Letter: Of reds, greens and in betweens

Published:

 

Apparently there is rampant disagreement on what socialism is — and is not. In his Oct. 23 letter, “Disagree but don’t promote falsehood,” Curtis Miller objected to an editorial cartoon comparing the “Occupy” phenomena to what he called “Soviet-style Communism.” He did not deny the comparison to plain old communism, but only its Soviet version.

Socialists will always deny affiliation with something unpleasant. If they actually agree with Soviet socialism but disagree with the policies of Stalin, then they will characterize it as “Stalinism” and not Communism — hoping of course that their pride and joy remains untainted by association to the 30 million souls killed under Stalin’s leadership. This is also true for Hiltler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse-Tung, et. al. More than 100 million people have been killed under the many variations of socialism attempted. It never works, as shown by current U.S. economic problems and those of socialist Europe.

Greens may think this number of lives lost actually benefits our globe, but most normal human beings see it differently. Socialism is envy, followed by theft. Socialism is certainly not new — it’s just 130-year-old organized greed. The socialist has always coveted something free from someone else’s labor. Then, they blame archaic artificial social groups that they seek exclusive power to define.

Frank Bair

Vancouver