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

PARIS

France will head to the polls tomorrow to vote in the first of two rounds of its presidential election. Barring the unlikely event of any candidate winning more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff on May 7 will determine the winner. One of the most remarkable aspects of this race is the stunning implosion of the French Socialist Party.

You might be tempted to ask: Does this mean French socialism is in its final throes? Well, not exactly.

Based on current polls, Socialist Party candidate Benoit Hamon is struggling to crack the single digits, currently sitting at around 8 percent, according to Opinionways PresiTrack poll. All this really means is that current Socialist President Francois Hollande destroyed the brand.

Hollandes favorability rating is about 19 percent, according to a YouGov poll taken at the end of February. A pragmatist, Hollande might have scored better had he not been surrounded by actual Socialists for the past five years.

French citizens, however, seem tempted by the idea of electing another pragmatist from the Hollande camp, but one who isnt obligated to surround himself with Socialists.

According to an Opinionway survey earlier this month, 50 percent of Hollandes voters now support independent presidential front-runner Emmanuel Macron, a former Hollande minister who was with the Socialist Party for three years. But Macron is a former investment banker whose program includes an entire section dedicated to making the lives of entrepreneurs easier. Rather than ideology, hes focused on renewal and the desire to bring outsiders into public life.

So this means that socialism is dead in France, right? Not so fast. French leftists have gravitated to Jean-Luc Melenchon, an independent candidate who wants a fiscal revolution that involves taxing at 100 percent any earnings over the maximum revenue of 400,000 euros annually. Hes also expressed interest in involving Frances overseas territories in ALBA (formally the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America), founded by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who ran a country that represents the epitome of socialist end times. A recent Opinionway poll showed Melenchon sitting at 18 percent, behind Macron and the National Fronts Marine Le Pen, tied at 22 percent, and center-right candidate Francois Fillon at 21 percent.

Socialism as a French brand is tanking in name only. Almost all of the presidential candidates have integrated socialist policies into their platform. The least socialist option in this race is Fillon, who has a double disadvantage: Hes the establishment candidate at a time when global electoral momentum is trending against the establishment, and hes facing accusations of the kind of nepotism widely practiced among the French establishment.

Violent is a term Ive often heard used by Fillons critics to describe the conservative aspects of his program. National Front Vice President Florian Philippot, who walks and talks like a socialist all over French media on behalf of Le Pen, called Fillons attempt at a non-socialist program one of unprecedented violence.

Reducing the number of civil servants? Violent. Wanting to give people the option of private health insurance instead of paying a fortune for a crumbling system with poor reimbursements? Violent. Cutting government spending through austerity? Well, if youre going to do that, then you might as well just go around punching voters in the face.

One way socialism has been able to justify its continued presence in this race is by using former French President and General Charles de Gaulle, who consistently ranks as the countrys favorite historical figure, as its shield. To those running for high office in France, de Gaulle has become what Ronald Reagan is to American candidates: an anachronistic specter evoked in a lazy attempt to justify questionable policies to the unconvinced. You dont like my position? Youre an idiot! Its Gaullist!

Ive only heard Gaullism used to defend socialist policies, however which is funny, because de Gaulle was hardly a socialist. In fact, the Socialist Standard (the monthly magazine of the Socialist Party of Great Britain) wrote of de Gaulle in its July 1958 issue: Socialists are opposed to what de Gaulle stands for on principle, because he stands for French capitalism, and Socialists do not support any capitalist faction anywhere or at any time.

Much has also been made in this race of the role of supranational European Union governance, a socialist straitjacket imposed on the French economy. Nearly all of the candidates agree that its a problem, whether they want to leave the EU or just reform it. Whats rarely mentioned is that even if European governance disappeared tomorrow, France would still be stuck contending with its own socialist economic infrastructure.

Sundays first round of voting will largely determine the extent to which the French electorate can see through the persistent socialist lie that has long worked against their interests.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and former Fox News host based in Paris. Contact her through her website: http://www.rachelmarsden.com.

2017, Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Continue reading here:
Rachel Marsden column: Socialist Party implodes in French presidential race, but socialism still omnipresent - Richmond.com