Mediaboss Marketing

BERKELEY According to mainstream economic theory, globalization tends to lift all boats, and has little effect on the broad distribution of incomes. But globalization is not the same as the elimination of tariffs and other import barriers that confer rent-seeking advantages to politically influential domestic producers. As Harvard University economist Dani Rodrik frequently points out, economic theory predicts that removing tariffs and non-tariff barriers does produce net gains; but it also results in large redistributions, wherein eliminating smaller barriers yields larger redistributions relative to the net gains.

Globalization, for our purposes, is different. It should be understood as a process in which the world becomes increasingly interconnected through technological advances that drive down transportation and communication costs.

To be sure, this form of globalization allows foreign producers to export goods and services to distant markets at a lower cost. But it also opens up export markets and reduces costs for the other side. And at the end of the day, consumers get more stuff for less.

According to standard economic theory, redistribution only comes about when a countrys exports require vastly different factors of production than its imports. But there are no such differences in todays global economy.

In the United States, a balance-of-payments surplus in finance means that more Americans will be employed as construction workers, capital-goods producers, and nurses and home health aides. Similarly, a surplus in services means that more Americans will work not only as highly educated (and well-remunerated) consultants in steel-and-glass eyries, but also as, say, janitors and housekeepers in motels outside of Yellowstone National Park.

At the same time, a deficit in manufacturing may create more manufacturing jobs abroad, in countries where labor costs are low relative to capital; but it destroys relatively few jobs in the US, where manufacturing is already a highly capital-intensive industry. As Stanford University economist Robert Hall has been pointing out for three decades, more Americans are employed selling cars than making them. The commodities that the US imports from abroad embody a significant amount of relatively unskilled labor, but they do not displace much unskilled labor in America.

So, at least in theory, the shift in US employment from assembly-line manufacturing to construction, services, and caretaking may have had an impact on the overall distribution of income in terms of gender, but not in terms of class. Why, then, has there been such strong political resistance to globalization in the twenty-first century? I see four reasons.

First and foremost, it is easy for politicians to pin the blame for a countrys problems on foreigners and immigrants who do not vote. Back in 1890, when politicians in the Habsburg Empire routinely blamed Jews for various socioeconomic ills, the Austrian dissident Ferdinand Kronawetter famously observed that Der Antisemitismus ist der Sozialismus der dummen Kerle: anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools. The same could be said of anti-globalization today.

Second, more than a generation of inequitable and slower-than-expected economic growth in the global North has created a strong political and psychological need for scapegoats. People want a simple narrative to explain why they are missing out on the prosperity they were once promised, and why there is such a large and growing gap between an increasingly wealthy overclass and everyone else.

Third, Chinas economic rise coincided with a period in which the global North was struggling to reach full employment. Contrary to what the followers of Friedrich von Hayek and Andrew Mellon have always claimed, economic readjustments do not happen when bankruptcies force labor and capital out of low-productivity, low-demand industries, but rather when booms pull labor and capital into high-productivity, high-demand industries.

Thus, neoliberalism does not just require open and competitive markets, global change, and price stability. It also depends on full employment and near-permanent booms, just as economist John Maynard Keynes had warned in the 1920s and 1930s. In recent decades, the neoliberal order failed to deliver either condition, most likely because doing so would have been impossible even with the best policies in place.

Fourth, policymakers did not do enough to compensate for this failure with more aggressive social policies and economic and geographic redistribution. When US President Donald Trump recently told upstate New Yorkers that they should leave the region and seek jobs elsewhere, he was simply echoing the past generation of center-right politicians in the global North.

The global Norths current political and economic dilemmas are not so different from those of the 1920s and 1930s. As Keynes noted then, the key is to produce and maintain full employment, at which point most other problems will melt away.

And, as the Austro-Hungarian economist Karl Polanyi argued, it is the role of government to secure socioeconomic rights. People believe that they have a right to live in healthy communities, hold stable occupations, and earn a decent income that rises over time. But these presumed rights do not stem naturally from property rights and claims to scarce resources the coins of the neoliberal realm.

It has been ten years since the global financial crisis and the start of the Great Recession in the global North. Governments still have not repaired the damage from those events. If they do not do so soon, the -isms of fools will continue to wreak havoc in the decades ahead.

Read more from the original source:
The New Socialism of Fools by J. Bradford DeLong - Project Syndicate - Project Syndicate

Conservatives use the term socialism to describe government programs. Their purpose is to label these programs as bad, evil, foreign.

The meaning of socialism has evolved through the years. At one time it meant that the government controlled most everything. Later socialism meant that workers controlled the means of production. The dictionary definition of socialism connects it to communism.

Today however, in our country socialism generally means the services government supplies through taxation. This socialism involves taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole despite income, contribution, or ability to pay. In this sense socialism means we are willing to put into government hands those things that are mutually beneficial and private industry cannot supply.

Though the word socialism has bad connotations, it has positive meaning when used in connection to programs designed to help people. Part of conservative philosophy is to limit government and lower taxes. That may not be bad in itself but it is why they oppose Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, public education, childcare, minimum wage standards, womens health issues, health care for all, and anything involving taxes. (Notice they support a strong military a prime example of socialism- because that is the only service that their big money contributors cannot supply for themselves.)

Government sees the need for programs when private industry cant or wont help. Every democratic country in the world realizes the need for government involvement and all of them have a combination of capitalism with socialism. Unfettered capitalism does not work and that is why we have rules and regulations also branded as socialism to protect us from destructive forces like pollution.

Of course many programs and rules and regulations need improvement or upgrades and maybe some should be eliminated. But there is little room for legitimate debate in Congress when Republicans want to eliminate or greatly curtail programs, while Democrats want to improve those same programs.

A step to resume debate may be not branding programs with unfair labels.

Jack Strausser,

Elysburg

Read the original here:
Letter to the Editor: Socialism | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

A dramatic shift in electoral politics is currently disrupting leading capitalist democracies, challenging the ideological hegemony and legitimacy of the global neoliberalism of late capitalism.

In the U.S.,Bernie Sanders, a self-declared democratic socialist, almost won the Democratic Partys nomination for President. At the outset of the primaries, the nomination was widely viewed as a slam-dunk for Hillary Clinton. Some polls since the election report that Sanders may well have defeated Donald Trump.

In the UK, the Labour Party, under the leadership ofJeremy Corbyn, came close to winning the election, despite the conviction of the right wing of his own party, which repeatedly tried to oust him, and the mass media, that Corbyn would lead the party to its worst defeat in history. Corbyn, a militant socialist, ran on the most left-wing platform put forward by the Labour Party since 1945.

In France,Jean-Luc MlenchonsLa France Insoumise(rough translation: Rebellious France) missed winning a place in the run-off in the Presidential election by a few percentage points. Mlenchon was painted by the world media and the world establishment as dangerously far left.

Such events lead to an obvious question for Canadians: whatever became of the CCFs dream?

TheCo-operative Commonwealth Federation(CCF) was founded in 1932 in Calgary, uniting various working class labour and socialist parties with populist farm organizations. In 1933, the CCF met in Regina and adopted theRegina Manifesto, concluding with a solemn pledge:

No CCF Government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialized planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the Co-operative Commonwealth.

Co-operative Commonwealth

In 1934 the Saskatchewan Farmer-Labour Party/CCF became the Official Opposition under the leadership of George Williams. Williams served as Leader of the Opposition from 1934-1941, when he went overseas to fight fascism. Williams initiated a planning process involving the legislative caucus and key party members to prepare for power the plan was to move quickly on the realization of socialism. Upon victory under the leadership of Tommy Douglas, the plan was largely implemented from 1944 to 1948. It was a significant step in the eradication of capitalism in Saskatchewan, involving an ambitious program of public ownership through Crown corporations, aggressive government support for the establishment of co-operatives in all economic areas, the first steps in the construction of a universal publicly funded system of social and health security, and unshackling the urban working class through unapologetically pro-labour trade union laws.

The economic cornerstone of this new socialist provincial economy was the public ownership of natural resources and their development. This was supplemented by publicly owned industrial plants to process selected resources into finished products. The CCF dream now had legs, and became a beacon of hope all across Canada.

So what became of this dream?

The short answer is the CCFs parliamentary leadership killed it off and buried it, abandoning the visionary fight for a socialist society, where all could live in dignity and security. Instead, the leaders focused on winning elections through moderation and compromise, thus securing their careers as professional politicians seeking the ultimate prize parliamentary power.

In 1948 Douglas led the CCF to another majority government, 31 seats of 52 with 48 per cent. The partys 5 per cent fall in popular vote (in 1944 the CCF won 47 seats with 53 per cent), resulted in a loss of 16 seats. Douglas, the senior bureaucrats, and the cabinet panicked, convinced that a sharp right turn was necessary to retain power. The public ownership of natural resources and their development, the partys foundational, and most controversial, socialist economic policy was abandoned. The left of the party lost its most effective champions George Williams died in 1945 and Joe Phelps, the Minister of Natural Resources and Industrial Development, was defeated. Phelps had led the drive in public ownership from 1944 to 1948. The party establishment blocked efforts to find a seat for Phelps in a by-election, ensuring Phelps was kept out of the caucus and the cabinet.

The right turn was successfully executed. The CCF made peace with capitalism, inviting capital to lead in the development of natural resources. The publicly owned industrial plants were gradually abandoned and closed. The dream of the eradication of capitalism and building a socialist economy was unceremoniously buried.

Meanwhile, on the federal scene, M. J. Coldwell, a long time ideological opponent of Williams leadership in Saskatchewan, had replaced J. S. Wordsworth as national CCF leader. His primary focus in internal party politics was to ferret out and expel suspected communists, and to abandon the Regina Manifesto, which he described as a millstone around the neck of the party. Coldwell was finally successful in 1956 when the Winnipeg Declaration replaced the Regina Manifesto. The reborn, more right-wing and moderate CCF embraced a mixed economy and incremental steps in building the welfare state. There was no more talk of the eradication of capitalism. As far as the official party apparatus was concerned the old CCF dream was buried.

But it was a long and torturous road the vision of socialism is hard to kill. There was resistance from the rank and file all along the way. The main problem for the leadership was that the right turn was a dismal failure, but each new leader continued the rightward march until the CCFs successor, the New Democratic Party (NDP, founded in 1961), finally embraced neoliberalism, the latest and most savage stage of capitalism.

The NDP

This complete capitulation to capitalism finally tantalized the party under Jack Layton. The years of compromise and ideological cleansing appeared to pay off. Over four elections from 2004 to 2011 Layton led the federal NDP to significant gains in seats culminating in 2011 when the party swept Quebec, becoming the Official Opposition, one election away from power. Laytons death in August 2011 and his replacement by Tom Mulcair set the stage for the lunge for power. In the best tradition of past party leaders, Mulcair pushed through the final compromise rescinding the partys commitment to apply democratic socialist principles to government, carefully hidden in the constitution.

The last vestige of the partys socialist roots thus expunged, Mulcair transformed the NDP into a non-ideological government in waiting, able to provide prudent neoliberal economic leadership. In 2015 Mulcairs NDP ran on a bold neoliberal platform: balanced budgets; debt reduction; no new taxes on the rich; and the slow realization of increased program spending over years of balanced budgets. Justin Trudeau and the Liberals pounced, campaigned from the left promising immediate deficit spending on infrastructure, job creation, and greatly enhanced program spending. Mulcairs NDP finished third, behind the Liberals and the Tories. The party promptly drove him from office in April 2016.

This brings us to today, where the NDPs rank-and-file membership, and its electoral base, the loyal 15 to 20 per cent, remain considerably to the left of the parliamentary leadership. No candidate in the current leadership race has provided an engaging vision for the future. In fact, the race has been greeted with yawns not only among the public, but within the party.

The dream therefore lingers on, bursting onto the historical stage at key political conjunctures. TheWaffle Manifestoemerged from the new activism of the 1960s and galvanized the party in an effort to make a turn to socialism. It was defeated in 1969. In 2001 theNew Politics Initiativeadvocated disbanding the NDP and building a more clearly socialist party with organic links with progressive social movements. Though briefly widely influential, it was defeated at the 2001 convention and disbanded in 2004. More recently, as a result of the increasingly urgent politics of the climate change crisis, and of the suffering resulting from global neoliberalism, theLeap Manifestoagain galvanized the party. Its fate has yet to be determined, but the party establishment is firmly opposed. No candidate in the leadership race has tied his or her star to the manifesto.

Can the dream be resurrected for these times and move enough people to build a new vehicle for its realization? The first dream came out of the nightmares of the Great Depression and World War II, horrific disasters resulting from crises of capitalism. The dream this time must face the fact that the present stage of capitalism promises a series of worsening natural and social disasters, putting the social and natural worlds as we know them at risk the biggest nightmare of all.

J. F. Conway teaches sociology at the University of Regina.

All images in this article are from the author.

Go here to read the rest:
Canada and Socialism: Whatever Became of the CCF's Dream? - Center for Research on Globalization

In most platforms where I argue for socialism, I always get the brisk question; Where has socialism worked? My sincere belief is that the question that needs to be asked is; Where has capitalism worked?

The latter question carries much more weight compared to the former question as the system of capital accumulation has been in existence for more than 500 years.

The socialist system, in contrast, was only experimented in the 20th century. Following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, socialism was exported in various nations in the world. Even during the existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), capitalism continued to be a powerful economic system in the world. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 almost gave a blank cheque for imperialism the highest stage of capitalism to thrive.

While some nations, amongst them Cuba, China and North Korea, still pursue Marxist-Leninist policy positions, most nations of the world, South Africa included, are still predominantly capitalistic in policy outlook. So if we all agree that capitalism is the oldest system, and that it remains in existence in the majority of nations of the world, must we then not answer the question; Where has capitalism worked?

The failures of capitalism

Any attempt to search for the failures of capitalism, anywhere in the world, is equal to searching for the horse you are riding. In fact, those who claim not to see the failures and challenges of this centuries-old system display the highest form of political and economic absentmindedness. By its very nature, capitalism is a challenged system. It thrives on the exploitation of the sellers of labour power (workers), by those who are not really working, but who actually steal from workers by virtue of them being owners of the means of production.

Because the primary mandate of private firms is profit maximization, bigger and more powerful owners of firms are always looking for ways to grow their capitalist interests and have greater market shares. Smaller, emerging entrepreneurs are either forcefully removed from the market, or are simply swallowed by these economic sharks. Bourgeois economists tell us that this is normal. We are told that this shows that market fundamentals are at play.

Below are some of the grave failures of capitalism:

- Financial inequality continues to rise unabated and more wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the few. According to Forbes, the worlds 10 richest billionaires own $505 billion in combined wealth. This sum is greater than the total value of goods and services produced by most nations on an annual basis. Bourgeois economists tell us that these people are entrepreneurs and, by virtue of them being risk-takers, they deserve this amount of wealth, at the expense of the world population.

- The crisis of poverty is deepening. Almost 50% of the world population (3 billion people) live on less than $2.50 dollars a day, while more than 1.3 billion live on extreme poverty (less than $1.25 a day). The United States, which is host to 46% of the worlds population of millionaires, has more than 550 000 homeless people. These poor, desperate people, who sleep on the streets of major cities like New York (home to the New York Stock Exchange), California, Los Angeles etc., often build structures that clearly expose the contradiction between greedy wealth accumulation and exploitation of the poor by the capitalist class. The above picture is a reality in most capitalist nations, South Africa included.

- Nation states are captured by private capital. The challenge of corporate state capture, unlike many believe, is not a South African problem. It is an inherent characteristic of capitalism. In the current context of global imperialism, powerful multinational corporations act like global economic cartels to influence the policy and legislative decisions of nation states. It is because of this arrangement that the wealthy Rothchilds family, amongst others, has stakes in almost all central banks in the world. These are real examples of state capture, brought to us by capitalism, and not incidences of alleged nepotism, fraud or corruption which are sometimes elevated to state capture.

- Commodification of essential services. Capitalism is very ruthless. A dying patient, whose chronic ailment has been caused by the gas emissions by a firm mining in his locality, is chased away from a private hospital because he does not have money to pay for healthcare. Because of economic crimes of collusions and price-fixings, the state, whose resources are limited, depletes her budget by paying exorbitant amounts on medication from pharmaceutical companies. The state is then unable to employ more nurses and staff. By the time the ailing patient mentioned above gets through a long queue at the public hospital, his body may have given up on the fight against disease. In short, capitalism literally kills people through commodification of health, education, etc. as well as evil collusions and other methods.

What needs to be done?

In the short term, progressive nations must collectively introduce wealth taxes in their countries. In the context of South Africa, there is a need for the nationalization of, amongst others, minerals and banking sectors. The South African Reserve Bank must be owned by the state. There must be a creation of a state pharmaceutical company. Collusions and price-fixing must be criminalized. But all these need a decisive and capable state, with a strong and effective party giving direction and providing oversight. And, lastly, workers of the world must unite to destroy capitalism, and bring about a socialist world order!

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.

Visit link:
Capitalism has failed the world: Socialism is the viable alternative - News24

Its no secret our kids are growing up in a pretty different world than we did, with iPads and apps and smart TVs and video games to occupy their every waking moment. But at least one thing has remainedthe same all these years: kids loveto play dress-up. They like to emulate their role models and people they find interesting.

My own kids have dressed up as astronauts, superheroes, Ninja Turtles, Harry Potter characters, and princesses. But does it cross the line if kids dress up to look like someone from another culture? Bloggers Patty and Heidi Maloy from The Gala Gala Gals say no. But some Internet commenters disagree.

One of their blog posts, which was originally published back in 2012, has made recent headlines after it was resurfaced on Tumblr, where users left some scathing comments last week calling them both racist. The post in question showed images from a little girls birthday party, which was set up to mimic a Japanese tea party. Images included a branch with pink flowers made out of tissue paper, origami crafts, Asian-style seating using a cardboard box and pillows on the floor, and snacks that included tea, chopsticks, and tiny pieces of cake.

And finally, the party guestsdressed up as Geishas. They wore kimonos, painted their faces white with red lips, and posed for a photo shoot with their hands together to look the part.

One Tumblr user was not having it, and called Gala Gals Gals out for racism and cultural appropriation, writing:

The makeup is clearly reflective of traditional Geisha makeup which is yellow face and therefore racist. Furthermore the girl is wearing a kimono, a garment that has for ages carried cultural significance. Assuming that she is white how you can you think this ok? What rock do you live under? I suggest you educate yourself on the differences between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation.

Other Tumblr users, however, responded by countering that last point. One commenter, who identified themselves as Japanese, noted:

A vast majority of Japanese people actually enjoy other people making an effort to spread and enjoy Japanese culture, and encourage it A common omiage (gift) for foreigners from Japanese people is traditional Japanese things such as kimonos, tea sets, shisa dog statues, etc.

The commenter went on to addthat Japanese culture is highly influenced by other cultures, including Russian, Chinese, Korean, and European (just as American culture has been). That is, after all, how cultures evolve by learning from each other and appreciating each other. And if you ask me, this kids party seems to do just that it celebratesa culture rather than insulting it.

The Gala Gala Girls were not creating a party for their children to mock another culture. And it wasnt distasteful or even disrespectful. If anything, the girls were learning through their imitation. Isnt that what we want for our kids? Or do we want them to never experience, dress up as, or mimic another culture for fear of being offensive? Should we foreverkeep them in their suburban American bubble?

Despite the backlash, Heidi Maloy, co-founder of Gala Gala Gals, tells Babble that the feedback has been primarily positive and supportive.

While there have been a handful of negative comments from people offended for various reasons, many more have been complimentary of our creative and fun attempt to appreciate another culture, she shares.

In fact, Heidi says that her favorite reactions so far have been from Japanese readers themselves, or those with Japanese connections.

They, and we, recognize our faults in a few of the details and nuances, but see the underlying interest and positive intent, she explains. Every response from Japan has put a smile on my face.

Heidi also tells Babble that she thinks theres a definite distinction between cultural appropriation, cultural appreciation, and even cultural insensitivity.

I also think by misunderstanding, cultural appropriation becomes cultural segregation and I believe that is a dangerous step, she continues. Cultures have been sharing, borrowing, and appreciating each others art, architecture, food, skills, goods, traditions, fashion, etc. for millennia. I dont like the idea that we have to stay in our lanes. I think its more dangerous to teach this segregated cultural identity to our children than to try and share various ideas with them.

Heidi also points outthat Caitlyn, the child featured in the photo, is not just a little white girl, as shes been portrayed by commenters. Shes actually part Mexican, Italian, and Irish. Now a few years older, Heidi says Caitlyn has grown up to have a great appreciation for other cultures, and she wouldnt change one thing.

Although the family lives in a predominantly white suburban town, Heidi says they have friends in Norway, have spent time doing service in a small town in Ecuador recently, and long to travel the world exploring other cultures even more.

In my opinion, it sounds like Heidi of Gala Gala Gals is doing something right if shes raising kids who appreciate other cultures. So if dressing up as a Geisha and imitating Japanese culture helped her become a more worldly person, I cant help but wonder: How is that really a bad thing?

Brace Yourself A Lullaby Album of Justin Timberlake's Greatest Hits Is Coming

Article Posted 6 hours Ago

Original post:
Mom Accused of Cultural Appropriation After Throwing Her Daughter a Japanese Tea Party - Babble (blog)