Mediaboss Marketing

One of the things that makes this accusation so insane is that there are dozens of countries in the world with publicly operated national electricity distribution networks.

If public ownership of the electricity distribution network is an identifier of communism, then countries like Denmark, France, Finland, India, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden are all communist countries. Even various states and regions of the United States are a bunch of communists too.

Surely it's time for people to accept that they're guilty of mindlessly spewing toxic political diarrhea if their definition of "communism" is so dysfunctional that it defines Texas as a communist state because their electricity transmission grid is run as a not-for-profit entity which is accountable to the Texas legislature?

As a result of the Tory privatisation in 1990, and subsequent sales and sell-offs, one of the biggest stakeholders in the UK's national electricity transmission grid is now the Chinese state (through their CIC sovereign wealth fund)!

So anyone accusing Corbyn of "communism" for wanting to renationalise the national grid so that it can be used for the benefit of the British people and the British economy, is actually arguing that taking control of our public infrastructure out of the hands of the Chinese communists is some kind of evil communist plot!

The fact that so many people are parroting this kind of extreme-right propaganda nonsense about Corbyn's plan for the energy market just goes to show how easily programmed people are, and how irrelevant facts have become in modern political discourse.

If you tell them that Jeremy Corbyn's public ownership policy is "communism" they'll shriek and wail until they're blue in the face in favour of keeping things the way they are, and allowing the Chinese state to continue to own a significant stake in the UK energy distribution network!

It's both fascinating and terrifying how stupid people can be.

It's fascinating that these political sleepwalkers can be convinced to support foreign communists actually owning UK infrastructure simply by telling them that opposition to communist ownership is ... err ... communism!

It's terrifying because these deluded idiots are going to flock to the polls in their millions to vote for the Tories, and enable them to continue flogging off our public assets at bargain basement prices, to literally anyone who wants to buy them, including communist China.

Continue reading here:
State operated energy grids are not "communism" - NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL LOLS (blog)

Currently, hundreds of thousands are protesting in Venezuela due to government corruption, a lack of necessary resources and the collapse of the economy. North Korea faces pressure as escalating tensions involving the presence of U.S. warships near its waters yielded threats of war. Chinas government while communist in structure and function depends on the capitalistic consumption of its cheap goods, and allows the free market to influence and sustain its economy. Even Cuba has opened to the U.S., with the previous embargo being repealed and active trade restored between nations. These events in the eyes of the younger and older generations seem familiar, as they reflect on the recent history of other nations before them most notably the Soviet Union. When new reforms or revolts in these nations come, they act as an unwavering evidence that communism is unstable, and deprives its people of the rights and sustenance they deserve. Wherever communism is or has been its collapse has yielded a new hope for those living in current or post-communist nations.

Communism originally started as a ideology to represent downtrodden workers; but over the past several decades, it morphed into the workers nightmare. The conditions in which the working class lived not to mention the slim middle class that existed were so abysmal that they became a representation of common communist life. Lack of resources, goods that expired or deteriorated quickly, government corruption and the condition of civil liberties in communist countries what few existed all became common experiences of those living in said countries.

The cultural and social conflict communism created in countries that were partially occupied or invaded by the Soviet Union were substantial as well. To this day, echoes of the Vietnam War still affects U.S. veterans, Foreign Service members and Vietnamese refugees. While Vietnam has become more open to capitalist societies and consumerism, the state is still controlled by the same party and some of the same people that were part of that conflict.

There are other examples of the lingering effects of communist interference as well. For instance, the separation of families between East and West Germany resulted in heartbreak for many, and those who tried to escape or defect were often captured or shot. Another instance is the cultural changes that have taken place in the Korean peninsula, such as the gradual change in regional dialect and accent in the Korean language between north and south of the DMZ.

However, it seems that these nations are having a change of heart. While revolution may not come violently or even as a sudden event, the ability for governments to accept the free market even if gradually by allowing restricted enterprise is daunting to those who support it. In many ways, its why nations like China and Vietnam have existed for so long with communist governments, as it allows for the quality of living and average income to increase, as well as makes these nations part of a larger global marketplace. As these countries expand their economies, it is hoped that there will be a further push to promote civil rights such as freedom of speech, press and protection from legal injustice.

Once an ideological foe of the U.S. and its allies, communist nations seem to be liberalizing their relations to its former enemies. The current events unfolding in the remaining communist nations prove that this ideology as a form of governance cannot sustain itself, and that the survival of any nation is dependent on the free market and other forms of democratic government.

ILLUSTRATION BY ALEXX ELDER

See the article here:
Not a bang but a whimper: Communism is dying for good - The Ledger

Andrew Murray quit the hard-left party last December to join Labour

A CAMPAIGNING Communist who has praised Stalin and North Korea has been drafted into Jeremy Corbyns Election team.

Andrew Murray has been seconded from his day job as chief of staff to Unite chief Len McCluskey.

Alamy

TJust two years ago he wrote: Communism still represents in my view a society worth working towards.

In a separate piece he also suggested the apparent Russian invasion of Ukraine was a sign the world order is breathing at last.

The militant only quit the Communist Party of Britain to rejoin Labour five months ago.

Getty Images

EPA

His Unite office is thought to still have a picture of Lenin on the wall.

Labour sources yesterday insisted Mr Murray was not running the Election campaign but said had been brought in as a grown up given his experience of running Britains biggest union.

His daughter Laura was hired as a 40,000 a year personal adviser to Mr Corbyn last summer.

Challenged yesterday, Mr Corbyn insisted Mr Murray was a person with enormous abilities and professionalism with special skills.

But one exasperated MP said: I dont know where to start.

Mr Murray joined Morning Star as a political reporter at 19. He also worked briefly for the Soviet Novosti news agency.

A book on the Communist Party a decade ago by Francis Beckett described Mr Murray as extremely rigid and sectarian.

He added: Murray and the Straight Left people were more extreme than most of the Stalinists I knew. The Stalinists were known as tankies, but Murrays lot were super-tankies.

He chaired the Stop the War Coalition for a decade until 2011 and again from 2015 to 2016.

He has previously blamed Western foreign policy for contributing to the cycle of violence that fuelled the Paris attacks by IS.

The actions of the Charlie Hebdo terrorists were minute compared to historic imperialism. He described the IS march across Iraq as stunning.

Over a decade ago he said the Communist Party had solidarity with the peoples Korea.

And on the eve of the 120th anniversary of birth of Josef Stalin he defended the tyrants rule and quoted Nikita Khruschev, who said that against imperalists we are all Stalinists.

Reuters

Last week the Communist Party said they would not be standing ANY candidates on June 8 because they want to support Jeremy Corbyn.

Theyurged their followers to back Labour as the first step towards establishing a left-led Government.

Today Mr Corbyn pledged a 37 billion NHS spending spree to revamp A&Es and slash waiting lists.

Read the original:
Jeremy Corbyn hires ex-Communist Party official to support up his campaign team - who praised North Korea and Stalin - The Sun

Nathan Steelwater

Nathan Steelwater writes extensively on the industrial military complex and world events when he isnt preparing for the next triathlon.

In a smoke-filled college dorm room somewhere in this country, several students lament the failures of capitalism and the United States while offering simple, broad brushed, idealistic solutions to the worlds nuanced issues. Between tokes they discuss income inequality, the 1%, and how things would be better if we were just, you know, socialist, man.

One thing that these Marijuana Marxists will not discuss, however, (other than the hilarity of Che Guevaras image being used to make greedy capitalists that sweet, sweet, irony money) is Venezuela. Why? Because Venezuela serves as the perfect example of why socialism does not work.

Socialist policies have made the petrostate into an apocalyptic shadow of its former self. There are regular rolling blackouts, leading to medical emergencies in hospitals. Not to mention that Venezuela is one of the worlds most dangerous countries, with Caracas ranking as the number one city in the world for murder. Inflation hit an all-time high of 800% (thats not a typo) in 2016, and there are critical shortages of food and basic medical supplies nationwide. There are widespread protests and clashes between government and opposition forces, and the nations president continuously assumes more and more power all while blaming the countrys woes on everyone and everything but its governments policies.

If that is not utopia, I dont know what is.

So how did we get here?

Once oil was discovered in the early 20th Century, Venezuela quickly became an economic success. While a series of military dictators were repressive, they helped to consolidate Venezuelas resources and turn the country from a poverty-stricken Banana Republic (not the store) to a modern, industrial, state with a relatively free economy and strong property rights. In 1950, Venezuela had the fourth highest GDP per capita in the world.

The height of Venezuelas economic success was under the politically repressive rule of Marcos Prez Jimnez. Capitalism functioned with minimal state involvement, and market-based pricing worked regularly in most sectors, although strategic industries like steel did have state participation and the government was prone to crony capitalism and grandiose public works projects.

No matter how economically prosperous a dictators rule may be, it is still a dictatorship. In 1958 a coup overthrew Jimnez, and in the general election of 1959, Rmulo Betancourt became the president of Venezuela. Betancourt was an ex-communist who slowly began to move Venezuelas promising democracy towards socialism. Betancourt and his party, Accin Democrtica, sought to nationalize the oil industry and, through central planning of oil profits, provide a variety of social programs like free education.

Betancourts government devalued Venezuelas currency, undermined property rights, and incorporated the active role of the state in economics.

While Betancourt was unable to nationalize the oil industry, he laid the foundation for such a move. In 1975, Carlos Andrs Prez took advantage of the oil crisis of the 70s and nationalized the industry. Venezuela received unprecedented oil revenues during this period.

Venezuela became a petrostate, an oil-rich country with weak institutions and power/wealth held by the few. The government held all the economic cards and placated the people with social welfare programs that skyrocketed deficit spending.

When the bottom fell out of oil prices in the 1980s, Venezuelas economy took a major hit. The government devalued its currency to pay their debts, and the quality of life in the country plummeted. Poverty and crime rates skyrocketed. The people took notice, and after two coup attempts, President Carlos Andrs Prez was impeached in in 1993.

Enter the Bolivarian Revolution, a leftist social movement led by Hugo Chavez, which sought to interpret the ideas of Venezuelan hero, Simon Bolivar, in a more socialist light. With further state control of the economy, Venezuela suffered from Dutch Disease an economic condition where one sector progresses while others decay. Petrodollars were spent on social welfare programs to pacify opponents to Chavezs rule instead of further investment into other areas or into the oil industry itself. Corruption, once again, played a major factor in the Venezuelan government. Inflation and poverty rose well into the 2010s.

Chavez died in 2013 and his successor, President Nicols Maduro quickly devalued the currency to try and combat increasing shortages to include food and other essential resources, leading to widespread malnutrition. In 2014, the Venezuelan economy began to tailspin and in 2016 inflation peaked at 800%.

Liberty Nation has covered the various protests to Maduros government, which have been ongoing since 2014. The country is on the verge of coup or collapse, but getting there did not happen overnight. There is an adage about boiling a frog. If you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. If you put a frog in lukewarm water and slowly increase the temperature, it will boil to death. Whats the moral of the story here?

Venezuela serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of socialism and shows us that we must look long-term in our thinking. Venezuelas socialist policies did not throw the country into collapse immediately; it took a long time for the blunders of socialist theory to do their damage.

We should be watchful for those who would take us down similar paths, lest we find ourselves in our own boiling water.

Read the original post:
Venezuela: Poster Child for Socialism Hell - Liberty Nation (registration) (blog)

posted at 5:01 pm on May 14, 2017 by John Sexton

One factor that has helped the socialist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro survive in Venezuela is the strong support of much of the media. Cesar Batiz, editor-in-chief of El Pitazo, monitored the countrys TV news channels over the past month and found their coverage had certain things in common. He tells Al Jazeera, The channels gave more airtime to government spokespeople criticizing the demonstrations than to voices from the opposition. But at rallies supporting the government, the government and the attendees were interviewed but the opposition was not.

This government-friendly approach isnt the result of government minders controlling what goes on air, much of it is self-censorship by journalists who are very aware their careers (and freedom) could be at stake if they go too far in their criticism of the regime.

Globovision was an openly anti-government channel until 2013, when it was sold to Juan Domingo Cordero, an insurance tycoon close to the government. Then it announced a change to its editorial line moving to what it called the centre.

People such as Vladimir Villegas, leftist voices, were hired by Globovision. But even they have grown critical of a government they had long defended. Villegas and the channel must watch their words. The Minister of Information who happens to be Villegas brother has delayed the renewal of Globovisions licence. If they push it too far, the channel could be off the air.

Globovision is trying to get a diversity of opinions. Before, the channel was a political party with a camera. But now if you compare us against the old Globovision you will find a big difference. Our dilemma, however, is this: do we keep this space or do we adopt a heroic posture and get shut down, and this window gets closed? saysGlobovision host Vladimir Villegas.

It really is that simple. You can speak up and risk a) losing your job and b) winding up in a military prison or you can moderate your criticism just a bit. Of course wed all like to think wed do the heroic thing. But most people arent heroes and if one possible result of speaking up is that youwatch your family starve because you cant get a job in your field, thats a lot to ask of anyone.

Meanwhile, I noticed that over at Jacobin, an online magazine offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture, they have a lead article today titled Why is Venezuela spiraling out of control? Theres an obvious answer to that question: socialism failed again. But needless to say, Jacobin isnt interested in that explanation. Instead, the author grudgingly admits the country might have a problem with authoritarianism:

Yet while previous claims of Venezuelas authoritarianism had little merit, this is no longer the case. A series of government actions since early 2016 has made it increasingly difficult to contest the idea that Venezuela is moving in an authoritarian direction. First, throughout 2016 the Supreme Court, which is clearly and even openly subordinate to the executive branch, blocked the opposition-controlled National Assembly, which won the legislative majority in December 2015, from passing any major legislation. In some cases, the legislature was attempting to act beyond its authority, for example, in seeking to grant amnesty to prisoners like Leopoldo Lpez. Yet the Supreme Courts systematic blockage of the National Assembly effectively rendered the oppositions newly captured legislative majority and thus the December 2015 election results null. Second, after months of foot-dragging, the government cancelled a constitutionally allowed recall referendum process in October 2016.

Third, the government indefinitely postponed municipal and regional elections that should have occurred in 2016, according to the constitution (although Maduro recently moved to set a date for the elections). Fourth, as noted, the Supreme Court issued a ruling dissolving the National Assembly in March, before partially reversing itself days later, after Maduro asked the Supreme Court to review its decision. Maduro was spurred to action when his own attorney general, Luisa Ortega, took the unprecedented step of publicly condemning the Supreme Court decision as a rupture in the constitutional order. Fifth, in April 2017 Henrique Capriles, a leading opposition figure and two-time former presidential candidate (in 2012 and 2013), was banned from participating in politics for fifteen years, on highly dubious grounds.

The author apparently didnt see any of this coming. He cites the ruling preventing Henrique Capriles from running for office as a sign of authoritarianism, but what about putting the other leading opposition figure, Leopoldo Lpez, in a military prison on trumped up charges? That happened three years ago and should have been a hint the ruling socialists were heading down an authoritarian road.

Jacobins summary of the situation doesnt mention why people are in the streets: theyre starving to death. Venezuelans have resorted to digging through trash and eating stray pets to stay alive. The socialist government is in charge of food distribution and has even taken over bakeries recently, but the system is a complete disaster. Theres nothing funny about the situation in Venezuela, but there is something funny about the socialists who cheered for the country and are just beginning to realize it might be an authoritarian hellhole.

Go here to see the original:
Venezuela's socialist dictatorship gets a hand from friendly media An error occurred. - Hot Air