Mediaboss Marketing

US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) addresses a rally in support of the Affordable Care Act in Covington, Kentucky on July 9, 2017.JAY LAPRETE AFP/Getty Images

Bernie Sanders was traveling through Trump country (West Virginia and Kentucky) last weekend in an effort to rally opposition to Republican attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare. These efforts notwithstanding, Sanders still refuses to embrace Obamacare. As soon as we defeat this disastrous bill, I will be introducing a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program, he said during the rally. He hasnt even embraced the Democratic Party, despite his bid to become the Democratic presidential nominee. When asked if he was a Democrat, he responded , Not even remotely anymore. The Democratic Party now is a disaster, an absolute mess. I dont see a party now that represents me.

Sanders still describes himself as a democratic socialist, rejecting the moderate left progressivism of the Clintons, as he emphasized in his presidential campaign. According to Sanders, the Clintons embraced Wall Street, where Hillary Clinton had made hundreds of thousands of dollars giving speeches, following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who during his presidency had deregulated banks by signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, repealing the Glass-Steagall cornerstone of New Deal banking reform. The Clintons had accommodated consolidations and mergers in the world of banking, they had encouraged the growth of too-big-to-fail big banks, and Sanders was the only candidate willing to take on Wall Street and break up the big banks.

Putting aside the question of the practicality of a break-up-the-big-banks reform agenda, we should pose a simpler, conceptual question first: Why would a socialist want to break up big banks? Socialists want to nationalize banks, not break them up. If anything, socialists prefer bank consolidation to simplify the administrative task of running a nationalized banking system. Nationalization is the only path to provide the collective ownership of the means of production (in this case, the production of financial products). Socialism entails the abolition of private property in business life, but breaking up banks would leave banks as privately owned enterprises still seeking to make profits through the marketplace. Socialists argue that profit-making in a competitive market leads inevitably to exploitation and alienation.

The proposal to break up the banks sounds more like the trust-busting Progressive Era agenda one would associate with Woodrow Wilson than anything socialist. Eugene Debs, not Woodrow Wilson, was the socialist of the Progressive Era, and Debs had been sufficiently schooled in Marxist theory to realize that socialism required the abolition or private ownership of the means of production. Sanders admires Debs (he had a picture of Debs displayed in City Hall when he was mayor of Burlington, Vt., but it isnt clear he understood the radical agenda Debs had embraced. Is it possible that the only prominent national politician who describes himself as a socialist today is clueless regarding the meaning to the term socialism?

Prepared remarks by Sanders on democratic socialism suggest as much. He begins his commentary on democratic socialism by focusing on Franklin Roosevelts 1937 inaugural address, where Roosevelt famously stated that one-third of the nation was "ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. Sanders identifies with FDR and his campaign against the economic royalists, praising New Deal policies for succeeding in putting millions back to work and taking them out of poverty and restoring their faith in government. Democrats would almost universally share these laudatory views of Franklin Roosevelt, but Sanders proceeds to note that almost everything FDR proposed was called "socialist. Does this make FDR a socialist? The implication of Sanders logic, given that he embraces both FDR and democratic socialism, is that because FDRs enemies labeled his agenda socialist, he was a socialist. FDRs political enemies also called him a dictator, especially after he introduced his court-packing bill. Did that make FDR a dictator?

Later in his speech, Sanders finally defines what democratic socialism means to him. Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy, he said. Adam Smith, the author of the The Wealth of Nations in 1776 and the father of capitalism, would have said that capitalism intends to "create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy" (Sanders definition of democratic socialism).

Finally, Sanders concedes, I dont believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth deserve a fair deal.

Sanders isnt a socialist. He is an American progressive. Given the dismal history of socialism in the 20th century, which is inextricably intertwined with the history of totalitarianism, Sanders would do well to start using words with their conventional meaning. The only cause that Sanders idiosyncratic usage of words promotes is his own political ambition.

Donald Brand is a professor of political science at the College of the Holy Cross.

See the article here:
Why Bernie Sanders Isn't Actually a Socialist - Fortune

Even as Venezuelas collapse accelerates, some are dismissing the implications of that collapse with the predictable, thats not real socialism. But Venezuelas people cant argue the finer points of socialist theory - theyre too busy trying to survive.

Venezuelas intensifying economic and political crisis has brought thousands of anti-government protesters into the streets over the past three months, and at least 75 people have died in the unrest, the Washington Post reports. A large number of Venezuelans are spending everything they earn to avoid starving.

With inflation at an estimated 700 percent (and thats a low estimate - the country could slip into hyperinflation at any moment), minimum wage is enough to buy one-quarter of the food needed by a family of five, economists say.

Since 2014, the proportion of Venezuelan families in poverty has soared from 48 percent to 82 percent, according to a study published this year by the countrys leading universities, the Post explains. Fifty-two percent of families live in extreme poverty, according to the survey, and about 31 percent survive on two meals per day at most.

So what happened to this country, which once had the worlds largest oil reserves and South Americas strongest economy? In a word, socialism.

Lets start with the centrally controlled economy. Venezuelans welcomed price controls, at first. In 2002, the late Hugo Chavez instituted a program of price controls and even seizures of entire industries.

But the results were predictable. If farmers cant produce eggs at a profit, for example, then theyre not going to produce eggs.

Those price controls have led to shortages in every sector, including toilet paper.

First milk, butter, coffee and cornmeal ran short, USA Today reported last year. Now Venezuela is running out of the most basic of necessities - toilet paper.

As Johns Hopkins University economist Steve Hanke explained, State-controlled prices - prices that are set below market-clearing price - always result in shortages. The shortage problem will only get worse, as it did over the years in the Soviet Union.

Of course, many on the left will defend socialism by declaring that Venezuela isnt real socialism. But thats a classic fallacy.

That this is an evasion, a form of willful denial, can be seen in the fact that countries tend to slide pretty quickly from being real socialism to suddenly not being real socialism the moment they do something that is embarrassing to the cause, writes Robert Tracinski in The Federalist. A few years ago, a lot of people, from (Sen. Bernie) Sanders on down, were hailing Venezuela as a great example of the achievements of socialism. Now that the Maduro regime is shooting protesters, suddenly its not real socialism.

Socialism is always an empty promise, he says.

Socialism declares that its goals are freedom, prosperity, and total equality. If, in practice, it actually results in oppression, poverty, and special privileges for the party elites, then it must not be real socialism, Tracinski writes. By that standard, socialism can never fail, because if it fails, it is by definition not really socialism.

Lets ask the Venezuelans.

Read the original post:
Editorial: Venezuela is what real socialism looks like - Tyler Morning Telegraph

In light of the horrific Grenfell Tower fire in London, leader of the UK Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn made an astonishing statement:

The ward where this fire took place is, I think, the poorest ward in the whole country and properties must be found requisitioned if necessary to make sure those residents do get re-housed locally.

In effect, Corbyns solution to the temporary re-homing problem was the requisition of properties of other citizens to house those made homeless by the fire. In a sense, this is of little surprise. Corbyn is a long-time opponent of economic freedom. He has praised Hugo Chavezs role in Venezuela, for example. Likewise, his closest ally, John McDonnell, is a self-identified Marxist who brought Maos Little Red Book into Parliament. An equally close ally, Diane Abbott, has argued in defense of Mao (in spite of the Chinese leader being responsible for more deaths than any other person in the history of the world). Given this, it is unsurprising that Corbyn would support such an authoritarian measure. However, what is astonishing is the willingness of the public to embrace such a measure.

When Corbyn announced this idea, I had expected it to be greeted with horror. Sure, scores of people backed his proposals to ban people from making certain consensual contracts (through a sharp minimum wage hike and the banning of zero-hour contracts), but surely they wouldnt go for this? The forcibly seizing of private property by government is evidently a step too far to the left to be palatable to the British public, is it not? Apparently not. Within minutes, social media was alight with people approvingly citing Pierre-Joseph Proudhons slogan later stolen by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels of Property is theft, and endorsing Corbyns plan as a great act of justice. Apparently oblivious to the fact that if property cannot be legitimately owned, then the government ought not own property, which creates a real tension in their belief system since Corbyn advocates widespread government ownership.

I sympathize with the victims of the fire, but in my view authoritarian measures arent the solution. Especially since the Prime Minister, Theresa May, has made emergency funds available and countless charitable organizations are involved. We, as individuals, must help those affected by the fire, but I have to wonder if the support for Corbyns proposal highlights a more authoritarian socialist future for Britain. If requisition of private property is now a mainstream idea, what will Britain become like if Corbyn and his allies ever gain power? How far will Corbyns socialism go? Of course, worries of authoritarianism are dismissed by many on the left. For many of them, such intrusive and liberty-infringing measures are justice, and Corbyn is ushering in that justice. Yet, as a libertarian, the worries are real and history shows that socialism has a natural tendency to become totalitarian. Yesterday, it was a proposal to nationalize industries and curtail freedom in relation to employment contracts. Today, it is a proposal to requisition private property. Tomorrow, it could be something far worse and, given the widespread willingness to accept many of Corbyns radical and unaffordable policies, that is not an unthinkable scenario.

Socialism is on the rise in Britain. As libertarians, we need to make the case for less state power, for more personal charity (charity, of course, often treated with scorn in the UK), and more freedom. We need to make the moral, as well as the intellectual case, because the left fights with moral platitudes. I didnt want to take a political angle on this tragedy, but Corbyn has repeatedly made it a political issue, and it would be wrong not to voice opposition to that perpetual occurrence: statists using tragedy to justify infringement upon freedom and, if we are not careful, we might find ourselves in a situation wherein the government is increasingly invasive.

For those who wish to support the victims, here is a donation page.

* Matthew James Norris is a British libertarian with a degree in history and philosophy. He volunteers at several organizations, and will undertake a masters degree from October.

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:
Requisition? The Growing Danger of Corbyn's Socialism - Being Libertarian

As in other aspects of socio-political culture, Chiles experience of the late 1960s and early 1970s diverged significantly from other countries in Latin America.

On the one hand, hippismo (the hippies) and similar countercultural movements that captured the imagination of young people did so in a democratic, moderately plural society albeit one whose days were numbered as polarisation and the success of Marxism ushered in the 1973 coup.

On the other hand, the divided politics of the era and the strong grip of social conservatism on both right and left in Chile meant that countercultural experimentation was often caught in the crossfire of class warfare, while also coming under fire from both sides.

Readers will take away different message from Patrick Barr-Melejs excellent and finely researched Psychedelic Chile, timely in the 50th anniversary year of the Summer of Love, but by far the most interesting dimension of this book is the relationship between the Hippies and the Left.

Focusing on the period from 196873, which was characterised globally as one in which the rise of the counterculture and youthful activism was at its peak, this book explores two currents at the heart of this phenomenon in Chile: hippismo, the loosely defined culture of long-haired dropouts with headbands and bell-bottoms who smoked pot and disregarded sexual conventions; and Siloism, a more structured movement organised mainly in Santiago around the teaching of an Argentine guru known as Silo (Mario Luis Rodrguez Cobos) and its associated group called Poder Joven that combined various political and personal philosophies in the quest for a defined path to self-enlightenment.

In a country such as Chile, both tendencies offer potent opportunities for research, but the author has confined his focus to explore three key propositions. First, entering Chilean history by way of the counterculture can tell us as much about the phenomenons foes as it can about these youths themselves. Second, as counterculture began to percolate through the youth scene, some of the values and attitudes it embodied began to seep into mainstream sectors of a younger generation that otherwise rejected what it embraced. Third, the media were critical in both influencing public opinion towards the counterculture mostly in an ill-informed and prejudicial sense but also reflecting it.

It is the first of these propositions that offers the most fleshy material for the political historian, mainly because of Chiles unique circumstances in this period and their tragic consequences.

This was a time of intense polarisation in which both left and right defended mainstream cultural assumptions that were instinctively critical of the counterculture, albeit for different reasons.

It went without saying that the conservative credentials of the right and its links to the Church made it hostile to hippies and everything they stood for. Even the more moderate and progressive Christian Democrats, who played an important role in Chilean politics at this time, saw in the counterculture threats to the nation, culture and family.

It was on the left however, that hostility to the counterculture is perhaps less easy to understand and explain. In this period, the Left itself was going through something of its own revolution, ideologically and organisationally speaking, with the intensification of the Cold War, Che Guevaras guerrilla (which undoubtedly resonated within the US and European counterculture), and the emergence in Chile of a new left subscribing to revolutionary vanguardism as opposed to an old left committed to traditional democratic incrementalism.

The tensions that these developments gave rise to resulted in Chiles old left coming to power under new left banners a democratic-revolutionary agenda that incorporated many young people with their own ideas about what this meant in terms of behaviour, liberation and cultural transformation.

In short, the Left confronted countercultures while riven by disagreements about the nature of the social order that would eventually replace capitalism.

While some on the left advocated pluralism, anti-counterculture discourses provided Marxists a position of relative unity about the characteristics of the new model citizen, even if there were still generational differences among them.

As Barr-Melej writes: governing Marxists and UP nevertheless preserved certain mainstream and bourgeois cultural outlooks and impressions that fell under the rubric of family values, existing in conjunction with an otherwise antibourgeois, antiimperialist, and anticapitalist revolutionary cultural-political project that saw public murals by young Communist artists, the massive publishing campaign of the state-owned publishing house (Editora Nacional Quimant), the songs of Nueva Cancin, expansive volunteer and revolutionary pro-literacy efforts on the part of young activists, and other pursuits. [p10]

By exploring this fascinating clash of cultures the political versus the socio-psychological Psychedelic Chile offers a novel and absorbing way in to this period of Chilean history. It is an important introduction to a phenomenon that is little considered by political scientists the social conservatism of the Left while also making up somewhat for an absence of literature that does not solely prioritise the participation of young people in class-based politics.

For many young people in that era, a culture of rejection of the old in which personal and socio-political liberation were largely indivisible themes anticipated by the guru of the New Left, Herbert Marcuse were at the heart of a vision of a new Chile.

In its own way, that was just as revolutionary as the failed experiment that Salvador Allende would embark upon.

View post:
Psychedelic Chile: Youth, Counterculture, and Politics on the Road to Socialism and Dictatorship by Patrick Barr-Melej - Pressenza International Press...

Where have all the Chavistas gone? Five years ago, every fashion-conscious Western radical was praising Venezuela to the skies. Sean Penn exulted in how Hugo Chvez "did incredible things for the 80 percent of the people that are very poor." Oliver Stone made an obsequious film about South American socialism, whose premiere in Venice was attended by the caudillo himself. Michael Moore hailed Chvez for eliminating 75 percent of extreme poverty. His Canadian equivalent, Naomi Klein, proudly declared her support for the beret-wearing strongman.

Suddenly, they have gone very quiet. In the UK, articles by prominent Leftists have started vanishing from the archive. The leader of Britain's Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, was a passionate defender of Chvez, as were other senior figures in his party. "Venezuela is seriously conquering poverty by emphatically rejecting neo-liberal policies," he wrote in a piece that has now disappeared from his website. "Conquering poverty?" Venezuela is in a state of unprecedented squalor: blackouts are frequent, food and medicines are running out and most state workers are on a two-day week.

Socialist selective amnesia is not new, of course: Rewriting the past was a characteristic of Soviet regimes, brilliantly dramatized in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four." The reason Leftists make such frequent use of what Orwell called "the memory hole" is that their heroes keep failing them.

The pattern is always the same. Socialists take power somewhere. Comfortable, middle-class Western Leftists rhapsodize about their achievements. Then, the regime leads, as socialist regimes invariably lead, to poverty and tyranny. At which point, without a blush, Western Leftists say that it was never properly socialist, and move on to their next Third World pin-up.

First came the USSR. While Stalin was murdering millions in the 1930s through enforced collectivization, the New York Times's Walter Duranty was filing excited copy about the success of Soviet agrarian reforms. In Britain, the dotty socialists Sidney and Beatrice Webb, from their comfortable home in Hampshire, extolled the revolution in their 1935 book, "Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?"

Nowadays, no one defends Stalin anymore. Western lefties will tell you that the USSR was never socialist, but practiced a form of "state capitalism." Yet, they went on to repeat the cycle with virtually every other new socialist regime: China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Albania, Cuba, Nicaragua.

The script never varies. We are supposedly witnessing a new dawn until the moment of collapse at which point, overnight, we are told that it "wasn't real socialism". Here, for example, is Noam Chomsky in 2009:

"What's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."

And here he is today: "I never described Chavez's state capitalist government as socialist' or even hinted at such an absurdity. It was quite remote from socialism. Private capitalism remained."

But Venezuela isn't remote from socialism. It's a textbook example. Chvez and his successor, Nicols Maduro, set out to replace the market with a system of state production and distribution. Result? Shops are empty, inflation is running at 720 percent and hunger has returned. A few state-run distribution centers offer cheaper food, with rationing by queue rather than by price. Queues, of course, are a feature of every socialist regime.

So is corruption. The bigger the government, the more people's success depends on sucking up to officials rather than on offering a service to consumers. Expanding state bureaucracies offer new opportunities for nepotism. First, Venezuelan jobs were allocated on the basis of political allegiance; now food supplies are.

And so is penury. When I was growing up in South America in the 1970s, Venezuela was a place that people emigrated to. Now, Venezuelans are stampeding to get out. And I still find this almost unbelievable there are recorded cases of death from malnutrition.

It's true that pure undiluted socialism, like pure undiluted capitalism, exists in theory rather than in our complicated world. Still, we can make some rough comparisons. In 1973, when Chile abandoned Marxism and embraced markets, income per head there was 36 percent of what it was in Venezuela; now, it is 151 percent. Or compare West Germany to East Germany, or South Korea to North Korea, or Cuba to Bermuda.

"That's not fair!" say Leftists, "You're citing all the examples of dictatorships!" That's right, comrades. And maybe that's telling you something about the way socialism ends up relying on coercive force.

It is not fair to judge socialism as a textbook theory while judging capitalism by its necessarily imperfect real-world examples. Judge like with like, and every socialist state is poorer and less free than its market-based neighbors. If you know of a counter-example out there somewhere, compaeros, let's hear it.

Dan Hannan is a British Conservative MEP.

Read more here:
In Venezuela, the destructive force of socialism is at work - Washington Examiner