Mediaboss Marketing

The United States is one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. People who arent wealthy have less chance of success and less chance for their children to succeed. When you talk about fixing these things, though, people freak out. Taxing the rich? Helping the poor? To many Americans, that smells like socialism. But theres one part of American society that has been successfully fighting inequality for years, and right under our noses, because they know just how important it is to make sure everyone gets a fair chance. Thats right, Im talking about the National Basketball Association. [UPBEAT MUSIC PLAYING] See, in the N.B.A., there are rich teams and poor teams. The New York Knicks, the Los Angeles Lakers and other big-city teams charge more for tickets, sell more merchandise and strike bigger broadcasting deals. Theyre rolling in money. Meanwhile, the Phoenix Suns and Minnesota Timberwolves are struggling to get by. Now, you may be thinking, great. Thats competition for you. Let the best team win, right? Well, no. The N.B.A. wants competition on the court. But to maintain that competition and make sure every team has a fighting chance, the N.B.A. imposes strict rules to limit competition everywhere else. Lets take a look. Rule 1: revenue sharing. The N.B.A. makes about $2.6 billion every year from national television deals. But that money is divided evenly among the teams, regardless of how many viewers each team attracts. Popular teams, which bring in huge audiences, are actually giving up some of their earnings to help out teams that are less profitable. Rule 2: spending limits. Theres this thing called the salary cap. Its a limit on how much each team can spend on players. Last year, it was about $110 million. And every team has to stay under that limit. So instead of a no-holds-barred free market, the N.BA. is actually stepping in to make sure the wealthy teams dont always outbid everyone else. And that means poor teams can make competitive salary offers to top players. Rule 3: the Draft. New players enter the N.B.A. through a draft. But how do you decide who gets first dibs on the hot talent? Well, its not random. The N.B.A. awards those precious top draft picks to the worst teams. Thats right. Each seasons worst teams are actually rewarded for their failures by getting a better chance at the top pick. And that gives them a head start on building a better team for next season. So why does the N.B.A. do all this? Simply put, they know that unregulated competition would be a disaster. The rich teams would use their mountains of cash to buy up all the best players, and soon, theyd have a chokehold on the league. Youd start to see the same few teams in the championship every year Lakers, Bulls, Knicks. Lakers, Bulls, Knicks. Just imagine the Knicks. It would be a lot like the rest of America, where the wealthiest people can set their kids up with trust funds, while everyone else struggles just to pay the rent. But maybe youre wondering, why do rich teams agree to share their hard-earned profits with their poorer rivals? Well, the answer is simple the Lakers need other teams to play good teams. Otherwise, whats the point? The only reason fans show up for basketball is because we believe its a fair fight. We need to know that with enough talent, hard work and good old-fashioned luck, any team has a chance at the championship. Without that level playing field, it would be boring as hell, and bad business for the N.B.A. And heres the thing a level playing field would be good for the rest of us too. So what would it take for America to look a little more like the N.B.A.? Well, we would need higher taxes on the wealthy to redistribute money from the rich to the rest of us. And, just like the N.B.A. draft, we would need to give poor folks a better shot at opportunity, like making sure everyone has access to education and good housing. Thats what a leg up looks like. Now, obviously, you cant run a country like a sports league. And the N.B.A. has plenty of flaws too. The rich owners keep getting richer, just like the rest of the country. And while the players are well compensated, thousands of other workers, the ones who collect tickets, sell popcorn, clean the stands, dont make very much at all. But we can still learn a lesson from the N.B.A. They havent abolished winners and losers. They havent abolished capitalism or wealth or profit. They just keep teams from using those profits to rig the system and spoil the game for everyone. Thats not socialism. Its just fair play. So which world do you want to live in? A society where everyone has a chance to succeed or one where the winners are always the New York Knicks?

Follow this link:
Opinion | What The NBA Can Teach Us About Fixing Income Inequality - The New York Times

SundayJul5,2020at1:00AM

If the Greatest Generation abdicated its responsibilities of saving the world from the grip of communism, socialism, fascism and related groups whose sole purpose is to subjugate free people, the historical importance of their sacrifice is quickly losing its significance.

Am I filled with animosity and disgust with Americas acceptance of this takeover? Absolutely!

I have been to the grave of Uncle Walt in Arlington who was killed in France a month before the Armistice in 1918.

Cousin Bills remains were never recovered as his aircraft was shot down by the enemy over the Pacific in 1943.

A number of my relatives served honorably during World War II followed by me, my brother and brother-in law.

To serve in the United States military was an experience that most of todays men and women will never realize, and this, in large part, explains Americas demise without a shot being fired.

Im certain that many families have similar stories and Ill use this opportunity to thank each and everyone of you for your service.

What I wont do is to accept the non-involvement of many of my country men and women as they watch their country slide into the abyss of a socialistic government.

Are we up to the challenge or have we already lost? It may be the most important decision of your life.

Gene A. Weinfurther, Beaver

Read more from the original source:
Letter to the Editor: Country is sliding into socialist abyss - The Times

Reading Time: 3 minutes

One of our supporters recently asked us: Capitalist governments around the world are doing a terrible job handling COVID-19, but what would socialists do instead? We answer below.**

Early this year, it became apparent that the world was facing a global crisis with the spread of the novel coronavirus causing Covid-19.

In countries which had faced the earlier SARS epidemic, quarantine measures were introduced early and the spread of the disease was limited relatively quickly. But elsewhere the ruling class delayed action, to avoid hurting profits. In countries like Sweden and the UK, lives were sacrificed in the name of a disastrous policy of herd immunity.

When quarantines have been introduced, capitalism has left people cut off from basic necessities, particularly in the neocolonial world. From Brazil to India, a common refrain has been We are more afraid of hunger than of Covid-19.

Healthcare systems globally have been underfunded by capitalist governments wanting to slash public spending. Shortages of hospital beds and equipment have led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Australia has avoided these nightmare scenarios, but not by much. Shutdown measures didnt begin until 47 days after the first Australian case. By the time a national policy came into effect, there were more than 200 cases. Scott Morrison famously waited until after a Hillsong conference attracting thousands of people before banning large public gatherings.

Lockdowns were seen as a trade-off for public safety at the expense of profit, and governments rule in the interests of profit. But the more far-sighted parts of the ruling class saw economic and political dangers in letting the virus spread.

State governments in New South Wales and Victoria placed pressure on the Morrison government, which was desperate to regain some credibility after an appalling bushfire season. This led to the formation of a National Cabinet, to put on a unified face and implement a national shutdown.

Measures were introduced in a careless way. Restrictions on movement forced people in remote communities to choose between risking arrest and going without essential groceries. And when panic-buying broke out, it was left up to individual supermarkets to ration goods. They responded with price-gouging and haphazard rationing that left many unable to find the basics.

The needs of ordinary people were not taken into account, because ordinary people did not have a real say in how to deal with these issues.

While state and federal governments argued over whether or not to shut down schools, by mid-March school attendance dropped by 50% in Victoria and 25% in NSW. Limited strike actions took place at a Laverton warehouse over the lack of personal protective equipment, and at the DPP World terminal in Melbourne over a breach of quarantine.

People were discussing lockdown measures long before they came into effect. They were quoting epidemiologists and pointing to the unfolding disasters in places like Italy and the US. But these discussions were mostly limited to social media and private conversations.

If working people had their own democratic committees through which to make policy, the pandemic would have unfolded very differently. This is how it would work in a socialist society. Workers would make decisions democratically, informed by their own experiences and needs. We would be able to use the best expert advice for halting the pandemic because there would be no profit incentive for us to ignore or sideline scientific advice.

We could allocate resources to human needs, such as healthcare and safety equipment for essential workers. Hospital administrators have long raised alarm bells about the capacity of the healthcare system, and both Liberal and Labor governments have seen healthcare spending fail to keep up with societys needs.

There is enough wealth in society to avoid this, but it is locked up in profits. Socialism would unleash this wealth for the benefit of all.

Living wages could be provided to everyone while all but the most essential workplaces were shut down. There would be no forced choice between poverty or being safe from the virus.

But more than this, a socialist society would already have taken measures against the root cause of this outbreak: capitalisms impact on the natural world.

Epidemics like Covid-19, as well as SARS, MERS, Ebola and the Hendra virus before it, are rooted in the behaviour of capitalist agribusiness. As land is cleared and animals are farmed more intensively, humans are pushed more and more into contact with novel viruses.

A socialist approach is one where working-class people run society together. Without the profit motive, we would develop a different relationship with the natural world. We would be able to respond more quickly to disasters, and have more resources available to support people through it. This is how socialism would address a pandemic.

Read the original here:
Ask The Socialist: How would socialists deal with the pandemic? - The Socialist

On Tuesday, Boston city officials voted to remove its Emancipation Memorial from public land. The statue, which depicts Abraham Lincoln and a kneeling freed slave,has been situated in a popular park near Boston Common since 1879.

Since the tragic death of George Floyd, far-left activists across the country have been demanding cities, states, universities and private property owners strip their land and institutions of all statues and other honors that allegedly depict racism or celebrate people who held views considered to be racist, even the Great Emancipator himself, Lincoln.

Although some of these protesters say their motivation is racial justice and equality under the lawgoals everyone should embracethe reality is that many of the leaders calling for the destruction of statues like the Emancipation Memorial are motivated by Marxist and socialist ideology, not by a well-meaning pursuit of racial harmony.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: IN MONUMENT CONTROVERSY, COLLEGES' HYPOCRISY IS ON FULL DISPLAY

Thisisnta theory.Itsa well-established fact.

For example,in June, a video surfaced showing Black Lives Matter co-founderPatrisse Cullorsadmitting she and other members of the organization aretrained Marxists.Additionally, the Movement for Black Lives, a well-funded Black Lives Matter organization,bluntlystates on itswebsite, We are anti-capitalist.We believe and understand that Black people will never achieve liberation under the current global racialized capitalist system.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

Its Marxists desire to overthrow capitalism and paint Americaalong withall ofits founding principles and beliefsas hateful and racist that is really motivating so many of the most radical rioters across the country. Racial justice is merely the faade behind which Marxists are hiding.

The destruction of the Emancipation Memorialillustrates just how unimportant racial equality really is tothe Marxist leaders of thesegroups.

TheBostonstatueis a copy of the famed Emancipation Memorial in Washington, D.C., which protesters are also attempting to tear down.It celebrates the end of slavery and Lincolns role in helping that momentous achievement occur.

Incredibly, freed slaves paid for the Washingtonstatue, and Frederick Douglass, one of the most important black civil rights leaders in American history, delivered aspeechat the memorials dedication in 1876, during which he said the memorial was a good work for our race because, in part, building the statue was doing honor to the memory of our friend and liberator. He also said the statue would provide the highest honors to ourselves and those who come after us.

How can a statue celebrating the emancipation of slavery, paid for by former slaves and dedicated by one of the most important black leaders in historyhimself a former slaveever be considered racist against blacks?

Vandalizing and beheading statues of George Washington,burning down police stations, looting department storesand removing memorials built by former slaves serve no purposeforthose whotruly careabout racism and seek racial equality. They are, however, quite useful actions for those who wishto foment a socialist revolution.

The most obvious explanation for the growing socialist movement in the United Statesis that, for decades, socialists and progressives havebeen in charge ofAmericas public schools and colleges.

The real cause for concern hereisntthat there are radical leftists whowant to destroy the American way of life. Theyhave had a presence in the United States for more than a century.The most disturbing aspect of these events is that so many well-meaning people have been duped intojoining them andhave beenconvinced thatour countryhas never been anything other than a bastion of hate, racism and greed, and that the only way to right those wrongs is to eliminate capitalism.

The most obvious explanation for the growing socialist movement in the United Statesis that, for decades, socialists and progressives havebeen in charge ofAmericas public schools and colleges. They have taught historical revisionism, rejected the value of free-market capitalism and done everything in their power to indoctrinate a whole generation of young people into believing our nations founding principles are rotten to the core.

In study after study, researchers have shown there is a strong slant to the left in education, and the further one pursues education, the worse the bias gets. Neil Gross, a self-confessed left-wing academic who has argued extensively (and unconvincingly) that professors are not indoctrinating kids,reportsthat professors are about three times more liberal on average than other U.S. adults.

Gross also says that just 4 percent of higher-ed faculty are economic conservatives, while 50 percent can be classified as being on the left. (Gross says 23 percent could be classified as social or pro-military conservatives.)

Education attheK12 levelisntmuch better. A 2017studyby the Education Week Research Centerfoundjustone-quarter of teachers, principals and superintendents identifyas Republican.

And these figures only scratch the surface. Left-wing teachers unionswhich hold significant political power that they use to impact local, state and national public policy, including curriculum standardsare closely aligned with Democrats and liberal organizations.

In the201920 election cycle,more than 99 percent ofthe American Federation of Teachers political contributions went to Democrats or liberal groups.

With these biases in mind,itsno wonder that America has been slowly transformed into a nation that would tolerate the desecration of its greatest heroes, most of whom would be classified as conservative by todays standards.

Nor should it be surprising that about half of all young peoplenowsay they have a favorable view of socialism, despite its long and tragic history of failure, starvation,oppressionand bloodshed.

What is truly mystifying, though, is that Republicans have known about this problem for a half-century andhavedone virtually nothing to fix it.

Curriculum standards and college faculty are still controlled by leftists, even in the most conservative states.

Right-leaningorganizations have beendeveloping andcalling for school choice programs formany years, yet few substantial programs exist in most of the United States, including in areas long controlled by Republicans.

Republicans failurescantbe blamed on voters, either. The overwhelming majority of parentssay they support school choice programs,whether theyidentify asRepublican, Democratorindependent, and across all racial groups.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Republican Party has failed conservatives, libertarians and, most importantly, Americas children. And the worst part is,werejust starting to see the greatest effects of that failure.Unless our education system is completely overhauled, the problem is only going to get worse, a truly terrifying thought, indeed.

How much more chaosdoRepublican politicians need to see before they finally take action?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY JUSTIN HASKINS

Read more from the original source:
Justin Haskins: Nationwide chaos Radical left took over this and we're all paying the price - Fox News

THE decision, narrowly reached by Labours national executive committee, to take for itself the power to change the rules by which it is constituted, is a demonstration, as if we needed one, that the character of the movements leadership is critically important.

The closely fought elections to Momentums newly empowered central body, which resulted in the victory of one slate over others, reveals to the wider world divisions which Jeremy Corbyns characteristically inclusive style and moral authority allowed to remain hidden.

Elements among the victorious and defeated tendencies in Momentums elections will find reasons for both unbounded optimism and deep pessimism.

They shouldnt. And nor should the NEC minority who thought constitutional changes which determine the leadership of the party should be made by conference.

To borrow a phrase these things are of the moment, and the constantly changing balance of forces in the eternal tug-of-war between class struggle and class collaboration in the working class movement.

The irruption of social forces grounded in anti-austerity campaigning and the long maturing of the anti-war movement that resulted in Corbyns election, and re-election, and Labours transformative policy changes which made elections themselves more fully democratic have transformed the political landscape of Britain.

It is the recurring crises of capitalism, and the peculiar corruptions of Britains parasitic financialised economy combined with an obscene imperial alliance with US imperialism and the lesser imperial powers gathered in the EU, which move these powerful social forces into action.

There may not be a Labour policy-making assembly this year and there are forces inside Labour who would prefer policy to be the sole prerogative of the parliamentary leadership but the collective will of the hundreds of thousands of people who revived Labour is a force that cannot be ignored.

And neither can the expectations raised among millions of working people by the example of a Labour Party committed to policies which put people before profit.

Labour is to remain the biggest political organisation in Europe although perhaps not as big as the French and Italian communist parties in their heyday, or nowadays, as deeply rooted in working-class communities .

There is always a churn in political parties and some people disappointed at the actions of the present leadership over one question or another will decide to leave, hopefully to continue the struggle in other ways. Manywill find campaigns, trade union activity or political projects where they assess thatthey can make more of a difference.

Some will leap aboard the merry-go-round in which the unresolvable question of whether a new mass party of the left can be created while the Labour Party exists is periodically tested to destruction.

The battle for policy, office and position in Labour is important but pointless unless it arises from mass activity in the working class and reflects progressive changes in the minds of millions.

This newspaper is absolutely committed to the political and organisational unity of the working-class movement, to the unity of the trade union and co-operative movements with socialism.

It is loyal to socialism as the practical expression of working-class political power. It is the tribune of the working class and the platform for every legitimate trend in the working and socialist movement.

Its columns are open to debate questions which are important to the working class and which can be resolved in argument and practice. And it is equally open to some important controversies for which no immediate resolution seems possible but where principled debate is necessary.

The immediate priority is for Labour to renew its connection with the lives and struggles of Britain's working people where they live and work.

View post:
The battle for socialist ideas must be fought across the whole working-class movement, and not just the Labour Party - Morning Star Online