you educate yourself with a little anthropology.

@zesty Hysterical nonsense from the country that has more prison inmates than any country on earth, with more police killings, random murders, people with no health care despite being the richest country - you have the cheek to talk about life being worthless!!

@chazwin Thank you for the suggestion. Lol
One doesn't need a background in anthropology to see the terrible suffering from the socialist nightmare. Just see the history of the 20th century. One must be crazy to suggest continuing the socialist experiment.

@zesty You mean like Scandinavia? The nightmare is capitalism which exports all its suffering to the counties that it exploits and the plant it is quickly destroying.
I'll wager you've not got a fucking idea what socialism is.

@chazwin There are no socialist countries in Scandinavia. Scandinavian countries are capitalist ones with high level of social services.

@chazwin The US is a free country. Your little island became a slave to PC and the Muslims.

@zesty You are ignorant,as I suspected. Run along now

@zesty please refer to the comment i made some moments ago. You owe more than your blinkered mind realises to socialism , from public schools to roads, police and fire services. Ignorant savage

@chazwin You are a primitive, uneducated little prick! Learn the difference between social and socialist, idiot!

@zesty You are a Trump-bot. My level of education is way over yours. Please refer to my previous comments.

@chazwin Funny! What is your area of expertise? Being rude to people with a different viewpoint?

@Krish55 And the Russia was drown in poverty and unequality before the 1917 evolution.

@NR92 Yes. And it became, naturally, much worst under socialism. everything is better then socialism.

@zesty Nope, after revolution, the USSR which was very undeveloped country under the rule of feudalism became the super power and the biggest industrial country in short time.
I think you are still stuck in the cold war as prof Richald Wolff said in his video.

@NR92 The Soviet Union superpower status is quite questionable. It was more like a paper tiger. It was NEVER the largest industrial country.
The Soviets caused incredible suffering to the world in general and to their own people in particular.
Using inhuman methods they built up a highly inefficient military industry. However they could never build a halfway decent coffeemaker or hair dryer.
The Soviet system was a despicable, terrible experiment.
As far as I'm stuck - do not criticise ME, criticise MY POINT OF VIEW! Don't you fucking try to degrade me because I'm a woman!

@zesty First of all, I invite you to calm down because it will be harmful for your health and it will cost lots of money and then you will have to travel to Canada to get cheaper medication.

They were forced to start industerialization mostly in military as it was under the direct attack of Capitalists and Imperialists from the first day they took power and then during the cold war by Fascists, they had very poor and backward army inherited from Czar Kingdom whom were defeated in first world war.

@zesty I'm afraid that, as a statement, is demonstrably untrue. But as a demonstration of the type of belief in an absolute that causes so many problems - an excellent example!

@NR92 Don't patronize me boy, you are not qualified!
The Soviet Army was not inherited from the Czar. By the beginning of the Second World War they had a very experienced army, evolved in the civil war. The inefficiency of the Soviet Army was never demonstrated better than in the Afghan was. Even the subhuman Taliban could beat them! Mind-boggling !

Comment text removed by group moderator Krish55.

@zesty The US equipped and trained the Islamic fanatics with modern weapons. Unlike the US, the Russians were not willing to engage in continued atrocities to win. They withdrew because in the 1980s, they were more humane than the West. And unlike the racist West, they valued the lives of brown-skinned people.


Whenever the topic comes up...I share this link....

Robecology Level 9 Apr 10, 2019

Gotta disagree with kids and grandchildren..but having Anyone with the ability to Track beyond's passive Fascism.


Caring indeed..

Charlene Level 9 Apr 10, 2019

Our species is nurturing religion was invented to rape women and brainwash boys into deadly violence against neighboring tribes


Hunter-gatherers did not own land. they didn't even want to own land. They hunted and gathered until the local supply was limited, then moved on.

It was collective control over the land that would be defended from intruders. You are correct about no individual ownership.

@Krish55 Collective control for a limited period of time, then they moved on.

@Alienbeing Yes. Collective sharing of the land.

@Krish55 For a limited period of time. Actually they were nomadic.


"a communal life that was conducive to sound mental health". This is an interesting claim. I'd be interested in any pointers to research.

Are you familiar with the notion - in economics - of "tragedy of the commons"?

Capitalism's "freedoms" is a strange term. Capitalism is available to everyone. Actually ... wait a second... not everyone. It's available to those who choose to work and, probably more importantly, take risks.

I think the aspirations of socialism are noble. When you speak of the negative aspects of communism (or socialism perhaps) I retreat to a common refrain: "Power corrupts". I think much of the issues we face is based on this simple notion. Power corrupts people of all political faiths ... from trump to xi jinping. Heck - we see it in the Catholic church.

Power corrupted in Venezuela (Chavez, Maduro) in Bolivia (Evo), 1940's Germany, Italy, etc. One could write a book.

npradrian Level 3 Feb 3, 2020

i agree

It's strange how that works, I'm ashamed about some of the decisions I made when I happened to have power over a group of people (about 50, nothing close to running a country of course). My mind was geared towards efficency, but I was clearly on the path to becoming a tyrant, even though freedom is high up on my value heirarchy.

If you’re still here, tell us your point of view on employee ownership of the companies they work for. It’s usually done with ESOPs, employee stock ownership plans so the employees are capitalists. There is on the web a national organization backing employee ownership for info.
For info on a communal life that was conducive to sound mental health, you may have to look at societies before the agricultural revolution. One such source is Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, .... by Ryan and Jetha.


Two words: credit unions.

pau11y Level 3 Aug 16, 2019

Hopefully naiive


I agree some of what was said. What was left out is the fact that human nature and selfishness are part of our simian heritage. We are literally savage monkeys who have not risen above many of our base instincts. This is due to many factors. The truth being that as a society, as a culture, we are so very primitive (primate driven), such children that it will take many generations before we are even close to a mature just society. We don't even have very good fundamentals in place to begin such an experiment. Just as America was once the hope of the world, we have now degraded down to savage warring tribes ready to kill each other just to get more of the 'pie' each feels entitled to. We need to wander longer in the wilderness to cleanse ourselves of the current poison. Do we survive this? Maybe. From the current perspective it looks grim and as if we are entering yet another dark age. The only thing that will guide us out is truth.

dandadan Level 3 May 25, 2019

Your response seems to ignore the ability of humans to learn by mental as well as experiential means. We can imagine scenarios and reach conclusions. Teaching and learning complex ideas is what separates we humans from the other simians. So we can, do, and always have, used these abilities to change our societies. We only need to agree to teach youth how to think and reason rather than what to think. When we allow any "ism" to be taught without countering it with another "ism" we set future generations on a path that relies on instinct (emotional response) rather than thoughtful consideration. These types of responses determine what someone will perceive as truth and so create disagreement. We also need to acknowledge that all humans do not have the same or equal ability to learn so any society will need to recognize this and pay special attention to the way we educate to avoid indoctrination of every citizen. In the past, methods of gaining support from enough people to any given agenda was more easily driven by survival "needs", while at this time we have developed enough technology to provide for the needs of everyone, but we still accept the idea that we need a leader or historical "ism" to provide for those needs. We need to recognize that most systems were developed with the idea of protecting the supplies that fulfilled those needs and are no longer useful. We need a new "ism". As Yuval Noah Harari so elegantly demonstrated, humans living in larger communities or societies do need something that they all cooperate for. They need a guiding myth or purpose. I think that a new purpose might just be "survivalism". But that survival must recognize it requires a diverse and healthy ecology and that a system for only or even primarily humans can never succeed.

But, one person's truth is another person's lie. I believe part of the problem is this search for absolutes: Part of this is nature, part is nurture/'social' conditioning. Organised religion has played a major part in the conditioning. It has also accentuated the egocentricity that is one of our species' faults.

I do not agree with you there, all humans are not the same. We don't all strive to destroy everything and everyone here on this earth. I don't and I know many who don't either.

@Jolanta i agree but i talked to a scientist that claimed in order for life to continue another 10,000 years humans have to die because of our propensity to destroy life I'm a pacifist granted I do eat meat at time to time but mostly I'm a vegetarian

@Drew69 Even scientists are always right.


To see socialism as a monolithic bloc is to project one's own monolithic attitude unto varied historical situations. It is the same shallow, close-minded attitude, impervious to reality, that religious fanatics exhibit. See the comment directly below for a good example of this...

Krish55 Level 7 Apr 14, 2019

If is for the people not corporation can be great but look out for corruption

bobwjr Level 9 Apr 10, 2019

Agreed! Please share sources. Thanks!

MojoDave Level 9 Apr 10, 2019
Comment text removed by group moderator Krish55.

Try again with something substantive.


Very obscure innaccurate generalizationS .... hunter gatherers and agricultural tribes invented religions to rape women and brainwash boys into deadly violence against neighboring tribes.....corrections to Knish gibberish should continue

Hunter gatherers didn't have any organized religion. You need to read what anthropologists have said about their societies. The geographer Jared Diamond has studied them. Those studies should help dispel your Hollywood stereotypes.


Anarchy is a a Libertarian vice and they always vote Republican....

This is true now in the US but traditionally not so.

@Krish55 sighs It has always been true.... Anarchy is the ultimate expression of the "rugged individualist" nonsense we have always seen from the far right...Government is seen as evil and wasteful always impinging on the "rights" of the anarchist. No government is welcome unless it is dictatorial in nature catering to their ideals of being allowed to take what they want from those who are weaker. It is government by the bullies for the bullies. Socialism is economic and social cooperation for the good of the whole group not one individual over all...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz Anarchism is part of the larger socialist movement. It has been that way for 200 years in Europe. It is socialist but with more emphasis on individual rights and local democracy. I am not an anarchist by the way but we do have to give it its historical due. Noam Chomsky considers himself an anarchist. Anarchists were also active in the defense of Spain from fascism. The movement has its strengths and weaknesses.

@Krish55 Yeah that is the bullshit line the Mussolini fascists like the Koch family keeps feeding their tools...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz What on earth does that mean? And you misspelled Benito's name...

@Krish55 I was wondering now I know....

i beg to differ VOCIFEROUSLY.

liberterians are just republican "lite" as vile and contemptible as the rest of the GOP.

@lakota_5 Bingo.... Anarchy has no relationship to socialism.... Anarchists are just frustrated fascists who can't gain wealth or power within the system and feel that if there wasn't a system they would be the "natural leaders" (AKA "the master race....).


Emotional anecdote about how bad an implementation of communism can be:

I grew up in a dictatorial country in Eastern Europe that has been part of the Soviet Bloc. People spent a large amount of time waiting in line in order to purchase food, and the variety of goods was very limited. We all had the same furniture, the same tv, the same car. Many goods were rationed, you could only buy a certain amount of cooking oil, for instance. There was a single tv channel, which spent a large amount of time broadcasting propaganda about how awesome our leader was. By 9 PM electricity was cut for a few hours in order to reduce useless spending and keep the population productive.

A policy our illustrious leader didn't get to implement was to construct huge buildings where everyone would eat state food at a certain hour. Criticizing the system was very dangerous and could easily land you in jail and destroy your career. Policemen were gods. The leader chose to increase population so contraceptive measures were illegal. My mother had a miscarriage and the whole family was afraid if she went to a hospital she would herself be prosecuted. You were presumed guilty of course, there was no due process.

The lack of goods and security did not apply to people who made it high up the single party ladder of course. They had whatever they wished while pretending we were all in the struggle together.

After the revolution we started seeing commercials, goods diversity, actual elections, rule of law (more or less, but much more than before), the freedom to choose where you wanted to live (before you had to live where you worked, and you got your work from the state based on 'where the country needed you' ).

So my perspective is pretty skewed towards capitalism, even if today some people are filthy rich and others live in poverty, the standard of living has improved tremendously and more importantly, people live with more freedom and dignity now. I'm quite afraid of socialism, knowing first hand what it can degenerate into. Let the rich have their toys as long as they bring value to society (people are not forced to purchase their goods and services), and let me be able to work and live how I choose, as long as I can provide for myself.

I admit I'm not very knowledgeable about the issue, and probably don't know many things that could change my view towards socialism. I don't know how a socialist utopia would look like, or if that is even possible. Are there any examples?

Radu Level 7 May 15, 2020

No one here is proposing what you experienced nor any utopia. Freedom under capitalism exists for the imperialist countries that exploit others. The Eastern European countries have now joined that privileged white fraternity in their support for NATO. These countries overthrow democracy in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa when it threatens their exploitation. Your formerly undemocratic communist country supported the liberation of Africans, Vietnamese, Palestinians, etc. If you really like democracy, work for economic democracy now and to free those who suffer for the privileges you and I enjoy...

@Krish55 I totally see your point, thank you.


This is a horribly flawed "primer" alleging a recent history of our species and habitat.....monetarism is a false belief system invented millennia after the invention of religion....the human "community" which you over idealize was betrayed by shamans to institutionalize the rape of women and brainwash boys into violence against neighboring tribes to rape their women steal their food and living space....coins and paper money are less than a few thousand years old and feudalism was a military hierarchy of inherited "right" to rule territory .....


So if Socialism is not "Mother Government" but rather communities supporting what is best for the community how come it is destructive to to democratic institutions? If the majority of the people who combine to make a community elect to have a body of their members administer services that meet the common needs isn't that a function of the democratic process. But if communities are made up of people who support one another how does that reconcile with each of us being rugged individualists who believes that we are only responsible for ourselves. And if we are only responsible for ourselves as capitalism leads us to believe do we become alienated which leads to more mental health issues?

ArthurK Level 6 Apr 10, 2019 figured that all by yourself..congrats..

@OwlInASack Great responses! Thanks!

Write Comment