Mediaboss Marketing

Freeman Dyson, August 2007. Photo: Monroem/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.

On February 28, just a few weeks before the United States plunged into lockdown, the world lost the visionary physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson. Although widely celebrated for his expansive scientific achievements, eulogisers have given scant attention to his progressive political imagination and longtime identification as a pacifist and socialist.

Five years ago, when theNew York Timesasked him which writers hed invite to a literary dinner party, Dysonchose three womenhe already knew so he would not need to waste time on formal introductions: the classical archeologist Joan Breton Connelly, the science fiction writer Mary Doria Russell, and me. He said he selected his guests because all of our books explored the mystery of self-sacrifice, of what inspired ordinary men and women to ignore their own self-interest for the sake of the greater good. The key to the future, he seemed to indicate, hinged on understanding the roots of altruism.

For Dyson, the mysteries of human behaviour were just as deep and enduring as the mysteries of the universe. In the sheer breadth of his interests, Dyson embodied the ideal of the Renaissance man, widely knowledgeable across multiple fields of inquiry. In addition to his groundbreaking work in astrophysics and quantum mechanics, Dyson revelled in the humanities and social sciences, exploring big questions not everyone has the courage to ask.

He had some wild ideas about life beyond our planet. He theorised about extraterrestrials powering their civilisations by building spheres around their sunsas well asgenetically engineered treesthat could grow on comets. But Dyson had social dreams, too, dreams about how to make our world more peaceful, cooperative, and kind. A profound admirer of Mohandas Gandhi, he cared as much about poetry and politics as he did about planets. Over more than six decades at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, his incisive mind inspired generations of scholars across many disciplines, including me.

I first met Dyson when standing behind him in the lunch line as he pondered his midday meal choices. Starstruck and bashful, I introduced myself and mumbled something about working in Bulgaria.

Bulgaria? His eyes lit up. He had a schoolmate who had died in Bulgaria fighting with the anti-fascist partisans and had many questions. You must come and see me, he said.

And so began our thirteen-year friendship forged through lunch dates, email exchanges, and one real-life literary dinner party. Over hours of shared conversation, we discussed the ramifications of artificial wombs and womens rights, the appeals of European populism, the psychological impacts of new technologies, and his pleasure in having both grandchildren and grandbooks (books written by his children).

But mostly, we argued about socialism and capitalism.

Born in 1923, Dyson was brought up as a socialist in England. In response to an undergraduate studentwho asked him in 2012 about the non-science issues he had struggled with during his life, Dyson replied, adapting my socialist principles to a capitalist society after he moved from Great Britain to the United States.

Dyson was sympathetic to the ideals of people like his Winchester classmate Frank Thompson, a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, who fought with the Bulgarian partisans and was murdered in 1944, and ofElena Lagadinova, the youngest female partisan who went on to become a prominent socialist champion for womens rights at the United Nations. But later in life, Dysons eldest daughter convinced him that capitalism could be creative, and he defended the possibility of a third way.

Capitalism is a risky game, he wrote to me in an email on November 17, 2018, articulating a social-democratic vision for his ideal society. With big gaps between winners and losers. Socialism tries to minimise risk, and succeeds in making a society kinder to losers. I am saying that we should aim to create a society combining the advantages of socialism and capitalism. Big freedom and big prizes for winners. Safe jobs and help with child-raising for losers.

Also read: Freeman Dyson, the Subversive Physicist Who Imagined New Futures for Humanity

While I tended to be much more critical of capitalism, he believed that human innovation could solve the worlds problems if the right people put their minds to it. Although famouslya contrarian including, unfortunately, on the issue ofclimate change Dyson was definitely one of the right minds asking the right kinds of questions.

When Iinterviewed himin 2007 for the magazineGeek Monthly,he still spoke of his own socialist principles and how theidea of extravagant wealth is evil in itself. Like his esteemed colleague at the Institute for Advanced Study,Albert Einstein, Dyson was an open-minded scientist who understood the rational arguments for a more humane economic system. The global bank of genius is much depleted without him.

But what I miss most about him was his tireless hope for the future. In late 2017, I sent Dyson a fear-infused missive about the rise of right-wing leaders and neofascist violence in Eastern Europe. The world was going to hell in a handcart, I wrote him. Dyson, ever the nonagenarian wise man, soothed my fears by trying to put everything in perspective.

Frank and Elena and I have the advantage of having grown up in the 1930s, he wrote. If you grew up in the 1930s it is glaringly obvious that the world is better now than it was then, and you cannot help being an optimist. The troubles of today are real, but nothing like as pervasive and threatening as the troubles of the 1930s. We should give humanity credit for some amazing achievements in the last eighty years.

He listed the transformation of Germany and Japan from dictatorships into democracies, the end of colonial rule in Africa and Asia, the technical improvements in agriculture that resulted in more stable food supplies, and the eradication of abject poverty in places like India and China.

The disasters and failures that loom so large in your view of the world today are quite small when you compare them with the injustices and miseries of the past, Dyson wrote.

He believed that human creativity and tenacity would save us as it had in the past. And it wouldnt require extraterrestrial vegetation or star-encompassing megastructures, but simply a collective willingness of ordinary men and women to self-sacrifice and keep fighting for a better world.

At the end of 2020, all that sometimes feels like science fiction to me. But as the coronavirus continues to ravage the planet and Trump raves like mad King George in the White House, I find myself desperately striving to capture some of Dysons optimism.

Kristen R. Ghodsee is professor of Russian and East European Studies and a member of the Graduate Group in Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the author of eight books, includingWhy Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence.

This article was first published by Jacobin and has been republished here with permission.

Continue reading here:
The Socialism of Freeman Dyson - The Wire Science

by Kevin Ellis At 300,000 deaths and a crippled economy, we are now on the verge of another stimulus bill from Congress to keep the country afloat.

Unemployment checks are running out along with paycheck protection and renter forgiveness. Lacking a stimulus bill, we will see even worse income inequality and hardship for hard-working people on the edge - evictions and hunger while the stock-holding class watches their unearned income hit record highs.

But there is another issue we need to tackle: who gets the stimulus money? Corporations or people? For months, corporations have been lining up at the federal trough via their lobbyists and lawyers and political contributions for a bite at the next COVID bailout apple.

Which leads us to this discussion. Why do we prize capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down, as NYU Professor Scott Galloway asks?

We are all for ruthless, capitalist competition among companies. It breeds innovation, lower prices, creates prosperity that grows the economy and helps people out of poverty. We reward risk-takers with wealth when they win on those risks. We argue about how unfettered that capitalism should be. I like more regulation to spread the spoils and guard against evildoers. Republicans want less. (Not sure why they want less but thats a different column)

My issue for this week is what happens when things go bad, on the way down. We are all for capitalism on the way up. But why arent we for capitalism when things go bad? After the 9-11 terror attacks, we spent ourselves in hoc for national security (war). In 2008, Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry Paulson got down on one knee and begged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bail out the Wall Street banks to save the country from the George W Bush recession of historical proportions (unfettered capitalism).

Obama and Congress bailed out the auto industry to save the jobs of the workers and avoid a depression. I supported it then. Not sure now.

Then COVID hit and here we go again. A massive Trump recession and we taxpayers find ourselves bailing out airlines, cargo companies and Boeing. Why do we protect these companies with government money? That is socialism. If you are against socialism, then be against it. You cant support billions to lure Amazon to Queens and be for competition at the same time.

We should let companies fail. Thats right. Let them go bankrupt. Galloway at NYU calls bailouts hate crimes against future generations because they have to pay the bill.

We do this as the companies wanting federal stimulus money bought back their stock, increased their dividends and paid their executives huge sums. They jacked their stock price and left themselves without the rainy day money necessary to weather the COVID recession.

Those free-marketers who love capitalism suddenly support socialism bailouts for the companies who should be taking the pipe.

Let them fail. Failure is good. It forces innovation, creates new relationships and new companies. Chapter 11 protects workers. The only people hurt are the stockholders and hedge funds who invested in the company. They took risk. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose. Thats capitalism. And I am all for it.

Instead of giving taxpayer money to Delta and Boeing, we should give money directly to people to tide them over. They use that money to start new businesses, pay rent and mortgages, eat and shop. That's the economy.

Bailing out failing corporations is crony capitalism and another example of how we have lost the ethic built in World War II when companies turned factories into the greatest industrial machine in history to defeat Fascism. What have these huge companies done for the country in the pandemic? I await the stories about how Delta Airlines helped in this war effort.

The last relief package at $2 trillion in March included a massive tax cut for rich people and direct grants to major corporations. Our children are expected to pay that back - to China by the way. As usual, the U.S. Senate made the wealthier more wealthy and threw scraps to Uber drivers and food delivery people. As I like to say - Bernie was right.

Next time you see a big corporation take out a full-page ad saying We are all in this together? ask yourself what they have done to protect their employees or contribute to the COVID effort.

Im a capitalist. If airlines and car companies cant make it, let them go bankrupt. Thats capitalism.

See more here:
Ellis: Pandemic Socialism, conflict of interest - Vermont Biz

Northwest Florida Daily News

A lot has been discussed recently about socialism. People are worried that that an elected democrat will turn us into a socialist country. I decided it was time to take a deep dive into the meaning of socialism.

From Merriam Webster:

Socialism: Systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

More: Have an opinion? Submit a Letter to the Editor

More: LETTER: GOP needs to be part of healing process

Some examples of socialism in American are farm subsidies, Medicare, Social Security, Infrastructure, education, policing and fire, clean water, etc. We all like that.

Words we have forgotten:

Empathy: The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.

Integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values.

Democracy (noun): 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.

Federal Republic (this is us):

While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. ... A republic is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.

Fun Fact. Before Hitler rose to power, they had a democracy. They had a President, a Parliament and held elections. Four years later, Hitler was elected as Chancellor and we know the rest. My point being is that things can change very fast if we arent paying attention.

Folks, its time to move on and remember we are all Americans. We have the same hopes and dreams, we love our children and care about each other. If we dont, as was recently said, someone is going to get hurt, shot or killed.

Leslie Martin Tucker, Shalimar

Read more here:
LETTER: We should all act like the Americans we are - The Northwest Florida Daily News

I was a lifelong Republican, but recently Ive become disenchanted with nonsense and inanity. I changed to commonsense independent. I make political choices based upon the person, facts, history and science not innuendo, hypocrisy and suspicion!

Per Republican dogma, most regulation is bad and the free market should rule. Every time industry is deregulated, they say, costs are lowered and service improves because of the competition.

To this end, I offer just two words: cable TV!

Now, if we look to other items, the Environmental Protection Agency was created to stop rivers from burning, the Love Canal, contaminants in the Hudson River, the brown haze over cities in summer, etc. It was not some governmental or Democratic ploy.

If the above Republican logic is correct, why not deregulate/privatize fire departments, so that free market competition can improve service? Most of us never use the services, so let people whose stupidity or ineptitude cause fires be the ones who pay. If you need them, trucks will quickly arrive and the fire chief will say they are ready to help cash, check or credit card?

Our current system is a form of socialism for the common good.

Finally, President Donald Trump said last month that drug companies pricing practices are detrimental to Americans. He said he will do something about it. The reason the rest of the world has lower prices is because of regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. But in the U.S., the free market sets prices. This Trump action is socialist.

Be careful what you wish for. It might come true!

Bill Weiss

Manheim Township

Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Original post:
On regulations and socialism (letter) | Letters To The Editor - LancasterOnline

To most Democrats, socialism means national health care, preschool for all, and a bevy of policies legislated by the federal government for the public good. To Republicans, socialism has a panoply of altogether different meanings, deep-seated and wrapped in guttural feelings. Feelings, Democrats would be wise to understand and appreciate.

To a significant group of Republicans, socialism is seen as a gateway to communism. Certainly, for those who have lived under the communist governments in Cuba and Venezuela, the emotional scars are deep. Any movement toward socialism for these people is perceived as entering a slippery slope. We saw this attitude clearly demonstrated in Miami. In a population that is 70 percent Hispanic or Latino, Donald Trump received very strong support.

The distinction between socialism, communism and the freedoms in socialist-democracies are lost for these voters. Cradle-to-grave government safety nets are seen as the opposite of individual responsibility. Socialism is perceived as totalitarian rule.

Government takeover is another, and perhaps strongest meaning of socialism to some Republicans. Powerful in that it awakens feelings of giveaways, irresponsibility, minority favoritism and a whole array of fears, perceived injustices and loss of personal identity. Socialism can be a Pavlovian bell that means nanny state to some.

In much of rural America, the federal government is bad. Individualism reigns. Individual rights and local rule are paramount. Socialism in their eyes is the opposite of personal responsibility.

We saw the pushback against perceived federal government intrusion play out most dramatically in those states with Republican governors during the COVID pandemic. Not wishing to offend the independent, more I oriented voters, who put them in office, these governors most often used light touch policies. They encouraged citizens and made recommendations but did little mandating of behavior.

A Wyoming official captured the tone when he said, These are cowboys out here. When the government tells them to do something, they do the opposite. Or as a Republican legislator in North Dakota commented after his state recorded the highest coronavirus rate in the country, people out here are pretty much independent-minded about how they conduct their affairs. To such voters, socialism runs counter to their sense of independence and fear of a deadly virus is less than their fear of federal intrusion.

Individualism and personal responsibility hold a strong, an almost religious, grip on the vast majority of those who voted for Donald Trump. They see their individual rights as sacrosanct and any intrusion upon them as un-American. Seventy-four million of them voted against what they perceived as socialistic views.

These values run deep. Its hard to tell someone coming home from a difficult days work, who may be fighting to keep their family secure and together, that others will receive benefits without labor. Whether that is true or not, emotionally its a powerful message.

Among older white Americans, particularly men, socialist leanings are wrapped intricately into a welfare state that gives advantages to minorities. A common view is, I worked my way out of poverty. It wasnt easy. I didnt take anything from the government or anyone else. While liberals may immediately see this denial as White Privilege, conservative Trump supporters vehemently resist such labels. They believe their current kind behavior and intent toward people of color are fair. Arguments in favor of making America great again and against socialism can hide attitudes that appear racist to others but logical and fair to some.

Listen closely to the voice of the most ardent supporters of Donald Trump. Underlying their fervor is anger, martyrdom and a touch of fear. Fear that the country, and their own way of life, would be lost under government leadership that is moving toward socialism.

Thus one word, socialism, encompasses a multitude of attitudes, none linked to a single policy. But all with the thread of deeply felt values and, yes, fears.

In my home state of Georgia, political advertisements now cover our television screens. The dominant, and almost exclusive negative message labeling two Democrats running for the Senate, is that they are pushing a socialist agenda.

Win or lose, Democrats had better understand the power and the many meanings of this word, as well as the feelings and attitudes behind it, if they are to be competitive in the future.

Robert Pawlicki is a retired psychologist and columnist for the Savannah (Ga.) Morning News. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Read more from the original source:
Column: Why the word socialism brings out such strong emotions - The Oakland Press