Mediaboss Marketing

That isnt quite how the New York Times puts it, of course. In fact, the words socialist and socialism never appear in its otherwise unsparing account. But Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro illustrates the inevitable arc of socialism, from parasitism to gangster rule.

The uniformed men who shot Mr. Moreno were not government security forces, witnesses say. Rather, they were members of armed bands who have become key enforcers for President Nicols Maduro as he attempts to crush a growing protest movement against his rule.

The groups, called collectives or colectivos in Spanish, originated as pro-government community organizations.

Led by community organizers, presumably.

that have long been a part of the landscape of leftist Venezuelan politics. Civilians with police training, colectivo members are armed by the government, say experts who have studied them.

With Venezuelans starving and dying for lack of basic medicines, only armed gangs can keep the socialist government in power. Of course, the colectivos dont subscribe to the supposedly high ideals of socialism:

Colectivos control vast territory across Venezuela, financed in some cases by extortion, black-market food and parts of the drug trade as the government turns a blind eye in exchange for loyalty.

Of course, Chavez and Maduro were nothing but thieves, either.

Now they appear to be playing a key role in repressing dissent. *** As rising foreign debt and falling world oil prices have depleted the Venezuelan governments coffers, it has increasingly turned to colectivos as enforcers. From labor disputes with unions to student demonstrations on university campuses, colectivos are appearing almost anywhere the government sees citizens getting out of line, Venezuelans say.

Eladio Mata, a hospital union leader, says he was shot last year by colectivo members when negotiations deadlocked with the University Hospital of Caracas. *** In this country, its prohibited to dissent, Mr. Mata said.

Of course it is! That is what happens when you elect socialists. Just ask the students at Middlebury, Berkeley, Claremont, etc. They cant wait until they take power and steal enough money to hire colectivos of their own. That is what socialismall power to government, none to the individualcomes down to.

Mr. Rojas, who works with opposition politicians, said he had become used to the attacks, which have long been a fixture of his activism.

They attack your neighbors when they are in food lines and are identified as opposition members, they attack store owners by making them pay extortions, they attack bakers by taking away part of their production which they later sell on the black market, he said. They are not true collectives, or political actors they are criminals.

Just like Hugo Chavez and Nicols Maduro, and socialists the world over.

More:
Socialist Death Squads Rule Venezuela | Power Line - Power Line (blog)

BOOK REVIEW

by Arti Khosla

An Alternative Philosophy of Development: From Economism to Human Well-Being by B.P. Mathur; published by Routledge Taylor & Francis; 2017.

This is the latest book from B.P. Mathurs pen. A former civil servant, B.P. Mathur worked in several capacities with the government and had a ringside view of the administration, its strength and its failures. This extensive experience coupled with his idealism and knowledge of our spiritual heritage has inspired him to voice his concerns about several things not right about our economy, public policy and governance as such.

This book essentially outlines the authors disappointment with the current model of economic development in India that has not delivered. It is because, the author feels, the model of development we adopted is a blind imitation of Western ideas where emphasis is on persuit of wealth and individual profit. It encourages consumerism and wastefulness as also creates a vast chasm between the rich and poor. India went in for this model in 1991 when faced with a serious foreign exchange crisis. Liberalisation of the economy at the behest of the International Monetary Fund became necessary. Prior to that the country was following the Nehruvian model of socialism where state enterprises were considered as the commanding heights of the economy and though privatisation existed it played a secondary role. The reference-point for economic growth was the Soviet-style five-year plans.

In 1991 the country entered an era of free-market economy and GDP growth became a serious persuit. The economy grew at the rate of seven to eight per cent but this additional creation of wealth has not helped the poor. The benefit of growth has been cornered by 20 per cent of the people while 80 per cent are wallowing in poverty. India has today more millionaires and billionaries but at the same time a vast multitude cannot afford their two square meals a day. Thus the current model of development has resulted in more poverty, inequality, unemployment, environment degradation due to the culture of consumerism we copied from the West.

The author finds this model utterly unsuitable since it is based on the Western culture which is materialistic while Indian culture is essentially spiritual which values austerity, control over ones senses and promoting qualities of sympathy, empathy, comradeship and brotherhood. The author devotes a full chapter in Part 1V of his book on Indian culture with its salient features of tolerance, solidarity, family values etc. with which he is linking his alternative philosophy of development. In addition to the current model not being attuned to the indian ethos its failure is also due to poor governance.

In Part 1 of the book the author describes how we have failed to improve the quality of life of citizens of this country. Our education system at all levelsbe it primary, secondary or universityis totally in disarray. The health facilities for common people are in dismal conditions. We have failed to address rural distress. Agriculture has been neglected and has become an unrumenerative occupation. Low prices for their produce and rising debts have made thousands of farmers to end their lives due to desperation. Poor governance is of course responsible for this failure.

There is no denying the authors belief that good governance is a pre-requisite for development. The author details the requirements for good governance in chapter 14 under Part Three of the book. These are usual ones as recommended by successive committees and commissions on Administrative Reforms, namely, accountability, performance linked career development, decentralisation, eradicating corruption, depoliticisation of services etc.

While the present model of development with focus on GDP has been found irrelevant, the alternative model the author suggests should be one where progress is measured in terms of human capability, dignified employment for everyone, equitable distribution of income and wealth and ecological sustainability and social well being of the community. What that model should be. Gandhian economics? Or socialism? The author veers around to both these philosophies. Gandhian philosophy is relevant insofar as it stresses on individual dignity by providing gainful employment to each person and welfare of the poorest of the poor. Revisiting socialism (not of the Soviet variety) is considered desireable in creating an egalitarian society where life chances are not allocated by structural inequalities in social, economic and political constructions of societies. This mix of Gandhian economic model plus some ideas drawn from socialism as propounded by Karl Marx and others does not clearly indicate what in practice this model is going to be. The author himself does not seem to be very clear about how exactly we go about this alternative model.

The emphasis appears to be for the model of development which should resonate with Indian culture rather than blindly following as at present the one attuned to Western culture. The essential features of Indian culture are tolerance, accommodating others, oneness and solidarity of universe, family values, purusharth etc. Essentially it is steeped in spirituality. The authors grasp on all things spiritual is visible in this effort.

The author has quoted extensively from several economists, philosphers, scholars and nobel laureates to buttress his arguments. Similiarly he has supported his views on the dismal state of education, health, agriculture etc. by giving statistics and numbers. Some repetitions and contradictionsnot withstanding the book is worth the read by students of economics, policy makers and those generally interested in the affairs of the nation. The repetitions are inevi-table when one writes in a general flow rather than have a structured draft before him. One only wished that the print was not kept that small which is not easy on the eyes.

Aarti Khosla is a former Additional Secretary, Government of India. She is now a free-lance writer.

More:
A Mix of Gandhian Economics and Socialism - Mainstream

|

Posted: Apr 20, 2017 12:52 PM

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Sir Winston Churchill

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. -British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it. President Ronald Reagan

I had my first introduction to the South American Country of Venezuela as a young Army Second Lieutenant at my Artillery officer basic course, class 2-84, in Ft. Sill Oklahoma. There I had as my artillery tactics instructor an exchange officer from the Venezuelan Army, Captain Gonzales. Now, I have to admit, having been born and raised in Georgia and educated at the University of Tennessee, I did struggle a tad at first with his heavy accent. After a week or so I had no problem and would come to admire this strapping professional officer who seemed to just know everything. He was an exceptional representative of a beautiful Nation. When we had down time, Captain Gonzales would share with us the true beauty of Venezuela. We would all ask ourselves, why didnt the U.S. Army have a duty assignment in this nation of resource richness and extravagant landscapes?

I have recently found myself asking how is Captain Gonzales doing?

If you have been paying attention to the news you will see the ugly face of socialism in Captain Gonzales native land. It is as if the aforementioned quotes are being played out right before our eyes, but should we be surprised? Recall how so many entertainment elites flocked to Venezuela when the tyrant and socialist dictator Hugo Chavez came to power. Folks like Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Harry Belafonte, and others celebrated and dreamed of this utopia. However, if these individuals had taken the time to read and study political philosophy they would have realized that socialism is rooted in five basic principles, tenets wealth redistribution, nationalizing of production, expansion of the welfare state, social egalitarianism, and secular humanism. In my estimation, these are principles not to be admired but feared.

Hugo Chavez promised to take from a certain class, lets call them producers, and reallocate to the masses. The problem with that is as Margaret Thatcher expressed, and those producers did as suspected, they fled. I lived in South Florida for a little over a decade after retiring from the Army in the City of Plantation. Not far away was another suburban city in Broward County called Weston. In the city of Weston, you will see the American flag and another flag very prominently flyingit is the Venezuelan flag. There are those who affectionately call Weston Florida, Westenzuela. It is there that the great economic producers and those who did not share the vision of socialist hell fled, and it is a beautiful city.

Venezuela is without a doubt one of the richest nations in the world because it is blessed with infinite oil resources. Yet, when Mr. Chavez came to power he nationalized those mean, horrible private oil companies. Now, those companies and resources have been poorly managed, and Venezuela is suffering what is possibly the highest rate of inflation in the world. Therefore, the promise of giving everyone the profits from a nationalized oil industry has failed, miserably. To see and read the reports of that Country which made Captain Gonzales so very proud now having citizens, no, subjects, eating from garbage cans, and stores not having basic necessities stocked is appalling.

But, where are the American entertainment elites and advocates of socialism now? Yes, crickets.

Hugo Chavez, and now President Nicolas Maduro (funny thing, Maduro used to be a bus driver) championed the principle of social egalitarianism. You know, everyone is equal so everyone should have an equal footing, meaning status. That reminds me of a simple quote, a free people are not equal and an equal people are not free. Socialism does not understand the idea of equality of opportunity, it advances that which is antithetical to individual liberty and sovereignty, the equality of outcomes. Additionally, the outcomes are then determined by people like a Chavez, Maduro, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, or Elizabeth Warren.

Maduro was a bus driver, and just imagine, Bernie Sanders did not truly earn a paycheck until he was almost into his 40s. That fella has done very well in government positions, having a beautiful lake home in Vermont, has he not? Socialism is ripe with hypocrisy as well.

Churchill had it right in that the ugly face of socialism is a gospel of envy. It creates a fever pitch atmosphere of hatred to a defined group, the 1 percenters. Then should we not all strive to be champions, the best, exceptional? No, the ugly face of socialism wants to keep us ignorant in order to foster that equal sharing of miserythe result of the equality of outcomes.

And what happens if the people eventually see the ugly face of socialism and reject it? Well first, it is necessary to disarm the people in order to have complete control over them. Adolf Hitlers rise to power, and remember Nazi stood for National Socialism, began with disarming the German people and unleashing the feared Brown Shirts (SA). In Venezuela today, Maduro is arming his own supporters, creating a militia, to gun down the unarmed protesters against his rule and consolidation of power. And where are the voices of the American entertainment elite, or Bernie Sanders? Perhaps there is a reason why the progressive socialist left in America is so adamant about gun control.

There is nothing trendy, cool, or desirable about socialism. And those who advocate it are, well, let me be blunt, lying, deceptive jackasses the symbol of the Democratic Party. The ugly face of socialism has destroyed the beauty of Venezuela, turning what could be termed a little piece of heaven on earth into hell.

Let us commit that the beauty that is America shall not fall to the ugliness of socialism. For if that happens, where do we go?

See the article here:
The Ugly Face of Socialism - Townhall

In our current political climate, Socialism has become a bit of a buzzword, largely due to the work of the Sanders campaign in de-stigmatizing the word within the American discourse. While this has been good for many leftist groups (leftist here defined as any groups that explicitly advocate for some form or another of socialism, i.e. not the Democrats), there has been a large amount of confusion about what socialism is, even among those who advocate for supposedly socialist programs and policies.

The bane of the left has been this confusion about the term. We have been called alt-left with a high level of frequency by ultraconservative groups, a term that is intended to equate us with the fascist and proto-fascist movements of the alt-right, which is a movement that we have nothing in common with.

So, for the sake of clarity, lets try and make exactly clear what socialists are, what we believe, and what the terms we are discussing mean. To begin, a few points of admission and clarity:

I am a communist. That is the position this piece is written from.

All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Socialism is an umbrella term for a wide range of political theories, whereas Communism is a particular one.

No, socialism isnt a system in which the government necessarily runs the economy.

No, socialism isnt a system in which the government regulates the economy, taxes the rich heavily, and has a high level of social investment.

No, communism isnt necessarily a dictatorship in which the government has unlimited power.

Many of these claims are difficult to accept for an American or western audience, as the spectre of the Cold War still haunts us and distorts our view of politics. However, it must be made clear that whether or not the USSR was even a good example of socialism is one of the most divisive questions of the left, and that we cannot let decades old discourse and rhetoric cloud our understanding of what is happening today.

Disclaimers aside, this brings us to our central question: what is socialism? Socialism is a theory pioneered by many philosophers and thinkers, notably Proudhon, Marx, and Bakunin (although, even this selection of early socialists is misleading, incomplete, and arbitrary) in the mid-to-late 19th century. These theorists encompass ideologies ranging from mutualism, anarchism, to communism.

The central component that links these ideologies as socialist is their basic conception of how the workforce and industry should be organized. To be explicit and brief, this organization is defined in opposition to capitalism, with the two systems being defined as thus:

Capitalism: a system in which some people own businesses, factories, and the means by which goods and services are produced (the means of production), and then buy labor from those who cannot afford to privately own these properties. That is, you have those who own the labour of others, and those who sell their labour and what it produces to others.

Socialism: A system in which workers collectively own the means of production and own all that they produce.

The interpretation of what socialism looks like is a massive contention on the left. Some, such as the mutualists, defend the existence of a free market, with all individual businesses being collectively and equally owned by those who work at them. Some, such as the Anarcho-Communists, believe that capitalism cannot be abolished without abolishing the state. And some, such as the communists, believe that the conditions that cause capitalism cannot be abolished without seizing the power of the state.

But what binds them is a search for a classless society in which the workers directly control government and industry. It is not defined by dictatorship- although there are those who advocate dictatorship- it is defined by working class control.

So, when socialists talk of policy, we dont talk of greater government control- we have a capitalist government that we do not wish to hand any more power to. What we speak of is the working class. We speak of workers rights. We speak of workplace agitation. We speak of power to the working class!

As the Industrial Workers of the World, the radical union that earned us much of our workers rights in the early 20th century, says in their preamble, The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. What we seek is an end to socio-economic relations that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

This is why we do not feel comfortable working within the structures of the Democratic party, and see the Democrats as the enemy every bit as much as the Republicans- both are capitalist organizations with capitalist donors, capitalist aims, capitalist structures, and capitalist leaders. Nancy Pelosi even admitted as much at a public forum when confronted with growing youth support for socialism. In her own words. We are capitalists. Thats just how it is. However, this is why socialism has never been the mythical academic ideology it has been portrayed as. We do not sit in ivory towers trying to decide the fate of society. We are your coworkers. We are your friends. We are sometimes your family. One thing that I promise, however, is that we are not your boss.

Go here to see the original:
Decoding Buzzwords: What Is Socialism? - LemonWire

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Venezuela cannot wake up from its socialist nightmare.

The Venezuelan opposition just staged a massive protest against the government, which the government repressed with military force, leading to at least three deaths, The New York Times reports. Detained opposition activists say the authorities tortured them, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, across the country, people are starving.

Venezuela, a beautiful, oil-rich country, once one of the wealthiest nations in the Southern Hemisphere, is only sinking further into economic devastation and chaotic, corrupt authoritarianism. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro increasingly looks like a "Bolivarian" version of Vladimir Putin, holding power through corrupt patronage, fear, and the smothering of alternative voices and power centers. The protests were triggered by further moves by the executive to consolidate power. Maduro has banned a main opposition leader, Henrique Capriles, from holding political office.

Meanwhile, the economy keeps rotting. Venezuela has topped Bloomberg's Economic Misery Index, a benchmark whose title is self-explanatory, for three years running. The economy shrank by 18 percent last year, with unemployment at 25 percent, and inflation slated to be 750 percent this year and 2,000 percent the next, according to the International Monetary Fund (Venezuelan government statistics are, of course, made up, so third-party figures are more reliable).

But it's other statistics that show the real extent of the misery, and make one's stomach truly churn. Over the past year, 74 percent of Venezuelans lost an average of nearly 20 pounds each, reports The Economist. The military controls the country's food supply, and the result is widespread malnourishment and, of course, corruption. Venezuela's hospitals have more in common with those in Aleppo than with those of an oil-rich, emerging economy. As the Guardian reported last year, children are suffering from malnourishment for the first time in the country's modern history; there are outbreaks of scabies, a disease easily prevented with basic hygienic practices; hospitals are running out of even basic drugs. Caracas is the murder capital of the world. Corruption has infected the country wholesale even as it has created a new class of kleptocratic oligarchs linked to the security services.

Put all of this together, and it's not just that the economy is doing terribly. The whole of Venezuelan society is breaking down at a fundamental level. We are witnessing the collapse of a once-proud, beautiful country with a rich culture and countless assets. It is truly heartbreaking.

This was wholly preventable. And I blame socialism.

Venezuela's previous president, Hugo Chavez, set the stage for the country's destruction by spending Venezuela's oil money on social programs designed to boost his popularity even as he set about wrecking the country's assets, expropriating most valuable private companies, sometimes to turn them into bureaucracies and sometimes to give them to friends, implementing price and retail controls that ensured people wouldn't have access to basic necessities and capital controls that caused inflation to rise, shutting down alternative voices in the media, Putin- and Erdogan-style, and winking at top-to-bottom corruption.

When global oil prices declined, the house of cards fell.

Of course, rich-world socialists will quibble over semantics and say that Chavez's policies of nationalization, price controls, capital controls, and authoritarianism are not socialism. This is debatable. What isn't is that the collapse was wholly self-inflicted, and it was obvious from the start to anyone who was paying attention and was grounded in reality that this would be the outcome; you didn't have to be a conservative to know this would end badly (although, in fact, conservatives saw it first and were louder about it). And now it's Venezuelans, especially the poorest and more marginal among them, who are paying the price for this madness.

Let us now hope that they, and the rest of the world, will remember for a long time.

Continue reading here:
Venezuela's socialist hell - The Week Magazine