Defining socialism misses the point

To the editor:

As always, Mr. Adkins’ articles elicit a reaction from me, sometimes amused and other times just annoyed. It’s entertaining when he writes lengthy diatribes about the Tea Party but has never attended any meetings or researched what they see as their mission.

In the most recent column, Mr. Adkins addresses the word, “socialism,” and as any good Democrat knows, it all depends upon what the definition of “is” is. In fact, the socialists/progressives/liberals/fascists/Democrats/communists have been defining and redefining terms for decades now and seem to have everyone properly confused, as is their objective.

Mr. Adkins seems to suggest that everyone is in some way “socialist.” Apparently, the new definition involves anyone who has a social life or is a “social” person. As a homeschooling mother of four, I often heard people bemoan the fact that my children would not be “socialized.” They hoped I understood that to mean they would not learn to be social, but I know that, in fact, they hoped my children would not miss out on being indoctrinated into socialist thinking.

The quote from a European Democratic Socialist (“It is government, we the people, which creates a moral and value system.”) seems to equate the government with being the same as the people. On this point, I beg to differ.

The government is a tool or an employee of the people, not anything more. In the United States, the people were meant, as creators of government, to be its superior. The people retained personal sovereignty. That was the entire point of the revolution.

The U.S. Constitution was never meant to subjugate the people but to establish a tool, a limited central government, to protect that liberty. Unfortunately, through the advancement of socialism, our government has grown bigger and more intrusive, and our liberties are at risk.

Socialism really is collectivism or more historically known as communism. Karl Marx honestly wanted to see true equality across the globe, even if it meant he’d have to kill millions to see it succeed.

What Mr. Adkins fails to understand is that progressives have been around since the time of Karl Marx. The various names they are known by does not change who they are and what they represent. Leftists, liberals, progressives, collectivists, fascists, communists, socialists and now Democrats. It all represents domination over mankind.

It all represents suppression of the individual and his liberties to satisfy the “greater good.”

Mr. Adkins may scorn capitalistic “greed,” but free market capitalism is the engine that made this country great, and it can do so again if government and socialists will just get out of the way.

But he is right in suggesting that a capitalistic system requires morality. Perhaps, as our culture and society become more lawless and immoral, our Constitution must give way to a dictatorship. However, let’s pray it hasn’t come to that.

Ultimately, it is still in the hands of the people to take back their country and to put government back into the tiny box originally created for it called the U.S. Constitution.

What a shame that so few really understand the beauty of that document and that its only real protection was in the vigilance of the people themselves.

Carolyn Flynn