Mediaboss Marketing

One of the comforts of growing older is knowing that some things will never change.

Sports fans will always argue over the designated hitter rule and over who was the best heavyweight boxer of all-time (Muhammad Ali). Movie fans will never agree which Godfather movie was better, the first or the second (the first.) And the trumpets will sound at the Second Coming before capitalists and socialists agree on whether the Nazis were really socialists.

The last item has always puzzled me, I confess, and not just because the word is right there in the name: National Socialism. If you read the speeches and private conversations of the Nazi hierarchy, its clear they loved socialism and despised individualism and capitalism.

In his new book Hitlers National Socialism, the historian Rainer Zitelmann gives a penetrating look into the ideas that shaped men like Hitler and Goebbels. While its clear they saw their own brand of socialism as distinct from Marxism (more on that later), there is no question they saw socialism as the future and despised bourgeoisie capitalism.

Consider, for example, these quotes from Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party:

These quotes represent just a smattering of Goebbels views on and conception of socialism. One can see that in many ways the Nazi spoke much like Karl Marx.

Phrases like we are a workers party, the worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces, moneyis the reverse with socialism, and we are against the political bourgeoisie could easily be plucked from Marxs own speeches and writingsyet its clear Goebbels despised Marx and saw his brand of national socialism as distinct from Marxism.

So what sets National Socialism apart from Marxism? There are two primary differences.

The first is that Hitler and Goebbels fused their socialism with race and German nationalism, rejecting the international ethos of Marxismworkers of the world unite!for a more practical one that emphasized Germanys Vlkischen movement.

This was a clever tactic by the Nazis. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek pointed out, it made socialism more palatable to many Germans who were unable to see Nazism for what it truly was.

The supreme tragedy is still not seen that in Germany it was largely people of good will who, by their socialist policies, prepared the way for the forces which stand for everything they detest, Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom (1944). Few recognize that the rise of fascismwas not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.

The second difference is that National Socialists were less concerned with directly controlling the means of production.

In his 1940 book German Economy, 1870-1940, Gustav Stolper, an Austrian-German economist and journalist, explained that though National Socialism was anti-capitalist from the beginning, it was also in direct competition with Marxism following World War I. Because of this, National Socialists determined to woo the masses from three distinct angles.

The first angle was the moral principle, the second the financial system, the third the issue of ownership. The moral principle was the commonwealth before self-interest. The financial promise was breaking the bondage of interest slavery. The industrial program was nationalization of all big incorporated business [trusts]. By accepting the principle the commonwealth before self-interest, National Socialism simply emphasizes its antagonism to the spirit of a competitive society as represented supposedly by democratic capitalism . . . But to the Nazis this principle means also the complete subordination of the individual to the exigencies of the state. And in this sense National Socialism is unquestionably a Socialist system . . .

Stolper, who fled from Germany to the United States after Hitlers rise to power, noted that the Nazis never initiated a widespread nationalization of industry, but he explained that in some ways this was a distinction without a difference.

The socialization of the entire German productive machinery, both agricultural and industrial, was achieved by methods other than expropriation, to a much larger extent and on an immeasurably more comprehensive scale than the authors of the party program in 1920 probably ever imagined. In fact, not only the big trusts were gradually but rapidly subjected to government control in Germany, but so was every sort of economic activity, leaving not much more than the title of private ownership.

In his 1939 book The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism, Guenter Reimann reached a similar conclusion, the economic historian Richard Ebeling notes.

...while most of the means of production had not been nationalized, they had nonetheless been politicized and collectivized under an intricate web of Nazi planning targets, price and wage regulations, production rules and quotas, and strict limits and restraints on the action and decisions of those who remained; nominally, the owners of private enterprises throughout the country. Every German businessman knew that his conduct was prescribed and positioned within the wider planning goals of the National Socialist regime.

The historical record is clear: European fascism was simply a different shade of socialism, which helps explain, as Hayek noted, why so many fascists were former socialistsfrom Mussolini down (and including Laval and Quisling).

Like Marx, the Nazis loathed capitalism and saw the individual will and individual rights as subordinate to the interests of the state. It should come as little surprise that these different shades of socialism achieved such similar results: poverty and misery.

Socialists will continue to argue that Nazism was not real socialism, but the words of the infamous Nazi propaganda minister suggest otherwise.

Excerpt from:
Joseph Goebbels' Own Words Show He Loved Socialism and Saw It ... - Foundation for Economic Education

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Harry Belafonte last appeared on Democracy Now! in 2016 at a special event at the historic Riverside Church in New York to celebrate Democracy Now!s 20th anniversary. He co-headlined the event with Noam Chomsky. It was the first time they had done a public event together. Harry Belafonte spoke about Donald Trump, who had just been elected president.

HARRY BELAFONTE: I believe that Trump, in bringing a new energy to the realization of the vastness of the reach of the Ku Klux Klan, is not something that has been out of our basic purview of thought. The Ku Klux Klan, for some of us, is a constant has a constant existence. It isnt until it touches certain aspects of white America that white America all of the sudden wakes up to the fact that there is something called the Klan and that it does its mischief.

What causes me to have great thought is something thats most unique to my experience. And as I said earlier tonight, at the doorstep of being 90 years of age, I had thought I had seen it all and done it all, only to find out that, at 89, I knew nothing. But the most peculiar thing to me has been the absence of a Black presence in the middle of this resistance, not just the skirmishes that weve seen in Ferguson and Black Lives Matter and I think those protests and those voices being raised are extremely important. But we blew this thing a long time ago. When they started the purge against communism in this country and against the voice of those who saw hope in a design for socialist theory and for the sharing of wealth and for the equality of humankind, when we abandoned our vigil our vision and vigils on that topic, I think we sold out ourselves.

A group of young Black students in Harlem, just a few days ago, asked me what, at this point in my life, was I looking for. And I said, What Ive always been looking for: Where resides the rebel heart? Without the rebellious heart, without people who understand that theres no sacrifice we can make that is too great to retrieve that which weve lost, we will forever be distracted with possessions and trinkets and title. And I think one of the big things that happened was that when Black people began to be anointed by the trinkets of this capitalist society and began to become big-time players and began to become heads of corporations, they became players in the game of our own demise.

I think people have to be more adventurous. The heart has to find greater space for rebellion. So, we pay a penalty for such thought, because I was just recently reminded of Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney. They sit particularly close to my own feelings and thoughts, because I was one of the voices that was raised in recruiting those young students to participate in our rebellion.

AMY GOODMAN: David Goodman, Andrews brother, is here today.

HARRY BELAFONTE: Im sure of it. Hes always at the right places.

But I think that there are those kinds of extremes that will be experienced in the struggle, but the real nobility of our existence is: Are we prepared to pay that price? And I think once the opposition understands that we are quite prepared to die for what we believe in, that death for a cause does not just sit with ISIS, but sits with people, workers, people who are genuinely prepared to push against the theft of our nation and the distortion of our Constitution, and that, for many of us, no price is too great for that charge.

Ive been through much in this country. I came back from the Second World War. And while the world rejoiced in the fact that Hitler had been met and defeated, there were some of us who were touched by the fact that instead of sitting at the table of feast at that great victory, we were worried about our lives, because the response from many in America was the murder of many Black servicemen that came back. And we were considered to be dangerous, because we had learned the capacity to handle weaponry, we had faced death on the battlefield. And when we came back, we had an expectation, as the victors. We came back knowing that, yes, we might have fought to end Hitler, but we also fought for our right to vote in America, that in the pursuit of such rights came the civil rights movement. Well, that can happen again. We just have to get out our old coats, dust them off, stop screwing around and just chasing the good times, and get down to business. Theres some ass-kicking out here to be done. And we should do it.

AMY GOODMAN: Harry Belafonte, speaking in 2016 at the historic Riverside Church in New York to celebrate Democracy Now!s 20th anniversary. He co-headlined the event with Noam Chomsky. Harry died on Tuesday at the age of 96 of congestive heart failure at his home here in New York City. You can visit democracynow.org to see the full event, as well as all of our interviews with Harry Belafonte, Harry giving his speech in 2003 against the War in Iraq, Harry in Venezuela, Harry at the Sundance Film Festival, when the documentary about him premiered, talking fully about his life and so much more.

That does it for our show. On Saturday, Juan Gonzlez will deliver the opening plenary address at a daylong policy forum at American University titled In Search of a New U.S. Policy for a New Latin America: Burying 200 Years of the Monroe Doctrine. Visit democracynow.org for more information.

Oh, and special thanks to our archivist Brendan Allen and Charina Nadura for todays show. Democracy Now! produced with Rene Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Messiah Rhodes, Nermeen Shaikh, Mara Taracena, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud, Sonyi Lopez. Our executive director is Julie Crosby. Im Amy Goodman. This is Democracy Now!

Read more from the original source:
Get Down to Business: Harry Belafonte in 2016 on Trump, Socialism & Fighting for Justice - Democracy Now!

In the lead-up to the Democratic Socialists of Americas (DSA) 2023 convention, many competing political platforms and resolutions will be discussed and voted on. One such resolution, The Clean Break which is backed by Boise DSA and the Red Labor Caucus is putting forward the call for DSA to immediately pursue a clean, irrefutable, and permanent break from the capitalist Democratic Party A minimum of 300 signatures are required by April 28 for the resolution to make it to the DSA convention floor.

Below we reproduce an internationalist statement from the youth of the Party of Socialist Workers (PTS) in Argentina in solidarity with the resolution. If you are a DSA member, you can sign on in support of the resolution here.

On behalf of the youth of the Partido de Trabajadores Socialistas (Party of Socialist Workers) from Argentina in particular, and our sister organizations in Latin America and around the world, we want to express our support for The Clean Break resolution presented by Boise DSA and the Red Labor Caucus in this upcoming DSA convention. The progress of a working class left independent of imperialist and capitalist parties in the U.S. is of utmost interest to us.

Its difficult to drive home how progressive the emergence of an independent working class left in the U.S. would be for socialists all over the world. We have been following closely how a generation of young people have been turning toward the ideas of socialism in the U.S. Even further, how many new working class organizers have been leading a wave of rank-and-file unionizations all across the U.S. It is important, however, for this turn to the left to not be co-opted by the apparatus of the Democratic Party, which serves ruling class interests.

In its 2021 convention, the DSAs leadership consolidated a right-wing turn for the organization. The leadership further pushed to establish the party as the left-wing of the Democratic Partys electoral machine. It is no secret that in the upcoming convention they will seek to deepen this right-wing policy. It is in the hands of the organizations rank-and-file to put forward an alternative and instead turn the organization toward independent working class and socialist politics.

The leadership of the DSA (and other so-called progressive figures) will justify its association with the Democratic Party with a myriad of possibilist arguments: they will talk about how it is impossible for a third party to emerge in the U.S., and how, therefore, it is necessary to work within the Democrat Party (the lesser evil of the U.S. political establishment), at least for now. They will shy away from focusing on labor organizing and even other social movements like the struggle against racism and reproductive rights, as they can only conceive change to only come from the apparatus of the capitalist state. In short, the leadership of the DSA seems to always be skeptical of the American working class strength, and optimistic about the American political regime.

They will always, in one way or another, point out the weaknesses of the working class, and do nothing to radicalize its struggles. We saw this during BLM, an international movement and the largest movement in U.S. history, where many DSA members were on the streets, but the organizations leadership refused to put the largest socialist organization in the U.S. at the service of this historic struggle. Instead the DSA politically echoed the calls of the Democratic Party to vote for Democrats instead of mobilizing.

One of the biggest strategic limitations of the American working class is its lack of independent organization and conscience, in workplaces and political organizations. Isnt this what a so-called socialist party like the DSA should be promoting, in every action it takes, in every decision they make? It is the mentality of a bureaucrat to blame the masses for the woes of its leadership. As the American working class shows more and more of its power and its need for an independent organization in the face of economic and social crisis, the DSAs leadership has only paved the way for the dissolution of all this potential, smiling as the Democrats drain every social movement of its strength. Will the DSA become a beacon of independent, working class organization? Or will it be just another tool in the arsenal of the American elite?

To us Latin American socialists, the answer is clear. To us, there is no lesser-evil argument for supporting the Democrats. In our country, Argentina, it has made little difference whether Gerard Ford, Jimmy Carter, or Ronald Reagan were president while our most bloody dictatorship kidnapped, tortured, and murdered over 30,000 people, most of them political militants, labor organizers, and LGBTQ+ activists. Even less so did it matter to Pinochet, as he made Chile a guinea pig for brutal neoliberal reforms. The leadership of the DSA will be okay with coexisting with these atrocities and many others, as they concede to the lesser-evilist notion that the Democrats are better than the Republicans and that therefore it is okay to vote for them and even run candidates under their platform.

Here in Argentina, weve also heard similar lesser evil arguments that we need to vote for more progressive ruling class candidates and abandon our principles and goals to fight against the Right. Does this not hurt us further? Do these notions not prevent most working class people from ever conceiving an alternative to capitalism? Workers, POC, and LGBTQ+ folks are expected to give up more and more, as the Right continues its attacks, and the Democrats constantly concede to them. It is no wonder that the far-right is growing if there is no alternative to capitalism in sight. If the Left in the U.S. is to become a real political force, and for you to truly fight against the Right, you must break away from the Democratic Party once and for all and form an independent political alternative, based on socialist, working class organization and action.

This is why the political independence of socialists in the U.S. is not only possible, but also necessary. If we concede to the pressures of the Democrats, we will lose sight of our goals, and surrender to the dystopian, neoliberal present in which we are submerged in right now. There is a reason why the Democratic Party is nicknamed the graveyard of social movements. Elections should not be seen as an end in and of themselves, where we surrender our principles and objectives to win them, but instead as a tool for us socialists to get our message and politics to working people. If we win elected positions, we must use them as working peoples tribunes, and expose the halls of congress as nothing but a staged play by capitalists.

This is anything but impossible these perspectives are part of the tradition of the revolutionary left. In Argentina, our party is a founding member of the Frente de Izquierda y de los Trabajadores (Workers Left Front), a coalition of most of the revolutionary left which has been able to get over a million votes in several elections and become the third-largest electoral force. Our representatives rotate their seats between the parties in the coalition, and donate their salaries to labor struggles, effectively only earning as much as a public teacher. They are present in every picket line and in demonstrations, fighting to bring visibility, expand, and unify all working class struggles. To us, elections are a means to get our ideas to as many people as possible. Our main focus is on the organization of the working class itself, to organize independently from all capitalist and bureaucratic influences in our workplaces and movements. We believe that if significant change is to be achieved, it can only be achieved and defended by working people, with their own methods of struggle and self-organization. It will not be the parties of the ruling class, and it will not be their state.

There are those who may think that something like this would be impossible in the U.S. Well, once again, we are no strangers to these notions ourselves. It took us years and years to achieve what we have achieved. We started our project during the height of neoliberal supremacy and fatalism, and put forward a political struggle after the emergence of progressive bourgeois governments which never really challenged the neoliberal status-quo of the years prior.

Now neoliberalism and the parties that represent its political project are in crisis particularly in the U.S. As we saw during the Great Recession, in times of crisis, ruling parties like the Democrats bailout capitalists and make workers pay through brutal measures like austerity. If there is a time for socialists in the U.S. to step up and fight back, it is now. If not, the DSA will only help in aiding the Democratic establishment and the bureaucracies aligned with it in diverting the struggles that will emerge in response to this crisis of capitalism. An independent, united, revolutionary left in the U.S. would be a beacon of hope for working people around the world. That is the best way in which American socialists can show solidarity with the struggles of workers in other countries. Solidarity doesnt come from supporting Democrats or having guest talks with former Latin American presidents, like Dilma Rousseff, as the DSA leadership did during its last convention. Politicians like Dilma may pander to the Left like the Democrats do in the U.S., but in reality, they havent questioned the rule of American imperialism, and have ultimately in spite of some friction served its interests. Instead, solidarity comes from fighting our common enemies, from within the belly of the imperialist beast. Solidarity comes from turning the American working class into an enemy of the imperialist capitalist class, and an ally of the working people of the world. This is why we urge you to sign onto Red Labor Caucus and Boise DSAs resolution.

Follow this link:
An Internationalist Call to Support DSAs Clean Break from the Democratic Party - Left Voice

The Department of Business and Economics is hosting its annual Entrepreneurship Speaker Series, and this year they are bringing in Dr. Robert Lawson, a well-known professor from Southern Methodist University.

The lecture will be held on Monday, May 1, at 6 p.m. in Ochre Court. It will be open to Salve Regina community, as well as the general public. There is no need to register in advance, and there is no admission fee.

With regulations and public policies affecting the decision of individuals to operate and grow businesses, there is tremendous overlap between entrepreneurship and economic growth. The annual Entrepreneurship Speaker Series considers a range of topics all centered on what affects a businesss growth, success stories of Rhode Island and New England-based businesses, and challenges facing entrepreneurs in the world.

During the lecture, Dr. Lawson will be discussing his book Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World, which was coauthored with Benjamin Powell, a professor at Texas Tech University. Socialism and socialist programs are popular subjects nowadays, and the book considers what socialism actually is, its inherent problems, and the misconceptions surrounding it.

Socialism Sucks also investigates cases of economic freedom around the world as well as how property rights affect long-run growth and prosperity.

Dr. Robert Lawsons other research focuses on economic freedom, property rights and public policies, and economic growth and development. He is a clinical professor and holds the Jerome M. Fullinwider Centennial Chair in Economic Freedom; he also is director of the Bridwell Institute for Economic Freedom at Southern Methodist Universitys Cox School of Business. He earned his doctorate and masters in Economics from Florida State University and his bachelors in economics from Ohio University. He previously taught at Auburn University, Capital University and Shawnee State University.

Dr. Lawson is a founding co-author of the Fraser Institutes Economic Freedom of the World annual report, which presents an economic freedom index for over 160 countries. Lawson has authored or co-authored over 100 journal articles, book chapters, policy reports and book reviews. Lawsons research has been citedover 12,000 times, according to Google Scholar.

The lecture is on May 1 will be free, and there is no need to register in advance.

Go here to see the original:
Lecture by Dr. Robert Lawson to address problems with popular ... - SALVEtoday

-OpEd-

BOGOT -- It must be Latin America's favorite warning. Every time there's an election, conservatives warn "socialism" is coming and not just any socialism, but the Venezuelan variety! A vote for this or that candidate, they say, will turn the country into a land bereft of freedoms and prosperity.

Claims like these helped thwart a first presidential bid by Mexico's Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador in 2006. The opposition said he had contacts with Venezuela's then-ruler, Hugo Chvez, and even forceful denials could dampen the fear of a communist president. The warnings were repeated in 2018 , to little effect as Lpez Obrador was elected, and again in 2021, when former president Vicente Fox called him Lpez Chvez.

In Colombia, the same has been said of President Gustavo Petro who, admittedly, has visited Caracas several times since his election and seems to have cordial relations with President Nicols Maduro. Indeed, we've heard these claims so often in Colombia that many must think it is a matter of time before we morph into our neighbor. But we never hear the right question: how many countries have in fact "turned into Venezuela?"

Well, none perhaps, even if most Latin American governments are leftist now. Some of their leaders are making mistakes and others are despots, like the ruler of Nicaragua Daniel Ortega. But to turn your country into Venezuela requires mistakes and vileness on a galactic scale.

I am not dismissing the fear, mind you. Venezuela is corrupt and dictatorial. It bans criticism and jails opponents, manipulates and fakes elections and has provoked the flight of seven million Venezuelans. Most of the country's people live in poverty, and it boasts the highest inflation rate on the continent and second highest in the world. Chvez and Maduro have failed abysmally. But how many countries have reached such extremes of mismanagement? If the danger is real and imminent, there should have been other examples by now.

Yet the threat persists. Even Donald Trump keeps saying the Democrats will turn the United States into Venezuela. Conservatives in Colombia use it to discredit opponents. The threat has served to dissuade the nation from policies and initiatives that are unquestioned in places like, well, Europe policies like free healthcare and education, social housing or raising taxes on the wealthiest to assure a more equitable distribution of wealth.

There is a chasm between that and Venezuela, and you would need two conditions to get there. First, making grave political errors and picking obsolete economic models. Countries like Bolivia and Argentina seem to be doing that. But the second condition is more difficult, consisting of Venezuela's own, specific situation. The country is almost entirely dependent on crude oil exports, and its institutions are weak, with no checks and balances. Rule of law is feeble in Venezuela, with its tradition of strongmen politicians who have shallow roots, and extraordinary corruption like few other places in the world.

Very few countries in the region combine all these conditions. Most have stronger institutional checks and balances, diverse economies, a solid judiciary or civil societies with a fighting spirit. Voters in Chile and parliament in Peru have acted, for example, to curb presidential initiatives or excesses. These make the Venezuelan scenario much less probable.

So, the Venezuelan alarum is, if not fantasy, at least improbable. It might be time to let it go.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Here is the original post:
The Venezuela Bogeyman, How Fear Of Socialism Thwarts Latin American Progress - Worldcrunch