A New Conversation

Communism: a) A theory advocating elimination of private property. b) a system in which goods are held in common and available to all as needed.
Capitalized: a) a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. b) a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state owned means of production. c) a final state of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equally. d) communist: systems collectively.

Democracy: a) a government by the people: especially: rule of the majority b) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. 2) a political unit that has a democratic government. 3) capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States --from emancipation Republicanism to--New Deal Democracy. 4) the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority. 5) the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.

This morning I heard a podcast on Taiwan and China. It was about the question of Taiwan independence or Taiwan's reunification with China. This is the conversation we need to change. I don't think we should still be discussing whether it should be Communism or Democracy. Those two ideologies have been exhibiting their forms of government for years, both insisting that they are the correct model. I say they have both exposed their worse sides now and we should be talking about adopting the best ideas from both philosophies. I see nothing wrong with 1)"a theory where goods are held in common and available to all as needed." Of course, not all goods, but definitely the essential resources of a nation should be held in common. 2) "a government in which the supreme power is invested in the people and exercised by them... (directly)...(I left out that indirect representation part)...usually involving periodically free elections." 3) "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
We practice this combination of philosophies in our lives. We have families where individuals are distinct from one another, have different opinions, different careers, different lives and yet share things in common such as a home, property etc. Democracy gone awry elevates individualism and power above community and the well being of all citizens. Communism unbridled elevates power and control above change or challenges to that system. Commonly owned is replaced by state owned or controlled. Why can't we combine individual freedom, (through equal opportunity for all) but the wealth of the nations held by the people. By wealth, I mean that no citizen is without the opportunity to secure for themselves the basic needs of life. And of course every nation should see to it that those who cannot secure for themselves those basic needs are taken care of. Adopt a capitalist society with a strong socialist bent. The wealth that is essential to a good life, (food, education, health care, jobs, cannot be left unmanaged or exploited. There is enough wealth for everyone. But it does have to be protected against those market forces that seek to own so much of that wealth that others are left without enough for their own well being. The few own the most. That is the worst of capitalism. The few control the most or everything. That is the worst of communism. There should be private property and common property. There should be individual opportunity but there should be regulation of common resources.
I guess my point is this. Not all ideas that promulgate the common ownership of wealth are evil. Not all ideas that make the idea of private property sacrosanct should go unchallenged.