Mediaboss Marketing

As mentioned in my last piece, The French Revolution was truly a Watershed even in the history of the world. Not only did it mark the beginning of the end of monarchies and herald the hastening of attempting to establish a more equal political world order for all citizens of each state. We havent got there yet, nor ever will but, we now know, that is what mankind will continue to seek till the end of days.

But this revolutions greatest contribution was the introduction of the subject of political economy; which brought the significance of economy as a factor, of equal importance as political science in the comprehension of social sciences and the betterment of human life.

Hitherto, political philosophy focused on structuring a state to ensure better, and ever better protection of the rights of all peoples of the state. Experts were all very conscious that, at the very top of the list of the ends this study sought, was a better socio-economic life for all peoples in a state. Perhaps, it had not yet occurred to any of them that states could structure economies as well; nor that states could be constructed entirely on an economic order.

Thus far, economy was truly free for all, as Laissez Faire as it was possible to be. If you had wealth or means and used them well, you made as much as you could from it. You had to pay your taxes but, since the [Monarchist] state governed through a nobility which governed their estates as they chose to, taxes were for the nobles and princes, not for welfare.

Thomas Paine probably set the ball rolling in his book, Agrarian Justice, in 1797, by proposing a tax on land owners for the welfare of peasants. It was however, a Frenchman, Henri, Count of St. Simon, who is titled as the father of French Socialism, who first lucidly spelt out the structure of a [possible] socialist welfare state. Thereafter, the subject found an increasing following, including the better known German socialists, Joseph Engels and Karl Marx.

Socialism did not challenge political thought of the time, it only took the reasoning further in a socialist [welfare] direction. The reasoning went thus: if a social contract is to be formed, in which the state is to assume responsibility for the rights of all citizens, it stands to reason that all that lies within the boundaries of any state, is also owned by the state, on behalf of the people and that, thereafter the state assumes its responsibility to fulfill all needs of its peoples.

When socialism began to be viewed increasingly seriously, in the 19th century, the concept of Political Economy also emerged. Socialists averred that even the purest of democracies provided its practitioners with plausible deniability for their actions and that, only a socialist state could be a truly welfare state.

And, while socialism, essentially an economic construct, needed a political framework, based on devolution of governance. Perhaps influenced by the devolution of authority to the nobility in monarchical times, the concept of Communes, communities of governable size wherein local governance could more easily address local needs, emerged and was titled Communism.

It seems that even philosophers, the most gifted minds of their era can be blinkered and refuse to look beyond their horizon. Socialistic communism merely added another dimension to the growth of political thought

I cannot find this quote now but I believe Karl Marx once commented that, Socialism is a period between democracy and communism. Whether he did, or not, this reflects a view of the times. Although Socialism was emerging as an economic system challenging Capitalism, many Socialists viewed Communism as the final form of a social welfare state. Marx also said that, Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution; asserting the supremacy of Communism.

But, neither Socialism nor Communism turned out to be the panacea of all socio-politico-economic woes of the people. Capitalists, scared of the threat of socialists taking their possessions, painted communism and socialism as evils, just as communists did them.

As communism spread, post WW II, an Iron Curtain fell across Europe to divide the Communist-socialist world from the Free World. It didnt do much good either; ideas are sans borders. It seems that even philosophers, the most gifted minds of their era can be blinkered and refuse to look beyond their horizon. Socialistic communism merely added another dimension to the growth of political thought.

Today we find countries that have systems best described as socialist-capitalism or capitalist socialism; and democratic communism or communistic democracies.

Socialists are semi-capitalists and capitalists have become socialists. Unemployment benefits, free health care, free education, etc. are all socialist concepts. But, what is significant is that, whatever the mix, there is no headway in finding that elusive [perfect] Welfare State. Nowhere has Life improved merely because of the type of welfare state. Where there has been some improvement, it has been due to individuals, never the system.

Is that the real secret of life? Is life a perpetual attempt to seek The Holy Grail of equal justice, to no avail, just as the grail has been? With each avenue turning equally dark as the last, after the first curve? Perhaps. But, even if it is, life is the enjoyment of making the effort and breaking new ground.

Keep going and have fun.

The writer is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)

Here is the original post:
Political Science 5. And then came Socialism - Daily Times

By Vejas Liulevicius, Ph.D., University of Tennessee, Knoxville Communism could not create the just society it promised. (Image: 4thebirds/Shutterstock)Communism and theMasses

The role of masses and individualsis salient in the communist ideology. They act as vital forces that help inshaping history. Marx had a steadfast belief in the power of masses working inorganized and coherent groups. In fact, the revolution was carried out by thesemasses of workers and revolutionary forces.

However, as it turned out, individualsdid not play the expected roles in history. The impact they had in the courseof history was constrained by the impacts of other unknown historical oreconomic factors. History imposes limitations on individuals and prevents themfrom making history as they desire. These limitations come in many social andeconomic forms.

Although masses have significantroles in shaping history, it is the elite individuals that determine the courseof revolution by leading the masses. Marx himself was the first leader whochanged the path communism took towards its destiny, followed by other rulerslike Lenin, Mao, and Stalin.

This is a transcript from the video series The Rise of Communism: From Marx to Lenin. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.

Theleaders turned into substantial forces in the history of communism, and thisled to yet another unfavorable phenomenon that was most contradictory to thefundamental beliefs of communism. The idea of social justice and eradication ofsocial classes was central to communism. It promised to eliminate theexploitation of labor, which was partly encouraged by the gap between theworking class and the bourgeoisie. Ironically, a new class of elites emergedthat enjoyed privileges granted to them by the system. So the ideology thatpromoted the eradication of social classes served as a hospitable environmentto develop new classes of privileged elites.

Learn more about Revolutionary Russians.

A dream that communism followed fromthe beginning was to spread the system around the globe. Communists did notwant their ideology to be practiced in just one country. In particular, theypreferred to establish communism in developed countries. This is becausedeveloped countries are naturally home to capitalism, which communism promisedto eradicate.

Despite what was expected, the birthcountry of communism was not the birth land of Marx and Engels Germany. Instead, it started in Russia with Lenins revolution in 1917. Russiawas not an industrial and developed country at the time. Rather, it was anagricultural society ruled by the Tsar marked by intense oppression.

Another internal contradiction in this belief system was communisms stance on nationalism. Nationalism was not accepted by Marx and he dismissed it as a delusion. Although nationalism was a powerful model of community, ethnicity, or birthplace were not supposed to give identity to people. On the other hand, workers were supposed to identify themselves with class.

However, the communist regimesdeveloped somehow confused attitudes towards nationalism. They supported thisideology as a means of solidifying their power. Most communist parties soughtto be portrayed as patriots and followed nationalist policies.

Learn more about Red October: How the Bolsheviks Seized Power.

Communists were future-minded in their manifestos. They wanted to break all the links with the past and anything related to tradition. By contrast, communism itself became a tradition. As with most social and political ideologies, it developed its own rituals, traditions, and scriptures even to the point of giving them divine status.

One of the pillars of communism wasscience as a guiding principle. Communists wanted to free the working class sothat they would have free time to practice creativity and intellectualism.Their ideal population was one consisting of intellectuals who believed inscience rather than dogmatic religions. The communists dismissed religion asmerely superstitious ideas that belonged to the past.

Quite paradoxically, communismitself turned into a sort of faith, or as some have called it, a politicalreligion. In search of politically correct ideas and beliefs, communistsengaged in what is interpreted as secular confession through internal purgesand self-criticisms in the communist parties. There was supposed to be one truetheory that had to remain unchanged. Therefore, those internal purges served asrecommitments to make sure the ideology remains in its purest form.

Learn more about World War I as a Revolutionary Opportunity.

The communist ideology which promised to solve all the problems of humankind was not without its internal contradictions and paradoxes. The path of true communists did deviate from the canonical texts written by Carl Marx.

Communism dismissed religion as dogma and superstition. It was considered outdated and was to be replaced by scientific beliefs, which was one of the paradoxes of communism since communism eventually turned into a kind of faith.

Communist regimes have ruled many countries in the world. China, Cuba, and North Korea are the most famous ones. A paradox of communism is that it sought to take over the governments in developed countries.

The main purpose of communism is to bring social justice by abolishing private ownership and free markets which were at the core of capitalism. In the absence of social classes, exploitation of labor is eradicated and everything belongs to the public. A paradox of communism is that a new class of elites with special rights emerged in communist societies.

Communism and religion are conflicting principles. However, it is one of the paradoxes of communism that religious ideas and rituals have been incorporated into this ideology.

Excerpt from:
Paradoxes of Communism: Did Communism Deliver its Promises? - The Great Courses Daily News

You know youre doing the right thing when your enemies condemn you.

When President George W. Bush 13 years ago on June 12, 2007, dedicated a U.S. memorial in Washington, D.C., to the more than 100 million victims of communism, both the Chinese communists and the Russian communists immediately attacked the president and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

TheChinese Embassyin Washington dismissed the memorial as an attempt todefame China. Gennady Zyuganov, the head of the Russian Communist Party, called the memorial clumsy propaganda intended to divert the worlds attention from the true bloody crimes of U.S. imperialism.

Tellingly, what neither theChinese communistsnor the Russian communist boss tried to do was to deny the bloody crimes of communist imperialism. After stating that we the living have a solemn obligation to the victims to acknowledge their sacrifice and honor their memory, Bush listed some of communisms victims:

They include innocent Ukrainians starved to death in Stalins Great Famine or Russians killed in Stalins purges; Lithuanians and Latvians and Estonians loaded on cattle cars and deported to Arctic death camps of Soviet communism.

They include Chinese killed in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution; Cambodians slain in Pol Pots Killing Fields; East Germans shot attempting to scale the Berlin Wall in order to make it to freedom; Poles massacred in the Katyn Forest and Ethiopians slaughtered in the Red Terror; Miskito Indians murdered by Nicaraguas Sandinista dictatorship; and Cuban balseros who drowned escaping tyranny.

Since the dedication of the memorial 13 years ago, national leaders from around the world have visited the site to lay a wreath and offer a silent prayer. Ethnic groups from every continent have held rallies and candlelight ceremonies for their fallen brethren.

Each June, representatives of more than 20 foreign embassies and dozens of anti-communist organizations have participated in a memorial service, recommitting themselves to the words at the base of the memorial: To the Freedom and Independence of all Captive Peoples and Nations.

All freedom-loving people are encouraged to joina virtual memorial ceremonyat 9 a.m. on Friday, June 12, at victimsofcommunism.org.

Each June brings the world closer to that day when communism finally will be dumped on the ash heap of history, andfreedomwill take its place in the five countries that still groan under communist dictatorshipChina, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba.

How can we be sure that day will come? We remember the words of the East German communist boss Erich Honecker, who boasted in January 1989 that the Berlin Wall would stand for at least another 100 years. Before the year was out, the Berlin Wall had fallen, and Honecker was under house arrest.

Each June, those in attendance at the Victims of Communism Memorial ceremony pledge that never again will they allow so evil a tyranny to enslave peoples and nations.

They hear the voices of the fallen crying out, Remember us, and vow they will never forget them.

See the original post here:
We Must Never Forget the 100 Million Victims of Communism - Heritage.org

Text Size:A- A+

New Delhi: Historian Ramachandra Guha sparked a controversy when he tweeted a quote from late British Communist and writer Philip Spratt, saying: Gujarat, though economically advanced, is culturally a backward province Bengal in contrast is economically backward but culturally advanced.

Guhas tweet drew retorts from Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani as well as Congress leader Ahmed Patel.

But the historian retorted by thanking the Troll Army for making Spratt better known.

ThePrint takes a look at the life and work of Spratt, and his association with India.

Also read: Does Ram Guha blame Modi voters like Rahuls? A historians job is to assess, not admonish

Philip Spratt was born on 26 September 1902 in southern London to a school teacher and a housewife. Spratt grew up with nonconformist leanings, even though he was raised a Baptist and his father joined the Church of England.

He won a scholarship to attend Downing College at the University of Cambridge. Spratts tryst with Communism began at Cambridge, where he joined the University Labour Club a debate forum that acted as a springboard to his eventual membership with the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB).

Two years after graduating, the CPGB sent Spratt to India in 1926, to report on the foundation of the Communist Party of India, which was in the early stages of its establishment. Spratts mission became forming the Workers and Peasants Party, and to capture trade unions across the country.

Also read: Ram Guha is wrong. Gandhi went from a racist young man to a racist middle-aged man

Spratt mobilised thousands of workers and Communists in undivided India, travelling through Bombay, Delhi, Kanpur, and Lahore. In 1927, he was charged with sedition for writing a pamphlet titled India and China on the instructions of the leadership at the CPGB.

B.R. Ambedkar, who was then a practising lawyer and would go on to draft the Constitution of India, took on the case and won, arguing that no disaffection had been shown to the Government of India.

But Spratt is more remembered for his involvement in the notorious Meerut Conspiracy Case where about 30 CPI members, Congress members and others were arrested for organising a series of worker strikes in 1929. This was considered an offence under Section 121 A of the Indian Penal Code an attempt at depriving the King of his sovereignty over British India.

The indictment claimed that the prisoners were linked to the Russian organisation Communist International, whose aim was the creation of armed revolution, to overthrow all the existing forms of government throughout the world and to replace them by Soviet Republics subordinate to, and controlled by the central Soviet administration in Moscow.

Several of those arrested, however, were not Communists at all. The case is believed to have revealed the British governments fear of striking workers and the growth of Communism in India.

Spratt was originally sentenced to 12 years in prison, but his sentence was mitigated to two years and he was released in 1934.

Spratt began his move away from Communism after he was released, and adopted the ideas of a free-market liberal. Spratt wrote a number of books on India from Communism in India tohis thoughts on Mahatma Gandhi.

In 1970, he was roped in to edit Swarajya, a newspaper run by C. Rajagopalachari and affiliated to the liberal Swatantra Party. Spratt died 15 months later, on 8 March 1971, in Madras (now Chennai).

Also read: When Maharajas, business tycoons and peasant leaders joined the mundu-clad Rajaji to form the Swatantra Party

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Read more here:
Philip Spratt, the late British Communist at the centre of Ram Guhas tweet controversy - ThePrint

The 14th of June 2020 marks the 92nd birth anniversary of one of the poster-boys of Communism, Che Guevera. An Argentine Marxist Revolutionary, Ernesto Che Guevera, became a major figure in the Cuban Revolution. Since then, he has become a symbol of Communist revolution worldwide and t-shirts with his stylised visage printed on them and other regalia have become a marker of rebellion in popular culture.

Thus, on Sunday, fledgling Communist rebel from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Aishe Ghosh, wished a happy birthday to Comrade Che Guevera. The organisation that Ghosh belongs to, the SFI, has a history of unprovoked violence against its political opponents, consistent with Communist tactics worldwide.

Aishe Ghosh was, of course, not the only one. Social media was littered with birthday wishes to the deceased Communist leader.

Intriguingly enough, the ones hailing Che Guevera on his birth anniversary are the same people who have been cheering the violent Black Lives Matter protests and the vandalism of statues of racist historical figures. It appears to be lost on the individuals that Che Guevera himself was a racist of the highest order.

For instance, Che Guevera once remarked, The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese. And the two ancient races have now begun a hard life together, fraught with bickering and squabbles.

The Communist leader had continued, Discrimination and poverty unite them in the daily fight for survival but their different ways of approaching life separate them completely: The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meagre wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.

On another occasion, Che Guevera said, Given the prevailing lack of discipline, it would have been impossible to use Congolese machine-gunners to defend the base from air attack: they did not know how to handle their weapons and did not want to learn. However, the most glaring indictment of his antipathy towards Blacks came after the revolution of 1959. He stated, Were going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing.

June is also celebrated as pride month to create awareness about LGBT Rights. And as it so happens, Che Guevera was also a homophobe. He believed homosexuals were sexual perverts. He and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro believed homosexuality was a manifestation of bourgeois decadence and hence, counter-revolutionary.

The establishment of the first Cuban concentration camp was also overseen by Che Guevera in 1960. As per Alvaro Vargas Llosa, homosexuals, Jehovas Witnesses, Afro-Cuban priests, and others deemed to have committed a crime against revolutionary ideals were forced to work in these camps to correct their anti-social behaviour. A significant number of them died, others were tortured or raped.

In addition to this, Che Guevera is guilty of having committed a host of other crimes. Like other Communist despots of the 20th Century, Che Guevera is guilty of having committed mass-murder on an unprecedented scale and he helped establish a regime that persecuted its citizens greatly. Despite such morbidity, he continues to remain a hero for Communists worldwide.

Che Guevera never made any effort to hide the festering hatred in his heart. In fact, he revelled in it. He once said during a speech, Hatred is the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigenthatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machineWe reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus well destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!

While Leftists continue to glorify Che Guevera, their attitude towards others are quite different. For instance, when Black Lives Matter protesters vandalised a statue of Mahatma Gandhi outside the Indian Embassy in Washington DC, Leftists have no issues with it at all because apparently, it is alright because he was apparently a racist. Similarly, all the rioting and looting and mob violence was justified because it was, apparently, against systemic racism.

But when people point out the racist and homophobic inclinations of Che Guevera, the same people claim that his words and actions need to be veiwed in their proper context. Amusingly enough, when their critics demand that the actions of others then need to be viewed in its accurate context as well, Leftists scream Nazi and racist at them. All of this only goes on to further demonstrate that the sole objective of leftists is capturing power, the facade of principles is merely a carefully constructed charade to weaken the self-defence of their opponents.

See the article here:
After justifying rioting and looting in the name of Black Lives Matter protests, Leftists wish racist homophobe Communist leader Che Guevera a happy...