Mediaboss Marketing

(Saurabh Gupta is Correspondent with NDTV 24X7)

Around 70 politicians, writers, academicians, religious and business leaders have gathered in Goa for an intellectual gathering, along with 400 participants, for the India Ideas Conclave.

The event is being billed as the right wing's answer to Nehruvian socialists who have dominated think-tanks and policy making since independence. Organised by the India Foundation, the central theme of this three-day event is Sangh ideologue Deen Dayal Upadhaya's philosophy of integral humanism.

BJP leader Subramaniam Swamy says, "We are believers in market economy and nationalism. Many of us have suffered at the hands of fanatic Nehruvian socialism and now it's our turn."

Social worker and writer Harsh Mander, who is a believer in Nehruvian socialism, told NDTV, "Let people who believe in markets function outside the framework of state provisioning bodies which plan state provisions. As far as the other right wing is concerned, which is the idea of the majoritarianism, to me, it is not a negotiable idea because the country has a constitution."

Among the attendees of the conclave are eminent economist Lord Meghnad Desai, Chairman of European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs Elmar Brok, economist Arvind Panagariya, former Comptroller and General Vinod Rai and author Amish Tripathi.

Shourya Doval, who has played a major role in organising the event, told NDTV "Certain elements of Nehruvian socialism did not fit at all in India. And we see it in the outcome of what we tried to do and what we ended up doing. The Planning Commission was one of them. These are borrowed concepts which have lost their relevance."

The organisers say the meet is being organised so that India can reclaim its leadership position in intellectual thought.

Ram Madhav, a former leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh who recently joined the BJP, told NDTV, "This is not about politics. This is simply an answer to those who made us reach intellectual bankruptcy by constantly borrowing from the west and forgetting our own ideas."

He adds, "The topics and speakers have been chosen to create a nationalistic agenda." As opposed to Leftists and American academia, who rely on western concepts and have dominated the intellectual arena for years, this is the right wing intellectuals' comeback moment.

More:
Right-Wing Intellectuals Say This is Their Conclave

Reflections on Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism
Searching for an equitable system of governance so that the extremes of wealth and poverty would dissipate and human dignity is restored.

By: iraj khodadoost

Read more:
Reflections on Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism - Video

Senator Sanders, as is well-known, is a self-described Socialist with a penchant for hard-hitting populist speech attacking the American oligarchy, by which he seems to mean rich Republicans. We libertarian types tend to think that Socialism creates its own, much more dangerous oligarchy, of the well-connected and politically powerful, who use their influence to benefit themselves and their friends and allies. While the market at least rewards those who satisfy others needs, statist economic and political systems reward those with pull.

Of course, Sen. Sanders isnt like that.

Oh, wait. TheNew York Timesreports that he pulled ranked to get his aide out of a traffic ticket:

Senator Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont who calls himself a socialist, was riding in the back seat of a rented blue minivan this week when his aide abruptly announced they were being pulled over by the Iowa State Police for speeding.

Hi ya, Im Senator Bernie Sanders, how ya doing? Mr. Sanders piped up, in his unmistakable Brooklyn accent, after the aide explained to the police officer that they were late for the senators appearance here. The officer issued no ticket, just a warning to slow down: No need making a headline for something silly.

Somehow, being late for a campaign appearance hardly seems like a good reason to get out of a speeding ticket. But surely if youre the officer, you know better than to ticket a driver whose passenger just introduced himself as a Senatorwho knows what consequences may follow. There was no reason for Sanders and his aide to announce hes a Senator unless they were either suggesting that hes too important to be expected to follow the traffic laws, or, worse, were not-so-subtly intimidating the officer.

Whats especially interesting about this anecdote is that Sanders and his aide did this while a reporter witnessed the whole thing. Youd think our lone Socialist Senator would at least not try to pull rank knowing that it would be in the New York Times. But our political elite, including Sanders, is so used to getting deference and special treatment that it apparently it didnt even occur to him that readers might find it improper that he used his status to get out of a ticket that would have been issued to a regular Joe.

And that, my friends, is an example of how the Pigs become the Farmers.After all, while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others.

[Post edited slightly to reflect the fact that it was Sanders' aide who initially brought up the Senator's status.]

UPDATE: See my related post about the late Frank Lautenberg, who pulled rank even as a former Senator.

See the rest here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Pigs into farmers: the case of Sen. Bernie Sanders and the foregone traffic ticket

Socialism and Capitalism
My video talking about why capitalism is the oppression of the working class and why socialism is better hope you guys enjoy!

By: JUCHE REVOLUTION

Read more:
Socialism and Capitalism - Video

Socialism superficially seems so simple to create economic equality. But rather than engineer economic equality, human decency and compassion demand we provide basic, life-sustaining opportunities for quality education to the indigent.

Shutterstock

Enlarge photo

Everybody agrees that capitalism has been a success. Everybody agrees that socialism has been a failure. The conclusion therefore? We need more socialism. Milton Friedman.

As modern democracies have matured, most of them have embraced socialism and given their citizens elaborate government-provided benefits. The fall of the USSR proved the bankruptcy of the socialist/communist ideal and its pillars of central planning, government control of production, quotas, price controls, forced labor, common ownership of land and other assets. Ultimately, pure socialism impoverishes everyone. The contrast between East and West Germany when the wall came down in 1989 provided stark and undeniable proof that free enterprise works and socialism doesnt.

Nonetheless, die-hard socialists believe that if done right, that is with enough government force, these methods will finally achieve economic equality. But they cannot because the tenets of socialism are at odds with immutable human nature. We act in our self-interest. No edict can change that.

In "Of Plymouth Plantation," William Bradford tells of that 17th century colonys experiment with a crude form of socialism. Plymouths citizens worked the ground in common for the first two years. The arrangement proved unsatisfactory as food scarcity prevailed. By necessity they changed the system, and Bradford assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. He concluded that from Plato to modern times, people have erred in thinking, that the taking away of property, and bringing [it] into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing .

Why then does socialism perpetually rear its ugly head? It is because superficially it seems so simple to create economic equality. If Paul has $100 and John has no money, the government can take $50 away from Paul for John so both have $50. Whats wrong with that? First, the salary and expenses of the bureaucrat who seizes, re-distributes and enforces the system must be paid from the $100, leaving significantly less than $100 to share. Paul gets to keep less than half of what he produces, so his incentive to produce and invest has been significantly reduced.

Conversely, if John knows the government will give him half of what Paul produces, irrespective of whether he tries to support himself, his incentive to work will naturally be diminished. As the fruits of hard work, investment, saving, and education are reduced, aggregate production of income and wealth will diminish, resulting in less for both Paul and John. If you start socialism with a rich enough society and great enforcement power, you can forestall the inevitable consequences for a time before you run out of other peoples money, as Lady Margaret Thatcher once observed. But that time always comes because socialist systems subtract; they dont add.

Many liberals argue that a free-enterprise system is based on greed and unfairly leaves people behind. People will always have different economic outcomes because people are so different. Some have greater business acumen, work harder or invest better and many less fortunate are denied a decent education and are barred from entering the economic mainstream. Our social compact has rightly created a safety net for those who cant support themselves.

Read the original:
Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net