Mediaboss Marketing

Theres a predictable checklist for meltdowns in socialist countries, and its playing out with tragic regularity in Venezuela.

Nationalize agriculture? Check.

Start government-enforced rationing when the food supply dries up? Check.

Seal the border when people try to flee to buy food elsewhere? Check.

The next step, and usually one of the last before total collapse, is runaway inflation. Thats what were starting to see in Venezuela.

Rapid inflation, called hyperinflation by economists when it gets really bad, is one of the deadliest poisons for any economy. The spiral is usually triggered when a government prints too much money to pay its debts, and prices start to rise. Once the people see this happening, they realize that their money will be worth less tomorrow than it is today. Every day they hold currency will make them poorer, so people spend as fast as they can. This is turn causes prices to rise still faster, which exacerbates the spending, and so on and so on until the currency is worthless.

Without a functioning currency, economic transactions cannot easily take place, and the economy collapses completely. Its happened in a large number of socialist states, including Weimar Germany, Hungary, North Korea, and the Soviet Union.

In the worst examples, inflation rates can be astoundingly high. In Zimbabwe, perhaps the most dramatic example in history, monthly inflation topped out at 3.5 million percent. To make that number more comprehensible, imagine going out to McDonalds and buying an item from the dollar menu. Now imagine that you go back tomorrow, and find that the same item costs $100,000. Thats how bad it was. It was only a couple of years ago when Zimbabwe was able to reset its currency, revaluing at a rate of 35 quadrillion Zimbabwean dollars for one U.S. dollar.

Its not quite that bad in Venezuela yet, but we are seeing only the beginnings of the inflation death spiral. The government recently issued new denominations of 20,000 bolivars (the local currency) each worth about $6 U.S. Economists believe that the country exceeded 100 percent inflation in 2016 and are expecting 1,600 percent in 2017. Protesters have taken to the streets, setting fire to 100 bolivar notes in protest of their worthlessness.

Unsound money, runaway printing presses, deficit spending, and government mismanagement of major national industries have all conspired to destroy Venezuela, and its heartbreaking to watch the country fall apart, leaving millions of innocent people without food or medical care. But perhaps more upsetting still is our own countrys refusal to learn the lessons of the socialism, even when we can see its destructive power with our own eyes.

The Federal Reserve continues to get away with irresponsible and opaque currency manipulation, pumping large amounts of cash into the economy while concealing its operations from Congress and the American people. The national debt creeps ever closer to $20 trillion, and legislative efforts to rein in spending, reform entitlements, or audit the Federal Reserve have so far come to naught. Meanwhile, an admitted socialist like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 17%) was regarded by many as a fit choice for the presidency.

It may be unpleasant, but we should all force ourselves to look good and hard at Venezuela and see the horrors that socialism has wrought. And then wed better do whatever we can to stop it happening here.

Logan Albright is a researcher for Conservative Review and Director of Research for Free the People. You can follow him on Twitter@loganalbright73.

Read the original post:
Why Venezuela's socialist meltdown COULD actually happen in the US - Conservative Review

One week ago, Donald Trump took office. We at SMAC, like many other groups on campus, condemn his presidency. But we emphasize that his electoral victory was not an isolated event. We cannot condemn just Trump and his Republican Party, but the systems and society that produced him. And as we make plans to fight back this Friday, we must reject the ideology and tactics of liberal politics, which have proven unable to prevent the rise of Trump.

Trump and the alt-right rallied the white working class, nationalists, and elites with white supremacist policies and rhetoric. The spectres of a border fence, mass deportations, fascist Muslim registry, and Law and Order dogwhistles are all in line with the core values of the American project: settler colonialism, racism, capitalism, and imperialism. It is only out of this history that Trumps success could be possible.

In addition to white supremacy, the rise of neoliberalism across both aisles of the corporate party system and the subsequent disenfranchisement of workers was central to Trumps success. After nearly forty years of stagnant wages, the dismantling of unions and workers power, and three imperialist wars, we should not be surprised when peoples anger manifests itself in diverse and unexpected ways. Discontentment with the status quo has manifested itself in riots, Senator Bernie Sanders grassroots campaign for president, and in Trumps popularity. Capitalism has leveraged this rage towards its own destructive reproduction, harnessing racist sentiments to elect Trump, while ignoring the socioeconomic exploitation at the intersecting nexus of oppressions.

Ironically, it is this very rage that will be its undoing.

No matter what liberal apologists and Democratic ideologues claim, Obamas presidency looked a lot more like eight more years of George Bush and neoconservatism than eight years of hope and change. Mass deportations, the modern surveillance state, imperialist military interventions overseas, mass incarceration, neoliberal economic policy, intolerance of dissidents, and a militarized police force have all been central policy features of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party establishment for years before Trump assumed office. Obama deported more than 2.5 million people, and Hillary Clinton, as senator for New York, voted for the Secure Fence Act which proposed a 700-mile border barrier not unlike Trumps proposed 1,000-mile wall. Under the Obama administration, the NSA expanded and continued its mass surveillance of the U.S. public and, despite his earlier condemnation, in 2011 renewed the Patriot Act.

While the Democratic party and Obama ran as the anti-war party in 2008, the U.S. continues to station ground troops in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, intervened in Libya and left the country without a central government, and has employed drone strikes in Algeria, Mali, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia killing hundreds of civilians. Ironically, despite massive opposition from the Republican Party, the Affordable Care Act and its health care mandate actually originated as the conservative alternative to a single-payer health care system.

The Obama presidency also oversaw the bailout of the nations financial systems, letting bankers off the hook for the financial crisis and buying their failing corrupt institutions with public funds. The Obama administration denied a record rate of 77% of Freedom of Information Act requests and mercilessly prosecuted whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and Jeffrey Sterling (Mannings recent pardon, while a victory, is no excuse for her seven years of torture). Perhaps most egregiously of all, excess military grade equipment and vehicles from Iraq and Afghanistan were sold and gifted to police forces around the country under Obama. The weapons used to occupy people overseas are now being used by the police to occupy domestic communities, particularly low-income communities of color, as exemplified spectacularly in Charlotte, Baltimore, Ferguson, Milwaukee, and countless cities and towns across the country. Make no mistake: white supremacy and imperialism put assault rifles and Humvees from the Invasion of Iraq into the hands of the heinously racist U.S. police.

As an organization, we denounce the system regardless of its figurehead. Since much of what Trump envisions has already been enacted with the consent of Democratic Party politicians, we feel that a reformation of the Democratic Party is not the proper response to this election. The Democratic Party and its role in themaintenance of slavery and its modern incarnations, imperial expansion and intervention, and dismantling of the labor movement,is antithetical to the goals of SMAC. Reformism is futile. If its history is any indication, the Democratic Party will always thwart the liberatory, transformative politicsfrom prison abolition and anti-imperialism, to climate justice and socialismthat we fight for.

We hope that the election of Trump becomes an opportunity for the left to organize and agitate, to empower workers to fight against a two-party system that does not represent their interests or needs. We seek liberation from corrupt, oppressive structures and the oligarchy that they uphold, which can not be done by conceding to or petitioning for authority to act on our behalf.

While we share their anti-Trump sentiments, many on the center-left have adopted misguided tactics and strategy that we similarly cannot endorse. Politics does not end at the ballot box or with your local representative; holding out for the 2020 electoral circus does not just represent a myopic notion of political change, its a privilege many cannot afford. The focus on calling legislators and letter writing, while well-intentioned, only reinforces this logic. We reject liberals obsessive interest in discourse, for dialogue cannot be confused with action.

Fascism wont be fought by calling Leanne Krueger-Braneky or hugging racist white people. These strategies didnt work in the past and they wont work now. For many people in this country, resistance is a matter of life and death and we will make no hesitation in defending these communities. SMAC aspires to mobilize such efforts.

Swarthmore Marxists and Anti-Capitalists seeks to be a place of collective struggle and solidarity. In these times, we must unite theory and practice by improving material realities for the people of our community and the greater Philadelphia area, with respect for the folks who have been doing this work before us. SMAC is an organizing hub, a space for critical Left thought, and a home for radicals on an otherwise liberal campus.

The nature of radical work is necessarily intersectional. We standand must actin solidarity with people of color, queer and trans folk, undocumented people, women, indigenous communities across the globe, and people with disabilities. Thus, we do not stand in solidarity (or seek to work) with Swarthmore Conservativesor any organization that invites racist eugenicists like Charles Murray to campus or endorses socially liberal advocates of economic exploitation. Similarly, if a racist eugenicist is invited to campus, a leader in SMAC wont defend their right to speak.

As a new organization on campus, SMAC is still evolving. We acknowledge that we do not have a final structure or agenda. Rather, our political lines will be flexible as current material conditions demand, aligning it with Swarthmore traditions of putting theory into practice. We desire to grow with new people, perspectives, experiences, and ideas. We will only learn what functions our organization can serve on this campus as we continue to expand. We also hope that through this work we will create new opportunities for other projects to establish themselves on campus.

SMAC will be meeting this Friday at 8 p.m. in Trotter 203 to discuss the way forward, to SMAC Back Fascism. We invite students disillusioned by the state of activism on Swarthmores campus to join our group and define our work. Fighting Trump requires an active and radical Left unwilling to compromise with the ascendant Fascism that is Trump and the far-right. We must reject the moral poverty of liberalism, for liberal politics contributed to the neoliberalism and racism that precipitated Trumps rise. We must continue organizing in our communities. And we must never lose sight of the radical future thats possible.

Featured image courtesy ofRed and Black Britain.

Follow this link:
Neither Fascism nor Liberalism. Socialism! - The Daily Gazette

Icahn seems to be referring to the past eight years under Barack Obama, a time when the government mandated health care coverage for all Americans and also put in place many reforms for Wall Street and big banks.

Icahn was named an adviser to the Trump administration last month, with a specific focus on undoing or softening some of the rules put in place during the Obama administration.

The Trump team said Icahn would help "American entrepreneurs shed job-killing regulations that stifle economic growth."

Some were quick to take issue with Icahn's claims on Twitter though.

A user named @Momma2 simply wrote "Have you read the reviews?" and tweeted a link to a column by leading conservative writer George Will, who dubbed Trump's speech "the most dreadful inaugural address in history."

And @urbanerogue wrote that, "yes Carl, both you and Donald have struggled bigly under the last few years of socialism, how about that DOW?"

The Dow soared about 140% during Obama's eight years in office. After bottoming out in March 2009, the market roared back from the depths of the 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession and is now trading near record high levels.

Related: Refinery controlled by Carl Icahn soared after Trump named him an adviser

Many experts say that Obama's policies deserve some, albeit not all, of the credit. Low interest rates from the Federal Reserve and innovation from tech giants Apple (AAPL, Tech30), Google (GOOGL, Tech30), Facebook (FB, Tech30) and others in Silicon Valley also helped fuel the market's surge.

Still, some on Twitter defended Icahn and Trump. @jdcaetano wrote that "8 years of Democratic socialism should never have been inflicted on us! Let's move onward and upward."

And @Italians4Trump tweeted, "Thank you! You better believe it! Now we will go towards Capitalism, the system that made our country great! #Capitalism #EndofSocialism."

Investors initially greeted Trump's win as a positive sign too. Shares of Icahn's own publicly traded firm Icahn Enterprises (IEP) have surged since Trump won the election, along with the broader market.

But the market has pulled back in recent weeks due to concerns that Trump's isolationist policies could actually be detrimental to Corporate America. Icahn Enterprises is down more than 2% as well.

And Icahn even conceded in an interview with CNN's Poppy Harlow last month that he thought the market rally following Trump's win was "a little overdone."

CNNMoney (New York) First published January 23, 2017: 10:37 AM ET

Read the original:
Carl Icahn declares end to 'socialism' in U.S. - Jan. 23, 2017 - CNNMoney

Investment guru Carl Icahn tweeted Monday morning that Trump's inauguration speech was "brilliant" and left "no doubt our dangerous slide towards socialism is over."

Icahn, a veteran of Wall Street who founded his own securities firm, seems to be referring to the past eight years under Barack Obama, a time when the government mandated health care coverage for all Americans and also put in place many reforms for Wall Street and big banks, CNN Money reported.

Trump last month named Icahn to be a special adviser on issues regarding regulatory reform.

Icahn, an early Trump supporter, is estimated to worth more than $16 billion. Trump in a statement said the 80-year-old Icahn, one of the nation's leading investors, is "not only a brilliant negotiator, but also someone who is innately able to predict the future, especially having to do with finances and economies."

During his campaign, Trump repeatedly vowed to cut back on the number of government regulations on American business owners. Icahn said in a statement American businesses "have been crippled" by regulations.

For sure, Trump will be a demanding leader who applies the best of his negotiating skills to push for U.S. growth, bestselling author David Horowitz told TheStreet.com.

Trump wont be an ideological purist like Republicans who support free trade but don't fight for fair trade, Horowitz said.

If you just say, well we're for free trade and we're not going to look at the deals that we make -- that's not a good idea, he said. We've had an anti-business president now for eight years who doesn't take a hard-nosed attitude towards these deals. Trump is going to get better deals for us, which is still free trade.

Horowitz's new book "The Big Agenda: President Trump's Plan to Save America," released just this week, reveals Trump's "first 100 days strategy" to roll back Obama's legislative and executive record.

Horowitz's new book is the first book about the Trump presidency and has soared to the top of the Amazon bestseller charts, becoming the No.1-selling book on the web. Trump will also lead the way in making infrastructure spending to boost the U.S. economy, Horowitz said.

If the economy grows as it will under Trump, there's going to be a lot more money to spend, he said.

"Big Agenda: President Trump's Plan to Save America" is available at bookstores everywhere or get your copy on Amazon Click Here Now

(Newsmax wire services, AP, Reuters and Bloomberg news contributed to this report).

2017 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.

Visit link:
Carl Icahn Declares End to 'Socialism' in US - Newsmax

On whether or not socialism would work in the twenty-first century

A few weeks ago at McGills bi-annual Activities Night, I overheard a spiel by a member of the Socialist Fightback as he explained with admirable passion why the capitalist system is inefficient. He criticized the fact that there exists a myriad of corporations with the exact same objectives. To make the best car, for instance, or the most accessible or advanced computer. Rather than compete and undermine each others efforts, he asked, wouldnt it be more efficient if there was just no competition at all?

Intuitively, the case really does seem sound. Economically speaking, what we refer to as a command economy, a system in which the government decides everything about commerce, is the most ideal system. Being able to decide precisely how much to produce is the dream of any economy, and the case for one supervisory power naturally does make sense. But that the State in this role, with human nature so inclined to greed and selfishness, should know exactly how to do this when firms concerned only with maximizing profits nevertheless still struggleis questionable. And that it should be responsible for all production makes the skepticism all the more profound.

Is socialism dead? This question occurs to me as I look at my calendar and see that this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, the historical realization of Karl Marxs indelible project. For reasons I cannot quite explain, the question is ominous. But it seems to me that its centennial year is as good a time as any to, at last, try and answer the question.

In the college setting, a debate on this question would not be hard to find. The average McGill student, even if not a determined, aspiring politico, more often than not has something to say, oftentimes, against capitalism. I should perhaps mention that this article is not meant as a defense of capitalism, but only to articulate that socialism does not work. Socialism is founded on a paradox, which when realized, makes clear not only why it does not work, but why it cannot work.

The socialist argues that in our current state of affairs that is, a capitalist one we as human beings are unable to actualize our true selves because the system does not work in our favor. Indeed it does not even work against it; it doesnt care for us at all. In our current system, that migrants who work modest jobs in factories have no true control over their own lives is of no consequence, because the system does not even recognize them as human beings. Rather, they are treated merely as a means for profit, and their desires, interests, and pursuit of happiness are simply not relevant to the discussion. To this, socialism proposes the following solution: instead of allowing corporations to run themselves, the government should be given total control of societys means of production.

But suppose that we follow that course of action and, in fact, many parts of the world already have. To name but a few: the Leninist and Stalinist phases of the Soviet Union, Chavezs Venezuela, and the late Fidel Castros Cuba. These examples make it clear that power is inherently corruptible. And this is a reality that the socialist cannot quite accept. What they have merely done is confer what was in the first place so detestable about the corporations onto a government that is only able to avoid abusing power for profit because it has no need to.

The danger here is that economic power invariably translates to political power. In our capitalist society, it is not unfamiliar to us to hear about the influence of the wealthy on politics. In their favor, the government allows for deductions on mortgage interest, tax-cuts, and even tax-exemptions. But suppose the government should have total economic power. These particular injustices will likely cease to exist, but at what cost? If we look to the twentieth-century for answers, it becomes clear that the cost is liberty. If the government controls all facets of the economy, it gains leverage over every person or group that would wish it ill. Consider Cuba, perhaps the only remaining truly socialist country today. To quote an article from the Havana Times, the governments effort to have the country conform to one will is such that even the media does not question decisions taken.

In the socialist state, then, the government, having a monopoly on both political and economic power, can organize society as it sees fit, and with virtually no opposition. This cannot be the portrait of equality envisioned by the socialist. Intrinsically socialist societys defining feature is not equality, but the governments unrivaled capacity for coercion. And it is for this reason that societies which have descended down this path have by and large fallen into disarray, and have emerged from it bare.

The objectives of socialismequality, efficiency, and true freedom for the working people are ones we all want to effectuate. But they are by no means exclusively socialist concepts. Although I have given only a vignette of its belying problems we see that, so from working towards their realization, socialism actually works counter to them. Its main problem is that, in its vision, it underestimates the capacity of power to corrupt even the noblest of ideals and individuals (we must remember that even the State comprises of human beings), and our limits. That is, that it does not follow from the fact that all people are altruistic some of the time, and that some people are altruistic all of the time, that all people are altruistic all of the time. But this is exactly what Socialism not only expects but requires. In these regards it turns a blind eye, and it is for this reason that not only does it not work, but also why it cannot work.

What is left, I believe, is to turn to the present, and reflect on how we can better our political and social condition, not from a socialist or capitalist, liberal or conservative perspective but from a rational, humanist one. Perhaps along the vein of a Rawlsian conception of justice as fairness, whereby some inequalities may be permissible if, and only if, they benefit the worst-off in a society. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, we must realize that there is a plurality of values and unavoidable trade-offs among them. Liberty is not equality, equality is not liberty, and the choice of either liberty or equality does not automatically make for a clear conscience. But I think we can all agree that any system founded on a paradox, that is too conducive to their negation because it is too ready to surrender too much to any government, should be at long last discarded.

Read the rest here:
Is socialism dead? - The McGill Daily (blog)