Mediaboss Marketing

(Image: Lauren Walker / Truthout)

Donald Trump's campaign and presidency have ushered in a tide of blatantly racist, classist, sexist and politically repressive nostalgia, encapsulated by his ominous slogan, "Make America Great Again." As Trump and his Republican allies work to dismantle civil, voting, reproductive and immigration rights, another vestige of the past -- anti-communism -- has begun to reappear.

Fox News is but one purveyor of this ideology. As commentator after commentator sees it, communism stifles the spark that promotes competition and human advancement. In fact, any positive mention of communism is quickly and repeatedly condemned. For example, when MIT Press published a book calledCommunism for Kids, in April, newscasters immediately made it headline news, denouncing the text as "propaganda and revisionist theory" and lampooned the idea that capitalism causes misery among a swath of the population.

The network, of course, is far from alone.

Michael Savage's "The Savage Nation" ontalkstreamlive.orgroutinely lambastes CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper, calling them "mouthpieces of the far left, part [and] parcel of Pravda or Izvestia." Similarly, Glenn Beck's Mercury Radio Arts has aired a four-part series called "The Truth About Communism." "The difference between Communism and the Hitler faith was very slight," Beck rails. "The Communists of the Reichstag voted almost uniformly with the Nazis; they voted in lock step. The slogan for the Communists and the Reichstag, first brown, then red."

The communism Beck conjures is rife with deprivation, want and well-worn stereotypes and is likely motivated by the millions who voted for socialist Bernie Sanders -- no communist he, but that does not seem to matter. The series began in March and gave Beck a platform to warn that "communism" may be making a comeback. To support this thesis, he apparently dusted off a 1950s playbook full of warnings. "You can't own land or make money from owning land," he says of communism. "No matter how hard you worked to acquire your property or how many generations have owned it, your land is no longer yours."

He has also pontificated that communism zaps human motivation, since "everything belongs to the collective." In Beck-world, money is the sole motivator of creativity and innovation (a conclusion that is certainly worth debating) and since communism threatens money as we know it, he argues that it poses an enormous danger to everything red-blooded Americans should hold dear.

Then there's Breitbart News, where anti-Castro commentary is a regular feature. Trump, himself, has both feet firmly planted on this bandwagon, recently telling fans in Miami's little Havana that "we will not be silenced in the face of Communist oppression any longer." Indeed, he fulfilled a campaign promise by directing the Treasury Department to end the US-Cuba people-to-people tourism program. Under the administration's new rules, the only people who will be allowed to visit Cuba are those traveling with pre-approved sponsoring groups. What's more, Trump has repeatedly labeled Cuba a security threat to the US, charging that the tiny island has shipped weapons to North Korea. He has also criticized the country for granting asylum to Assata Shakur, who he calls a "cop killer." His call for Shakur's extradition has gotten significant play on right-wing radio and in conservative print publications and blogs.

And let's not forget May Day. Ilya Somin is a professor of law at George Mason University, home of the Koch-funded Mercatus Center. Mercatus exists to "bridge the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems," and not only promotes capitalism as the best possible economic system, but trains scholars to value rivalry in business and oppose all manner of regulations -- including licensure of businesses. Somin is a close ally of the Mercatus faculty and has the Center's support for his campaign to turn May Day into "International Victims of Communism Day." "We appropriately have a Holocaust Memorial Day," he wrote in aWashington Posteditorial. "It is equally appropriate to commemorate the victims of the 20th century's other great totalitarian tyranny."

California Legislators Declare "Communism Has No Place in California

Anti-communist grumblings have also grown sharper in state legislatures.

Several months ago, Rob Bonta, a Democratic California Assembly member, introduced AB22, a bill to remove a nearly 70-year-old statute that makes it illegal for members of the Communist Party (CP) to work in that state's government. He called the law a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and association, and pointed out that a 1960 Supreme Court decision made employment bans based on CP membership -- or membership in other organizations that advocate revolutionary change -- unconstitutional.

Despite this, conservatives quickly mobilized to oppose the bill. Led by Republican Janet Nguyen, the first Vietnamese American state senator in the country,opponents declaredthat "communism has no place in California." They further dubbed the bill "an outrageous piece of legislation which inadvertently hurt the Vietnamese-American community and countless veterans who have fought to defeat communism."

Others, including Southern California Assembly member Randy Voepel, chimed in to declare communists in North Korea and China an ongoing threat to US safety.

Bonta eventually withdrew the bill, and apologized for his lack of sensitivity. He did not respond to Truthout's request for an interview.

Anti-Communism Rises in Brooklyn

Brooklyn's tony Park Slope neighborhood is the site of a different kind of Red Scare. It's where Jill Bloomberg, the principal of Park Slope Collegiate (PSC), along with her assistant principal, a paraprofessional and two teachers, are being investigated by the New York City Department of Education for allegedly belonging to a communist organization.

Park Slope Collegiate is a sixth-to-twelfth grade public school, one of four programs co-located in what was once the massive John Jay High School. Bloomberg became PSC's principal in 2004 and has tried to promote the school'smissionas a "truly integrated school -- racially, ethnically, economically, and academically."

Throughout her tenure, Bloomberg has been an outspoken advocate for racial justice. She has denounced the use of metal detectors and called out inequities in resource allocations and funding. For example, one of the schools in the John Jay building, Millennium High, is largely white, mirroring the upscale neighborhood in which it is located. (In contrast, PSC is 79 percent African American and Latinx.) When Millennium was given $115,255 for coaches and sports teams during the 2014-15 academic year, Bloomberg took notice -- first asking Millennium to allow students from the other schools in the building to join its teams; when the request was rebuffed, she demanded parity for all John Jay programs. As she pointed out, the inequity was blatant: the three other programs combined received just $41,045 for athletics.

The situation got even worse the following year, 2016, when Millennium received funds for 17 teams, including fencing, baseball, basketball and table tennis. Meanwhile, only four teams existed at the three other schools; after Bloomberg and others protested this imbalance, five track teams were added, but the total stillpaled in comparisonto Millennium.

"Jill is all about the students," Patrick Lloyd, the parent of a PSC student, told Truthout. "She is very professional. In fact, she does all the things people in academic circles talk about as being important. If students are fighting, she promotes conversations to resolve the issue. She knows every kid by name and knows where he or she is supposed to be at all times. She also does something a lot of other people don't do. She fights back [against injustice] and encourages the students to fight back."

No one knows for sure what put Bloomberg and PSC on the radar of the school district's Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation (OSI).

Michael Aciman, deputy press secretary for New York City's Department of Education (DOE), told me by email that, "Ms. Bloomberg has been a strong advocate for her school community, and the recent concerns she's raised regarding the John Jay campus have nothing to do with the current investigation. OSI has an obligation to review and investigate all reports of misconduct that it receives, and the complaint against Ms. Bloomberg contains allegations that, if true, would be a violation of several Chancellor's regulations."

What are the allegations? I ask. What regulations has Bloomberg been accused of violating? Who made the complaints? "Due to the ongoing investigation, we cannot confirm additional details," Aciman wrote.

Furthermore, no one seems to know how long an investigation can take or whether the five-month-long brouhaha is near completion. "OSI sent someone to the school building on March 2," Bloomberg explained. "He said I was the subject of an OSI investigation, but that was all he'd tell me. The investigator then asked to speak to the assistant principal and in speaking to her, indicated that they were investigating whether two teachers and I are members of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) and are recruiting students to attend meetings and events."

Bloomberg emphasizes that she is not in the PLP, but also makes clear that membership in such an organization would not be incompatible with teaching. She acknowledges that she has been vocal in protesting racism and encouraging the students to speak out against discrimination. For example, when PSC's girls' volleyball team was mistreated by security guards at another school, the team -- backed by Bloomberg -- held public protests. This resulted in both media coverage and a public apology from the offending security personnel.

This was not Bloomberg's first brush with DOE authority. After Eric Garner's 2014 murder by police, PSC staff organized an assembly to discuss what had happened. "The superintendent told me that I needed to take a position of neutrality on this, but we can't be neutral when it comes to racism. The DOE itself should not be neutral about racism," Bloomberg said.

Patrick Lloyd agrees, which is why he wanted his daughter to attend PSC in the first place. He's still glad she's enrolled there. At the same time, he is appalled that students were pulled out of class and questioned throughout the spring semester -- without parental permission -- about whether they've been encouraged to attend protests, meetings or study groups. "My daughter was absent the day the investigators came to talk to her. When I heard about this, I wrote [the Department of Education] a cease-and-desist letter stating that they cannot speak to my child without my permission," Lloyd said. A number of parents have since drafted similar missives.

Student Amanda Lee, a rising senior and captain of the girls' volleyball team, calls the investigation ridiculous. "The only time I ever heard the word communism in school was in 10th grade global studies," she told Truthout, shaking her head in disbelief. "The teacher was talking about capitalism and communism and was very pro-capitalist. He said communism was bad and told us that if we had a pair of sneakers, we'd have to share them with our friends. That was it. If I didn't research communism on my own, I wouldn't know anything else about it."

Indeed, the situation playing out in Park Slope represents a type of Red Scare that goes far beyond the verbal prattle of far-right talk shows. It also reminds us that we can't expect the Democratic Party to protect us from this type of ideological posturing. "In a Democratic city, with a Democratic mayor and a Democratic Department of Education head, this situation reeks of McCarthyism," Patrick Lloyd concludes. "It's a good lesson, reminding us that even when we elect Democratic officials to a run a city, there can still be witch hunts."

Help Truthout continue publishing the kind of in-depth reports and news analysis you can trust -- make a donation to support our independent journalism!

View post:
Red Scare Redux 2017: From Right-Wing Radio to Brooklyn - Truth-Out

Many of those old enough to remember the Cold War are shocked by Donald Trumps embrace of the Russians and Vladimir Putin. Once World War II was over, Russia under Joseph Stalin continued to retain control of Europe from East Germany onward. The goal was to establish the USSR as an alternative to the capitalistic democracies to the West.

In Stalins Union of Soviet Socialist Republics religion was oppressed in favor of the primacy of the state, which was run by a despotic premier. The tenets of the Bible were replaced by the works of Marx and Lenin. The private right to own property was displaced by the communist doctrine that all means of production belonged to the state.

Smaller countries of Eastern Europe lacked the military capacity to resist annexation into the USSR, but the U.S. maintained its authority over West Germany after World War II. The Russians built a wall between West and East Germany to prevent western ideas from crossing the dividing line and corrupting the indoctrination of communism.

The Russians established an effective secret service, the KGB, to spy on citizens thought to be enemies of the state, as well as foreign countries. The KGB was known to have little reluctance to execute enemies of the state in sophisticated ways that would not reveal the identity of the assassin.

In the early days of the conflict between communism and western capitalism and democracy, the U.S. behaved as though it was at war with the USSR, even though there was no direct battle line and no shots were fired. Some analysts have asserted that the Korean War and the Vietnam War were fought to restrain the spread of communism in Asia.

The House Un-American Activities Committee was established primarily to protect the U.S. against internal terrorism, but it went much farther than that. HUAC was behind Red Scare campaigns that branded journalists, scholars and filmmakers as treasonous, thus ruining their professional reputations.

Even though HUAC was abolished in 1975, profound opposition to Russian communism persisted, especially among conservatives. On March 8, 1983, President Reagan gave a memorable speech in which he branded Russia an evil empire. He cautioned the western world not to turn away from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

Then in 1987, Reagan visited Berlin and famously said Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall. Two years later Germans began dismantling the wall. And in 1990, Poland broke from Russian domination. Other countries in the USSR then began to break away. While the Cold War theoretically ended in 1990, the philosophical conflict between the Russian brand of communism and western capitalism still persists.

Clearly, Trumps connection is not philosophical. He has already demonstrated a willingness to desecrate a major economic principle of the presidency, that the office will operate for the benefit of the republic and not to increase the presidents wealth. But given Reagans legacy, why have conservatives also abandoned that principle?

One wonders what else is for sale?

More:
Trump and the Russians: An unholy alliance - BayStateBanner

When I was 15 and 20, the Progressive Party ran Henry Wallace (in 1948) and Vincent Hallinan (in 1952) of the renowned local family for president of the United States on the Progressive Party ballot. It was strongly communist-influenced. Ive always thought of it as communist which is fine with me.

As you might know from my campaigns for school board, I devotedly subscribe to communism and socialism tending toward the anarchy described by Marx, the withering away of the state as we replace it with meaningful forms of control by us all.

Progressive is maybe getting redefined by people struggling to take control of our governmental mechanisms. But Ive long determined it to be a wishy-washy term for people trying to do the right thing but not being sure what that is or the way to do it.

The Berkeley mayors submission on July 10 indicated the depth and sincerity of the bodys efforts, much as previous government formations have done, not only here but in many places where candidates and elected officials would committedly like to find ways to carry out programs that are good for us all that weve asked for and demanded.

The problem is they cant be in capitalism which youve seen repeatedly. If we win something, we lose it; our owners steal it back.

An actually progressive government would make the effort to get us talking about the use of socialism and communism. Without us able to talk about it, we spin our wheels which I think you and our elected officials know. But, they keep their jobs, saying they will fix all that broken stuff of ours. Maybe they just need encouragement to agree to allow us all to educate ourselves about taking control of government, of work of labor for all our benefit.

Norma J.F. Harrison Berkeley

Excuse my language, but EBMUD raising water rates with one of the excuses being that they need to offset for loss of revenue from people like us who saved water in the drought is the most stupid thing.

The only people getting benefits from the rate increase are the executives. Yes, lets keep them in those manors, private jets and worldwide family vacations.

Juan Lores Richmond

Todays conservative pundits are an unreasonable mix of irrational arrogance and willfully blind navet.

Theyre convinced of widespread voter fraud despite the complete lack of proof yet believe global warming is a hoax despite the overwhelming scientific evidence.

Ed Chainey Richmond

Back in 1993, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a rodeo ordinance banning horse tripping and steer tailing, the first such ordinance in the nation.

The ordinance needs amending to include other cruel and nonsanctioned events, e.g. wild cow milking (in which a cow was killed at the 2014 Rowell Ranch Rodeo in Castro Valley and another bloodied at last months Livermore Rodeo); the childrens mutton busting event (banned in New Zealand on the recommendation of that countrys veterinary association); and all animal scrambles (pigs, calves, chickens, et al.). None of these events are standard ranching practice, and they are dangerous for all concerned.

Concerned citizens, especially local veterinarians, are urged to contact the board and ask that this issue be agendized: Wilma Chan, President, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, 1221 Oak St., Oakland, CA 94612; 510-208-4949. Other Board members are Scott Haggerty, Richard Valle, Nate Miley and Keith Carson.

As Tennessee Williams famously wrote, Cruelty is the only unforgivable sin. It needs to stop.

Eric Mills coordinator, Action for Animals Oakland

Regarding recent press about having Daylight Saving Time all year: Setting the clocks ahead one hour moves an hour of morning light to the end of the day. Thats great between March 21 and Sept. 21, when there is more daylight than night. But for the winter-half of the year, we need more light in the morning when kids are going to school.

Kids all go to school at about the same time, which is the same time that commuters are starting their treks to work. Darkness, or early morning sun in the eyes, creates dangerous hazards. Later in the day, schools end before most commuters return home, so evening darkness is not as dangerous.

As it is, Daylight Saving Time ends in November, nearly two months past the Sept. 21 equinox. Shortening, not lengthening, the DST period would make mornings safer for our children and grandchildren.

Bruce Joffe Piedmont

Read this article:
Berkeley, El Cerrito letters: A truly progressive state communist, which is fine - East Bay Times

The statue of Friedrich Engels pictured before it was taken to Manchester. Photograph: Nikiforov Yevgen/Courtesy: Shady Lane Productions

I first heard that Manchesters city centre had a new statue when pictures appeared on my Twitter timeline on Monday morning. The media coverage of the project had passed me by. For those of you who also missed it, Turner prize-nominated artist Phil Collins has moved a Soviet-era statue of Friedrich Engels from Ukraine and permanently installed it in Manchester as part of the Manchester International Festival. On Sunday, the festival closed and the statue was unveiled as part of a live film event called Ceremony.

My first reaction was anger. Why have we put up a piece of Soviet propaganda in the centre of Manchester? I then wondered what the communities in Manchester who have been affected by communism would think.

My wife is third-generation British Ukrainian. Her grandparents were captured by the Germans and worked in forced labour in Germany during the second world war. After the war, they were sent to a displaced persons camp in England and they eventually settled in Cheetham Hill, north Manchester. The city has one of the largest Ukrainian communities in Britain. It has a social club, church, school, youth organisations, dance groups, choirs and museum. The members of this community epitomise everything that is great about Manchester intelligent, hardworking, cynical, creative and good-humoured.

An anti-Soviet voice would have added an important perspective to the work

Communism was a very real thing for British Ukrainians from the 1950s to 1990s. Many had relatives on the wrong side of the iron curtain. Others had lost family in the Holodomor. Millions of Ukrainians lost their lives to the Soviet regime. Anti-Soviet protests in Manchester or London were a common part of diaspora life. You could argue they are also part of the Manchester radical narrative. The aftermath of the Soviet era still affects Ukraine and its diaspora today.

I have grown to love the Manchester Ukrainian community. We were married in the Ukrainian church and our daughter was baptised there. I have visited Ukraine on two occasions. I respect the traditions and culture of the Manchester diaspora. Like any community, they are not always perfect, but they are proudly Mancunian and deserve to be listened to.

I understand that art should be challenging, but for me the statue and Ceremony glorify communism. I feel uncomfortable that the statue was part of the Soviet propaganda machine even if it originates from the softer Brezhnev regime (the statue was created in 1970). The placards promoting communism that have been placed around the statue do not help.

Im not the only one uneasy about the project. Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan has asked where the outrage is, comparing it to erecting a statue honouring Hitler. But these comparisons by Hannan and other rightwingers are crude. Engels was a philosopher, not a mass murderer. A better analogy would be asking whether we would tolerate the presence of Nazi propaganda in Manchester.

When I saw the statue in person I was drawn to the faded blue-and-yellow paint of the Ukrainian flag on the legs. I assume that it was painted by Ukrainians following the fall of the Soviet regime in 1991. A part of me longed to repaint the statue in the Ukrainian colours.

Do I have a problem with a statue of Engels in Manchester? No. There is already a sculpture of his beard in Salford. He is an important figure in Manchesters history. But I do have a problem with a statue created specifically to promote Soviet propaganda being placed in Manchester if, as a result, it romanticises communism and totalitarianism.

The Manchester International Festival is brilliant for the region, but it is a shame neither the festival nor the artist engaged properly with the citys Ukrainian community beforehand. I understand that members of the community were approached about providing a choir for Ceremony, but they turned it down when they discovered the context. This was the first they knew about the project. The communitys anti-Soviet voice would have added value and an important perspective to the work.

Perhaps it is not too late to involve the Ukrainian community and other anti-Soviet voices. Sarah Perks, artistic director at Manchesters Home arts centre, told the Financial Times that discussion points would be created around the statues base to encourage viewers to participate. If the statue is to remain in Manchester, let us at least make sure all voices are heard in this participation and it is properly interpreted.

Look, this is a personal opinion. I dont represent the views of the Manchester Ukrainian community some may react differently. But at least involve them properly in the process.

Read the original here:
Manchester has a Soviet statue of Engels. Shame no one asked the city's Ukrainians - The Guardian

When the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban had a parliamentary majority, he pushed through dramatic changes to the Fundamental Law of Hungary in 2011. In Poland, Orbans autocratic counterpart, Jarosaw Kaczyski, does not have the same majority to change the constitution. However, this does not stop him from remodeling the political system according to his wishes.

Since the conservative Law and Justice party (PiS) swept into power during the Polish general and presidential elections of 2015, it has gained considerable means to change the country according to the illiberal vision of Jarosaw Kaczyski, the party chairman. Mr. Kaczyski, officially only an MP, is in fact the most influential person in Poland and effectively orders both PM Beata Szydo and President Andrzej Duda, whom he anointed for their respective positions.

Mr. Kaczyski controls the legislative and the executive, but he has feared that the strong, independent judicial branch especially the Constitutional Tribunal would once again oppose his planned reforms as it did during PiSs previous short term governing from 2005 to 2007. For that reason, the offensive against the rule of law started with a total political overhaul of the Constitutional Tribunal, which is now helmed by justice appointed by his party. This move, unprecedented in the history of democratic Poland after 1989, was heavily criticized by academic and professional legal communities and has sparked large civic protests in the streets. It was also the reason for the European Commission to trigger the rule of law procedure against Poland.

After taking over the Constitutional Tribunal, it appears to be now time for increasing political control over the rest of the judiciary. The three new laws include:

1) already adopted amendments to law on the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland, an institution that appoints judges. According to the new bill all sitting members of the Council are dismissed and new ones will be appointed by the parliament,

2) already adopted changes to law on judges, giving the Minster of Justice powers to personally replace and fine the chief judges of common courts,

3) currently discussed law on the Supreme Court.

According to a draft law on the Supreme Court currently discussed in the Polish Parliament, the term of sitting SC judges would be ended and those who remain would be personally selected by the Minister of Justice who is also Persecutor General. In this new system, the separation and balance of power is greatly diminished. The highest court becomes dependent on one politician with extremely wide catalogue of competences. As of today, this person is Mr. Zbigniew Ziobro, a trusted ally to Mr. Kaczyski. What sparks public fears and a wave of street protests is not only this extraordinary concentration of powers, but also the fact that Supreme Court validates election results. The next general election takes place in 2019.

Mr. Kaczyskis own sympathies and deep-rooted convictions are part of official justification for recent and planned highly controversial changes in the system of appointment of judges and in personal makeup of the Supreme Court. The Law and Justice chairman claims that after Polands transition to democracy, the judiciary was never properly vetted and that judicial elites of the Third Polish Republic are the same people or progenies (!) of judges who worked for and benefitted from the oppressive regime before 1989. Irrespective of facts, Kaczyski seems to have a twisted morality where children should bear the responsibility for the actions of their parents. Interestingly, Kaczyskis anti-communist sentiment is highly selective and does not apply to such figures as Law and Justices MP Stanisaw Piotrowicz, an infamous communist-era persecutor.

Speaking of facts, not opinions, all judges of the Supreme Court were vetted after 1989 following the lustration law introduced in 1996, which was amended in 2006 for all sitting judges and judicial candidates of common courts wherein they are screened to ascertain whether they worked for or collaborated with the communist services. With an inevitable passage of time, lustration laws no longer apply to younger public servants, who entered professional life after 1989 and during democratic Poland. A prime example of this generational change in Polish public life is President Andrzej Duda, PhD in law, himself 45 years old.

However, according to Kaczyskis logic, most of the judiciary is irreversibly tainted and by default compromised and should be replaced by new elites, chosen not on merit, but on political allegiance to Kaczyskis vision. Law and Justice won 2015 elections, among others, on fueling this anti-elitist populist and ant-communist sentiment. The latter is strong in Poland almost 28 years after the regime change, especially among the generation of people born after 1989, thanks to a decade of historical propaganda efforts of Law and Justice.

In addition, Mr. Kaczyskis party skillfully took advantage of the widespread dissatisfaction with the judiciary among Poles. While scholars of law and democracy have been proud of many achievements of the Polish judicial branch during the last quarter century, the average Poles experiences with judiciary are often negative. Lengthy proceedings, corruption scandals and perceived arrogance of the judiciary made it an easy target. Nevertheless, the value of rule of law and the appreciation for liberal democracy has not been forgotten in Poland overnight. The most recent wave of bottom-up protests in many Polish cities, organized by civil society groups, is a reminder to that.

What does the reform of the Supreme Court hold for the future of Polish democracy?

The Supreme Court examines electoral complaints, validates general and presidential elections as well as national and constitutional referenda. Moreover, it considers complaints of political parties who were refused public subsidies. The First President of the Supreme Court is by default the head of the Tribunal of State, an institution, which holds public officials accountable for breaching the Constitution.

While the Constitutional Tribunal is a guardian to our values and rights enshrined in the constitution, the Supreme Court assures that liberal democratic checks-and-balances work properly and that there is room for political pluralism and party competition. A political overhaul of two key oversight institutions enormously imbalances the Polish system.

Anna Wjcik is assistant editor at Visegrad Insight and researcher at the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Twitter: @annawojcik

Visit link:
Populist anti-communism in Poland - Visegrad Insight