Mediaboss Marketing

By Dr. Samir Kagalkar

Socialists accuse him of Capitalism and Capitalists accuse him of Socialism! Prime Minister Narendra Modis welfare schemes on drinking water, electricity for all, banking for all, DBT, etc., have made the capitalists red eyed. At the same time, PMs pro-business efforts such as reduction in corporate taxes, support for start-ups, focus on FDI, ease of doing business have angered socialists! Where does the truth lie? Perhaps, the truth is sandwiched between Socialism and Capitalism!

The answer lies in BJPs economic philosophy. With Gandhian Socialism at its core, BJP stands for Antyodaya (development of most downtrodden). This is meant to be achieved through the Third way - as the senior ideologue Dattopant Thengde puts it by rejecting both Capitalism & Socialism in their pure forms. Capitalism promotes an individual at the cost of the society, while the opposite is true in the case of Socialism. A delicate balance between the individual, society, nature & divinity is being sought in the Ekatma Manavata Darshan (Integral Humanism) of the BJP.

How does one envision this Third Way in day-today economic policies? A vertical split between Capitalist vs Socialist policies is too nave and it does not provide convincing answers. But once you see this as a horizontal stack made up of two layers - welfare & empowerment - Prime Ministers Third Way becomes clear. The two stacks one above the other can be visualized assafety net layerat the bottom with focus on hands-on welfare and top layer asenabling zonewhere Government focusses on laissez faire policies with focus on maximizing outcomes through private sector.

Antyodaya philosophy mandates that the most backward person also should be ensured a life of dignity by the Government ( a life without wretchedness). The basics of a dignified life housing, clean water, electricity, access to quality healthcare, education, toilets, pension, insurance, farmer support, scholarships & gas connection to name a few of them have been taken up on a war footing by Modi Government. The speed & scale at which these have been completed is acknowledged as one of the most efficient ever done. Use of technology has aided in leakage proof delivery yet another feather in the cap of Modi Government.

With dignity of life assured even for the poorest of the poor (safety net zone via welfare schemes), the stage is set for the common man to explore his or her full potentionial. . It is here that the key features of PMs policy of laissez faire come into play. Repealing of obsolete laws & regulations, making access to credit easy (from a street vendor (Svanidhi) to the multi-billion corporates), ensuring a corruption free & transparent policy making, building massive infrastructure are some highlights which have put the Indian economy on the path of massive growth. Over 100 unicorns and around 75,000 startups are testimony to the fact that the second phase is rightly all about letting the potential of each person & entity reach its limit, incidentally furthering the cause of Indian prosperity.

As a society, the basic aim is a dignified life for all. And ensuring that it is States responsibility. And PM Modi believes that 130 Cr Indians with huge potential can contribute to Indias growth once basic facilities are ensured. And this growth in the spirit of 'Ekatma manavata darshan balances the individual, society & nature. And in this phase of new Atma Nirbhar Bharat, society supports everyone those below safety net, while those above the net contribute to Indias fast march towards economic prosperity. This truly is an Indian way going beyond the dichotomy of socialism & capitalism the Third way.

With Capitalism and Socialism in their pure forms at cross roads across the world, Indias Third Way may be the way forward.

The rest is here:
Modinomics: Socialism or Capitalism? - The Week

What happened in 1750? Well, we know what happened -- roughly -- in 1750 in Bengal: The British arrived. So, sorry for that on behalf of my forefathers (none of whom were involved, my ancestral involvement in the subcontinent starts post-independence).

However, the grand -- and according to the American economist Brad DeLong, only important -- question in economics is: What the hell happened in 1750?

This, sadly -- and like bad jokes -- requires some explaining.

Economic history, our evaluation of living standards in the past, is dominated by the work of Angus Maddison. It's possible to download his estimations of how our ancestors lived. What, approximately, was that living standard?

We end up measuring GDP per capita, which isn't a perfect guide. We adjust to modern dollars, not a perfect process. We include the value of things grown at home -- someone eating rice from their own paddy. We do the best we can in an imperfect world. The answer is that our ancestors all lived much more poorly than we did.

DeLong's version of those estimates says about $600 a year. That's $600 modern dollars a year. That's also about the same as the World Bank's estimate of absolute poverty, that $1.90 a day.

Yes, it's entirely true that this level of poverty still exists for some in Bangladesh, just as it does for some 700 million people around the world. It's also vile that this still exists, we should do everything to get rid of it.

Which brings us back to 1750. Because that's the first time there was a serious, sustained change in that level of living. Near all of history up to that point was near all people, living at that $600 a year standard.

It didn't vary much over the Chinese empires, the Roman, or the variations in Indian kingdoms and empires. That's just what the average human experience was. Even if things got better, what varied was the number of people living at that number -- Malthusian economies we call this.

A new crop increases incomes and more children survive -- so in a generation or two, there are just more people living at that same old standard. This is one of the proofs that there was growth in the Raj economy. When the British arrived, there were perhaps 170 million people (for what is now India), when they left possibly 350 million. More people at that same old standard of living.

In Europe these days, that standard of living is more like $20,000 to $40,000. Yes, the same dollars, we are measuring the same thing. 30 to 50 times better off. The increase in Bangladesh, so far, is more like three times, not 30. Not good -- we'd like to do better, obviously. We should, too.

Which brings us to this by Syed Badrul Ahsan in this newspaper.

Socialism once underpinned the sovereign nature of this republic. Can someone give it back to us, please?

Things are unfair, no doubt. Things are not as good as we'd like them to be, certainly. So, our grand question is how can and should we make them better? To which the answer is not socialism.

For the answer to that original question, what the hell happened in 1750, is that for the very first time, a society managed to break free of that Malthusian poverty. We got, for that very first time in all of human history, a sustained and substantial rise in the living standards of the average working man and woman.

Sure, it took a couple of centuries to get to 30 times in the first country that did it. China just did it in only 40 years. And here's the thing: Absolutely none -- no, not one single one -- has done it by implementing socialism.

Everywhere that has got rich has done so by some variation of the capitalist free market. There are no exceptions to this rule. Maoist China was not an exception, nor were Castro's Cuba, Stalin's Russia, Eastern Europe, and on and on.

All the evidence we have, the global centuries of it, is that capitalism and markets, not socialism, are what make a society and the people in it rich.

Sure, as Mr Ahsan says, it's a better society when people can afford a whole chicken, not just pieces or the guts. We should adopt those policies which make this possible. That means not socialism. For we did actually try this.

The 20th century is a grand natural experiment. The capitalist and market economies continued to get vastly richer, the non-capitalist and non-market countries did not. We even have 21st century evidence -- Venezuela's institution of modern socialism meant no one had chicken, not even gizzards or chitlins.

Economics is not a perfect science, that's entirely true. But we do have our grand question -- what makes people rich? We also have our answer -- not socialism. No, really, it was tried and it didn't work -- into the dustbin of history with it. Well, unless our intention is to make people appreciative of a bag of chicken guts that is. That actual chicken in every pot requires capitalism and markets.

Tim Worstall is a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London.

See the rest here:
For Bangladesh, socialism is not the answer - Dhaka Tribune

A common question asked by those learning about socialism is whether there are any actual examples of socialism in practice, either somewhere in the world today, or in history. Clearly, it would make it easier to argue for socialism as a real alternative to capitalism if such examples could be provided to sceptics.

Unfortunately, we have to disappoint. There are no such ready-made examples of socialism, but understanding this is an important part of understanding what socialism actually is.

At its most basic, socialism is a society in which the wealth and resources, including the means to produce wealth, are owned in common by society as a whole and the decisions about how to use them are made democratically, with the principal aim of providing for needs of society as a whole (not competing individuals, businesses or states). It means a society of real equality and democracy, without poverty or injustice.

It hardly needs to be said that no country in the world today looks anything like this.

Still, for different reasons many people do cite examples of actually existing socialism. Whether its people like Bernie Sanders in the US speaking of a Scandinavian socialism, as if countries like Sweden with many universal public services such as free education and heavily-subsidised healthcare and childcare valuable reforms won through struggle by a powerful organised workers movement amount to socialism.

This would be mistaken even if such services werent being continually eroded, as they are in Sweden. In fact, since the 1990s, inequality has risen at a faster rate in Sweden than anywhere else in the world. The fact is Swedens economy has always been market-based, with private ownership of industry and banks by capitalists, who of course have always been intent on overturning all the reforms won in the past.

Others point to the example of the former Soviet Union, and the regimes modelled on it such as those born out of the Chinese and Cuban revolutions. Their economies were based on state ownership and planning. This marked a real progression from the anarchy of capitalism and its rapacious drive for profit, and resulted in significant increases in living standards, literacy levels and life expectancy through the provision of free health, education and housing.

However, these societies were ruled by authoritarian regimes dominated by self-serving bureaucracies and therefore were always anathema to genuine socialism, which necessitates both political and economic democracy (economic planning cant work without the active input of the producers and consumers). The isolation of these regimes in a hostile capitalist world, along with bureaucratic mismanagement, resulted in capitalism being restored in the former Soviet Union and China, and its relentless encroachment on Cuba today.

In short, there are currently no socialist countries, and in a way thats not surprising as a socialist country couldnt exist for very long as an island in a capitalist ocean. Sooner or later it would be engulfed. Capitalism is a global system and has to be overturned on a global level. Socialism too, therefore, has to be international.

But socialism is the product of a revolution that of course has to start somewhere. It is the culmination of the struggle of the working-class majority against its exploitation and oppression by a capitalist minority. Its seeds are sown in all mass movements of the working class, which in the right conditions with the addition of the requisite organisation and leadership can flower into a revolutionary transformation of society.

Capitalism means class war, and even though the capitalists have had the upper hand in the fight for a long time the potential for socialism exists everywhere the class war does. This was glimpsed in all the revolutionary movements of the past 150 years since the Paris Commune first put the rule of the working class into practice in that city for 72 days. Only the workers and peasants in Russia went further with the heroic but tragically betrayed and strangled revolution that began in 1917.

Countless other attempts since then didnt get as far, but they all in different ways give inspiration and confidence that socialism is possible, even if it doesnt exist yet.

See the article here:
Revolutionary Theory || Are There Any Socialist Countries? Have ... - International Socialist

Zhao Leji, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and chairman of the National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee, holds talks with Vietnam's National Assembly chairman Vuong Dinh Hue via video link at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, March 27, 2023. (Xinhua/Liu Weibing)

BEIJING, March 27 (Xinhua) -- China on Monday vowed to uphold and develop socialist democracy together with Vietnam, and to enrich the connotations of the China-Vietnam comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership in the new era.

The remarks were made by Zhao Leji, chairman of the National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee, while holding talks with Vietnam's National Assembly chairman Vuong Dinh Hue via video link.

Zhao, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, noted that China and Vietnam are friendly socialist neighbors. He said China is ready to work with Vietnam to consolidate the traditional friendship, adhere to high-level strategic guidance, strengthen strategic communication, deepen mutually beneficial cooperation, cement public support for the friendship between the two countries, commit to the path of socialism suited to their respective national conditions, and build a China-Vietnam community with a shared future that bears strategic significance.

China's whole-process people's democracy is a new form of political civilization created by the people under the leadership of the CPC, Zhao said, adding that China is willing to work with Vietnam to uphold and develop socialist democracy, and to showcase the advantages and bright prospects of the socialist system.

He called on China's NPC and Vietnam's National Assembly to strengthen exchanges and cooperation among special committees, friendship groups, deputies and local legislative bodies, and to learn from each other's experience in governing the country. He also called on the two bodies to provide legal and policy support for pragmatic cooperation between the two countries in various fields.

Hue, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee, said that Vietnam regards developing relations with China as a strategic choice and the top priority of its foreign policy and firmly adheres to the one-China policy.

Vietnam's National Assembly is willing to strengthen friendly exchanges with China's NPC and make positive contributions to promoting bilateral pragmatic cooperation, enhancing the friendship between the two peoples, and deepening the Vietnam-China comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership, Hue said.

Zhao Leji, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and chairman of the National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee, holds talks with Vietnam's National Assembly chairman Vuong Dinh Hue via video link at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, March 27, 2023. (Xinhua/Liu Weibing)

See original here:
China vows to develop socialist democracy, bilateral ties with Vietnam - Xinhua

Where should socialists put their energy in 2023? This is a question facing many on the left.

There are some obvious answers. The wave of industrial militancy that has swept across the country has necessitated a solidarity movement alongside it. Campaign groups like Enough is Enough have provided a space for people to begin organising for the economic transformations the country needs. With the climate crisis getting ever more urgent and a socialist solution to it ever more necessary leftists have an important role to play within the climate movement.

These are all vital movements for the left to be organising within. But most socialists accept that while the collective struggle of social movements and of organised labour are crucial to building a new society, these movements also need a political expression. They need a political organisation able to fight elections, assume political office and ultimately wield state power. Since Keir Starmers ascension to the top of his party, it is abundantly clear that political expression will not and cannot come from Labour.

Instead, it must come from elsewhere. For a growing number of people including more than a dozen left wing ex-Labour Councillors, Jeremy Corbyns former spokesperson, and outriders and influencers of the Corbyn era that political expression of the tsunami of rebellion sweeping across the country, the political expression of socialism, will come through the Green Party.

In light of that, our editor Chris Jarvis is writing a weekly column setting out why disaffected socialists should join the Green Party.

In a previous article in this series, we looked at the Green Partys internal democracy and how that compares with Labours. That article focused on the ability for members to shape the partys policy platform. Equally important is the process for selecting candidates for elections.

The Labour Partys selection processes have reached new levels of notoriety in recent months. Left wing candidates across the country are being blocked from standing for parliamentary seats for the most spurious of reasons. Often, the alleged infractions from the would-be MPs include having liked innocuous Tweets from figures from other political parties. In one instance, the well respected Lauren Townsend was told she wouldnt be able to stand because among other reasons she had liked a tweet from Nicola Sturgeon in which she had announced she had tested negative for Covid-19. As Momentums head of communications Angus Satow has highlighted, the same standards are very clearly not being applied to candidates on the centre or right of the party.

Labours bureaucracy blocking candidates from the left from standing for selection isnt confined to Westminster seats. Its also filtering down to selections for Council candidates too. Examples such as Cal Corkery previously the leader of the Labour Group on Portsmouth City Council illustrate the point well. He was deselected mere months before the local elections. His crimes? Liking a Facebook page and sharing a post on Facebook which celebrated increasing Labour membership.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg. In Leicester, 40% of sitting Labour Councillors were told last week that they wouldnt be able to stand in the upcoming elections.

As has been argued by others at great length, all of this is part of an attempt to centralise selections within the Labour Party, reduce the influence members have over their own party and to marginalise the left. The intention is in the short term to prevent left wing candidates from getting selected and taking office, and in the long term to extinguish the left from any positions of significance within Labour.

Many will recognise this in the approach Keir Starmer has taken to his predecessor as Labour leader. This article is being published on the eve of the National Executive Committee meeting which will likely see Jeremy Corbyn blocked from standing as a Labour candidate at the next election. The motion which Starmer has proposed would see the man he once described as a colleague and a friend prevented from standing as a parliamentary candidate appears to cite only one reason for taking this step that he failed to win a general election. This despite fellow election losing former Labour leader Ed Miliband sitting in Starmers shadow cabinet.

It all stinks of a stitch-up of a leader seeking to drag the party to the right, to purge the left and to obtain power at any cost. Unscrupulous and Machiavellian in the extreme. This hostile attitude to internal democracy combined with an aggressive anti-left agenda is creating a well-documented toxic environment for the socialists who have remained within the Labour Party.

By contrast, the experience of leftists within the Green Party is largely positive, as ex-Labour Councillors who have defected to the Greens have found. The democratic culture in the party is far better than that within Labour.

When it comes to candidate selections, that democratic culture means that local parties and their members autonomy are respected. There are no centrally approved longlists or shortlists. There is no political interference preventing candidates from making it onto the ballot paper. Socialists arent blocked from standing for the Greens theyre standing in huge numbers in this years local elections, theyre in Council chambers up and down the country and theyll be on parliamentary ballot papers at the next general election too.

PS. We hope you enjoyed this article. Bright Green has got big plans for the future to publish many more articles like this. You can help make that happen. Please donate to Bright Green nowdonate to Bright Green now.

Image credit: Jon Craig Creative Commons

Visit link:
Why socialists should join the Green Party #8: The Greens don't rig ... - Bright Green