Letters to the Editor

What does socialism really mean? Depends on your point of view

The grave of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery in London
The grave of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery in London Associated Press file photo

People matter more than companies

Apparently, commentator Lee Enochs and many other conservative/capitalist pundits need a concise and correct definition of socialism and what it does. (March 3, 5B, “Venezuela shows US dangers of socialism”)

According to my dictionary, socialism is a theory or system of ownership of the means of production and distribution by society rather than by individuals.

Comparing this definition to any system that resembles it in the United States of America is a giant leap. In fact, it is a comparison that can’t really be made.

Too many Republican writers cannot get past their first line without condemning out of hand anyone who advocates social programs that serve the common good, the general welfare of our citizens and humankind.

I do not know of one person on the left who is advocating socialism, or anything close to it. However, I seem to hear those on the conservative side supporting a monopolist stranglehold on our nation. This version of capitalism shares few of companies’ rewards with workers or the communities in which they do business.

Democrats and progressives hold to the radical notion that government done right — be it city, state or federal — can be a force for good and a benefit for everyone.

K.D. Boyd,

Granbury

It isn’t yours to share around

In a nutshell: Socialism is taking your paycheck after a day’s work and handing it over to your neighbor while you wait for another worker to hand you his or her paycheck.

Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.

Dorothy Winters,

Kennedale

The popular vote is an unjust idea

Thank you to the March 3 letter writer for his simple explanation of why the popular vote is good for state government but not good for the presidential vote. (4B)

The popular vote would mean that the largest cities in the country would be voting for the president of all 50 states. Basically, the less-populated states would have no say in presidential elections. It seems many of us have forgotten what we learned in high school government.

This explanation should be printed on the front pages of newspapers all over the country.

M. L. Wilber,

Weatherford

The popular vote is the right plan

The writer of a March 3 letter about the popular vote made some very insulting statements to voters.

I often vote for both Republicans and Democrats, depending upon which I think is the right choice. In the last primary for president, I voted for a Republican, but not Donald Trump.

I decided then never again to vote in a presidential election as long as we have the Electoral College. I will continue to vote in primaries for president and in general elections that are decided by the majority.

It simply is not true that “only Democrats, progressives, liberals, socialists and fools want to eliminate the Electoral College,” as the letter said. It is also not true that if the presidential election were to be decided by majority vote “major cities (would) elect the president and the rest of the country sucks eggs.”

There is no reason people all over the country cannot make it to the polls. If the writer wants to use the terms “inane” and “fools,” I think those are fair terms to apply to those who choose not to vote at all. But I do not need an elector whom I know nothing about to make a decision for me. For all I know, those electors might very well be “fools” or “inane.”

Shirley Wiley,

White Settlement

  Comments