Mediaboss Marketing

I have followed a debate in your paper with interest. A. Abbott really needs to Google a few words, as his arguments seem to be based on incorrect interpretations of socialism and other forms of regime.

This letter relies heavily on excerpts from theories found in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or co-operative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.

In the various countries A. Abbott mentioned in your paper of July 4, not one of them is a true socialist regime as there was no social ownership. There was also no democracy within those countries as they were ruled by evil dictators. I think the word he is seeking is totalitarianism, in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Evil dictators and fascists chose to seize control the means of production and to control everyone in their countries. Any dissenters were quickly disposed of, in not very nice ways.

There are examples of good social democrat countries in Scandinavia and Europe where ideology successfully supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Perhaps the egalitarian states would better demonstrate socialism than the ones erroneously touted as the models.

Mary-Ann de Kort

I have followed a debate in your paper with interest. A. Abbott really needs to Google a few words, as his arguments seem to be based on incorrect interpretations of socialism and other forms of regime.

This letter relies heavily on excerpts from theories found in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or co-operative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.

In the various countries A. Abbott mentioned in your paper of July 4, not one of them is a true socialist regime as there was no social ownership. There was also no democracy within those countries as they were ruled by evil dictators. I think the word he is seeking is totalitarianism, in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Evil dictators and fascists chose to seize control the means of production and to control everyone in their countries. Any dissenters were quickly disposed of, in not very nice ways.

There are examples of good social democrat countries in Scandinavia and Europe where ideology successfully supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Perhaps the egalitarian states would better demonstrate socialism than the ones erroneously touted as the models.

Mary-Ann de Kort

Read more:
Totalitarian, not socialist - Gisborne Herald

You are here: Home Monthly Review Press OrganizeNorthCarolina.org reviews Michael Leibowitzs The Contradictions of Real Socialism

The Contradictions of Real Socialism: The Conductor and the Conducted 192 pp, $15.95 pbk, ISBN 9781583672563 By Michael A. Lebowitz

Reviewed by Russell Herman

The leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, 1922-1991) used the terms real socialism and actually existing socialism to distinguish their real experience from merely theoretical socialist ideas. Lebowitz asks how that system actually functioned, how it reproduced itself, and why it yield[ed] to capitalism without resistance from the working classes who were presumably its beneficiaries. (p. 7) Interesting questions. Especially to those of us who want to construct a more humane system than the capitalism that defeated the USSR.

Read the review at OrganizeNorthCarolina.org

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

Monthly Review Foundation. Tel: 212-691-2555 134 W. 29th Street, Suite 706, New York, NY 10001

2017 Monthly Review Foundation All Rights Reserved

Read the original:
OrganizeNorthCarolina.org reviews Michael Leibowitz's The Contradictions of Real Socialism - Monthly Review

Business While the government can justify various anti-profiteering measures based on socialist principles, the rules and methodology need to be clearly stated.

Indias rules on anti-profiteering arent clearly identified. Credit: Reuters

Nearly 70years after B.R. Ambedkar and K.T. Shahdebated overwhether the Indian constitution should include the word socialist the former was in favour of a society being organised by the people of India, according to the time and circumstances anti-profiteering provisions present in the countrys plan to overhaul a broken tax system remind us of this very debate.

The primary objective of the goods and services tax (GST) is to remove the cascading effect of existing taxes, that is tax on tax. The core principle of the GST is based on the fact that the tax on any input or input service utilised during the process of developing a product or a service would have to be offset against the subsequent output tax paid. The seamless credit system has been formulated keeping the consumer in mind and removes inefficiencies in the supply chain.

However, what if an entity in the supply chain, for instance, a wholesaler, decides to take benefit of a reduced tax rate courtesy the GST and not pass on such benefit to a consumer by hiking up his profit?

To counter such undue benefit, the government inserted Section 171 into the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST). Section 171 of the CGST specifies that any benefit availed through extra input tax credit (as against earlier) or a reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services has to be passed on to the consumer commensurately.

India Incs primary objectionto anti-profiteering lies around the fact that it adds an additional compliance burden, and that more importantly, a reduction in rate of taxes of inputs or input services need not necessarily result in a proportionate reduction in the final price of a product or service.

While industry concerns are certainly legitimate especially after taking into account the Modi governments minimum government, maximum governance motto is there any mechanism to ensure that the consumer does become a beneficiary of GST?

Australia, Malaysia examples

Chapter XIX of the CGST, which deals with Offences and Penalties, does not provide for a mechanism to ensure a commensurate reduction in the final price of a product. Australia and Malaysia are closest international examples when it comes to understanding anti-profiteering measures. The Australian anti-profiteering measure was based on the net dollar margin rule method that is, if taxes and costs fell by $1, then prices should also fall by at least $1. The Malaysian example is formula-based and uses a net profit margin which considers the effect of net profit on a comparative basis with a base rate net profit. For instance, the net profit margin from April 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 (excluding GST taxes) should not exceed the net profit margin as on April 1, 2016 (base rate).

On June 20, the GST council notified the Anti Profiteering Rules, 2017 (rules). The rules currently do not contain the methodology and procedure for determining whether commensurate benefit has been passed on to consumers. However, the language used mostly mirrors the Australian model. The rules contain the bare essentials of a statute with a three tier structure for determination of alleged anti profiteering with the apex body being the Anti-Profiteering Authority. Penal action under the rules can even entail cancellation of GST registration.

It should be noted that a substantial chunk of the basket of items in the consumer price index have been exempted from payment of GST. Stemming from experience in other countries, the inflationary effects of GST could be high in the initial years of its implementation.

To what extent is this justified? On the face of it, the government can certainly rely on the concept of a welfare state based on socialist principles to justify various anti-profiteering measures. The Supreme Court has also time and again upheld the concept of securing and protecting a social order which comprises of economic justice as well. When examined from the pointed perspectives of a consumer and from a tangible benefit to the economy, the anti-profiteering authority may well be justified.

Industry issues are focused around feasibility of the measures and its implementation, and potential harassment at the hands of the taxman. What could have been done perhaps is have the Competition Commission, which examines pricing in detail, study how the passing of commensurate benefit could be ensured.

However, from a legislative standpoint, the argument against anti-profiteering rewinds back to the debate on socialism, and importantly on an ideal which India arguably believes in as a legacy. Importantly, the rules have been worded from the perspective of a need-based manner, which mostly would be required in the case of oligopolistic markets. Given the vogue nature of the GST and the risk and accountability that the government has towards the second largest consumer base in the world, the government cannot be entirely blamed for introducing an anti-profiteering measure.

Taxation statutes are most susceptible to the slightest change in an economic environment a close case in point being the negative list of services in service tax wherein the government, in a single stroke, changed 18 years of grappling with an arduous memory recall exercise of adding services on a year-on-year basis to a catch-all means to cover all taxation services.

As a parting thought, had the wording of the statute been Input Tax Credit-Commensurate Benefit Rules, would industry reaction have been different?

Shubhang Setlur is a Senior Associate at Crestlaw Partners, a full service law firm engaged in corporate and commercial advisory, dispute resolution, real estate and taxation.

Categories: Business, Economy, Featured, Government

Tagged as: Ambedkar, anti-profiteering, anti-profiteering authority, Goods and Services Tax, GST, industry concerns, Socialism, tax discretion, tax terrorism

Visit link:
Behind GST's Anti-Profiteering Provisions, a Legacy of Indian Socialism - The Wire

left-wing activists from around the country are expected to gather in Chicago from July 6-9

Planning strategies to take on Republicans and President Trump will be a focus, of course.

Campus Reform reported:

Profs gather to fight the right at Socialism 2017 conference

Marxist professors, including some of recent notoriety, are preparing for the upcoming Socialism 2017 conference, where they will strategize to build the left and fight the right.

More than 1,500 professors, students, and left-wing activists from around the country are expected to gather in Chicago from July 6-9 in hopes of fighting injustice and oppression while resisting the political system that spawned Trump.

The four-day event will feature more than 100 meetings addressing topics such as misogyny, Islamophobia, immigration, racism, and much more from a socialist perspective.

A workshop called How Capitalism Works and How It Doesnt, for instance, will make the case that because capitalism is a system based on incessant accumulation based upon the exploitation of wage labor, it also therefore contains within it the seeds of its own demise.

Other offerings include Mapping the Enemy: What Is the Alt-Right?, Marxism and Cultural Appropriation, Strategies for Anti-Capitalists, and Shut it Down? How to Fight the Right.

Many of the lectures, including the opening plenary, will be delivered by university professors, some of whom have become the subject of recent controversies related to inflammatory political remarks.

Read the rest here:
Marxist Profs Gear up for Socialism 2017 Conference in Chicago - legal Insurrection (blog)

So according to Bob Hughes (Weekender column, July 1), socialism is the answer to all our problems. Sorry Bob, but what a load of twaddle. Could you point me in the direction of any country which has become a paradise on Earth under a socialist system?

Lets take a quick look. The former USSR, millions of its own citizens murdered by the ruling socialist regime and forever unable to feed its people.

North Korea, ruled by a succession of insane leaders, has murdered millions of its own citizens and millions more dead from malnutrition and starvation because its socialist regime cannot feed itself.

The Peoples Republic of China, created by a madman who murdered millions of his countrymen and, again, millions more dead from starvation because its socialist system was unable to even grow enough crops to feed its people. This country is now a world power because it is a capitalist economy, by nature if not by name.

Cuba, a country ruled by a mass murderer who once again killed hundreds of thousands of citizens and kept his nation in the dark ages with his socialist ideals.

Cambodia, under the socialist government of Pol Pot once more millions of its own people murdered and millions more dead from starvation.

Today the socialist left of many countries like to point to the socialist state of Venezuela as a utopia, but this country is now a basket case and falling apart, because of yes, you guessed it socialism.

What else do all these countries have in common? They were, or are, all ruled by an elite few that have everything, while the rest of the population have very little and have no say in the running of their country.

If this is your idea of a great political system Bob, then you need your head read.

A. Abbott

So according to Bob Hughes (Weekender column, July 1), socialism is the answer to all our problems. Sorry Bob, but what a load of twaddle. Could you point me in the direction of any country which has become a paradise on Earth under a socialist system?

Lets take a quick look. The former USSR, millions of its own citizens murdered by the ruling socialist regime and forever unable to feed its people.

North Korea, ruled by a succession of insane leaders, has murdered millions of its own citizens and millions more dead from malnutrition and starvation because its socialist regime cannot feed itself.

The Peoples Republic of China, created by a madman who murdered millions of his countrymen and, again, millions more dead from starvation because its socialist system was unable to even grow enough crops to feed its people. This country is now a world power because it is a capitalist economy, by nature if not by name.

Cuba, a country ruled by a mass murderer who once again killed hundreds of thousands of citizens and kept his nation in the dark ages with his socialist ideals.

Cambodia, under the socialist government of Pol Pot once more millions of its own people murdered and millions more dead from starvation.

Today the socialist left of many countries like to point to the socialist state of Venezuela as a utopia, but this country is now a basket case and falling apart, because of yes, you guessed it socialism.

What else do all these countries have in common? They were, or are, all ruled by an elite few that have everything, while the rest of the population have very little and have no say in the running of their country.

If this is your idea of a great political system Bob, then you need your head read.

A. Abbott

The rest is here:
World's socialist 'utopias' - Gisborne Herald