Mediaboss Marketing

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

This year marks 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution took place in Russia. That year, the centuries-old czardom of Russia and the brief liberal democracy that replaced it collapsed and was soon replaced by the Soviet Union, the worlds first stable communist state.

It was that year, a long, bloody, century ago, that the class warfare and revolutionary ideas of Marxism went from being the fanciful talk of disaffected intellectuals to a serious international political and historical force.

Since that fateful event, which the title of John Reeds Ten Days that Shook the World so aptly captures, communism through its various forms and adherents has directly led to the deaths of well over 100 million people and the subjugation of countless more across the world.

With the end of the Cold War, many Americans may believe that communism has now been relegated to the history books, and as a tragic holdout in nations like North Korea and Cuba or as a curious aberration in nations such as China and Vietnam. Yet on this 100th anniversary, it is worth the time for Americans to reflect on the lessons of the incredible hardships of this past century as well as the challenges the future may pose.

Over the course of the 20th century, the United States was the center of human freedom and God-given liberty in polar contrast to totalitarian ideologies, most notably communism.

Tens of thousands of American service members lost their lives fighting for the freedom of peoples around the world from communism.

Conflicts in such places as Vietnam and Korea, and other countless anti-Communist expeditions and engagements, were unique because these were not conflicts in self-defense like almost all of Americas other wars but were wars waged in the name of moral dignity and truth.

The stark contrast between America and totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union clarified in our minds and hearts the ideals and values that made us different from them. This contrast also often pushed us to live up to our ideals whenever we strayed.

Yet we are already showing worrying signs of forgetting our past.

In 2012, movements such as Occupy Wall Street attempted to capitalize on the real hardships many Americans were feeling in the wake of the financial crisis. However, rather than promoting more insulation in the system, many sought to throw out the system all together.

Since then, many of these attitudes have not dwindled but grown.

A 2016 poll by YouGov showed that while millennials still saw communism very unfavorably, they did so at a rate (37 percent) that was significantly lower than Americans as a whole (57 percent).

Furthermore, many millennials expressed worrying sentiments, such as distrust of capitalism, ignorance of communisms record and history, and support of Marxs quote from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.

Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders ran on redistributionist policies and class warfare rhetoric. The shocking level of support he and other similar candidates and movements did and still receive, as well as the rise of far more extreme trends such as Antifa and campus free speech suppression, are warning signs for the direction some in our country are sliding toward. It is incredibly tragic that such beliefs are taking root in the center of liberty and freedom in the world. Over the course of this past century, the idea of class warfare and totalitarian ideas gaining traction in the United States was laughable. Efforts not only by the government but by the citizenry itself ensured that such ideas would never be able to take root in this fortress of human liberty.

Ironically, the fact that communism has never taken root in America is likely a major cause of current increasing comfort with and interest in some of its tenets. Many other nations have directly experienced the hardships of communist tyranny and war, and have been hardened against the extreme lefts siren song through direct personal, familial and societal experiences. In contrast, in modern America communism has largely only been an abstract idea seen on TV or read about in books.

Now that the pressing existential threat of nations such as the Soviet Union has seemingly been alleviated, many have stopped combating the collectivist ideals which fuel Marxist thought. However, many of those on the ultraleft have not stopped pushing their anti-liberty ideas.

On this 100th anniversary of the October Revolution, it is time for all of us to remind ourselves and others of the ideals that define America individual liberty, the Constitution, rule of law, and God-given freedom. The lessons of this past century have been learned with too much sacrifice to be forgotten so easily.

Erich Reimer, a lawyer, is a Republican activist and commentator.

Here is the original post:
The tragic Bolshevik legacy, 100 years on - Washington Times

Last week, President Trump decided to scale back President Obamas rapprochement with the communist government of Cuba. Every major story has talking points, and this one is no exception. After watching the medias reaction, it became clear that one of them would be that the older generation of Cuban Americans supports the presidents hard-line stance whilst the younger generation opposes it.

Theres truth in this. Despite exceptions like myself, younger Cuban Americans tend to be far less interested in maintaining longstanding U.S. policy toward Cuba than older ones like my grandparents are. But the implication, of course, is that this sentiment is unfashionable and obsolescent; in another generation or two itll be dead, along with the generation thats responsible for its influential persistence.

Perhaps thats true. So what? Is there something about being young and fashionable that makes one more competent than older people to speak on this topic or any other? On the contrary, people whove experienced Castroism are far more qualified than the relatively affluent Cuban-Americans of my generation whove lived as far away from the harms of communism as a person can be in this world.

My great-grandfather was an officer in Cubas regular army during the rebellion. Sometime after the communists took over the country, he was arrested as a political prisoner because the cancer of Batista was in his blood, they told him. According to my great-grandmothers account, he wouldve been executed if it hadnt been for a connection in the new government, who secured his release. Her brother, my great-uncle, wasnt as lucky; he was murdered by the regime.

A few years later, they decided to flee Cuba. Government expropriated their housefor which they had worked many yearsand their personal effects, down to my grandmothers wedding ring. Unfortunately, this wasnt uncommon. Hundreds of thousands of other Cuban Americans have similar stories to tell. I havent yet mentioned the other half of my family, who were also persecuted.

Despite the above, my family were relatively lucky. The communist usurpers enormous seizure of property is only one of their many crimes. Summary executions, torture, and imprisonment of counter-revolutionaries were common in Fidel Castros Cuba, especially in the immediate aftermath of his revolution. And thats only scratching the surface. The Castro regime outlawed religious practice and sent homosexuals to labor camps, for just two more examples.

All of these facts are why the older generations tend to be much more sceptical of leftism than the younger generations: theyve experienced it and would like very much never to do so again. Thats why Cuban Americans have been the only Hispanic community in this country that reliably supports the Republican Party. Its unfortunate this is changing.

In the light of the above, it isnt difficult to see why the opinions of the older Cubans are more weighty in this matter than those of millennials: One group experienced the scourge that is revolutionary socialism; the other enjoys the benefits of capitalism in Che Guevara T-shirts. If truth is what were interested in, then the older folk are much more reliable guides than the younger ones. Thats why Ive chosen to put much more stock in my grandparents experiences than in the underdeveloped political opinions of third-generation Cuban Americans.

Not surprisingly, then, the rational case for rapprochement is weak. A common claim is that the United States regularly does business with other repressive states like China. Why not Cuba as well?

This argument seems to involve a pretty appalling principle, according to which if a country subsidizes oppression anywhere then it ought to subsidize it everywhere. And the Left doesnt apply this principle to right-wing repressive regimes. Afrikaner apartheid comes to mind. There the Left supported isolating and boycotting the Afrikaner government until they relinquished their power and ended apartheid. Its only leftist regimes that they oppose sanctioning.

The next argument one invariably hears involves the claim that the embargo hasnt worked, and theres truth in this. Its true that the embargo and travel restrictions havent led to significant human rights reforms on the island. Far from being a bastion of liberalism, Cuba remains an illiberal, country-sized shanty town frozen in the 1950s. From this, it is concluded that we should normalize relations with the Cuban government.

Even supposing that the premise were true, the conclusion wouldnt follow. It would follow only if we had reason to suppose that normalization would lead to significant liberal reform, for if it wouldnt, then all wed achieve by normalizing relations is to help a repressive regime, enabling them to profit from American money and business for nothing in return.

Is there any reason to suppose that normalization would lead to significant political reforms? Not really. President Obama got virtually nothing in return for his rapprochement. (This shouldnt surprise anyone who sees that the communists wouldnt have supported normalization if they didnt think it would help them maintain their grip on the country.)

Moreover, we have lots of inconvenient empirical evidence against this hypothesis. Over the last few decades, millions of tourists from other Western countries (e.g., Canada, the United Kingdom, France, etc.) have visited the island, pouring in millions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of tourists from these countries visit Cuba every year. Despite this, there have been no significant political reforms that have even a tenuous connection to Western tourism and trade. Is there something magical about American tourists that will suddenly cause the Cuban government to have an epiphany and relinquish power?

The failure of other countries normalization approach isnt remotely surprising. Over the last few decades, the Cuban government has succeeded in making an entire population completely dependent on the government. Whats more, they ingeniously allowed the entirety of their political opposition to flee decades ago, leaving only those brainwashed to believe that capitalism and the United States are the reason for their destitution. Given these facts, we shouldnt expect that allowing millions of dollars to flow into the hands of the government would lead them to change the status quo, which they like very much.

Consequently, as with the hard-line approach, we have reason to suppose that normalization would not lead to liberalization, but unlike the hard-line approach, it would involve American business and money helping prop up Cubas odious regime.

Thats why this argument is seriously flawed: It assumes that the only goal of having an embargo and travel ban is to cause regime change or political reform. Not so. The primary reason to maintain this policy is to prevent us from being complicit in evil without any compensating good.

On that front, the policy has, until Obama, been a resounding success. It would be a resounding success on the other front as well if only other Western countries had followed our example, but the regime has been able to maintain its grip on power precisely because of the kind of normalized relations for which people on the Left advocate. Without that profit and with international isolation in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the regime likely wouldve gone the way of Afrikaner rule in South Africa.

The older generation happen to be right on this issue. Im glad President Trump decided to listen to them.

CZar Bernstein is a philosopher whose interests include topics in applied ethics, the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of law. He has published essays in peer-reviewed philosophy journals on a variety of topics including the morality of abortion and gun rights. He graduated from the University of Oxford with a masters in philosophy and will begin as a law student at The George Washington University School of Law this August.

Go here to read the rest:
We Should Trust The Cubans Who Fled Communism And Testify Of Its Horrors - The Federalist

Thirty-five years ago this month, President Reagan delivered what is now considered one of his most consequential speeches. Standing in Londons Palace of Westminster, he predicted that the Soviet regime would end up on the ash-heap of history, provided the forces of freedom and democracy not only held firm, but supported one another.

This address is remembered chiefly as a vindication of Reagans muscular opposition to communism. Yet the speech was no mere jeremiad against the Marxist-Leninism it marked the beginning of an historic foray into helping to build the architecture of democracy worldwide.

It is poignant, yet perhaps fitting, that the anniversary of Reagans landmark speech should fall in close proximity to the latest terrorist attack on the city in which it was delivered, and to which the world owes so much in the development of modern democracy.

While Reagans address focused on the fight against communism, his central ethos is entirely relevant to the war against violent extremism. He said, The ultimate determinant in the struggle thats now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.

We know we have the military strength to defeat ISIS on the battlefield. Even with limited U.S.-backing, Iraqi forces have been able to retake most areas of Iraq formerly occupied by ISIS. We know that our intelligence agencies are working hard to avert countless plots against domestic targets. And we know that, eventually, ISIS will be defeated.

The question is, how much slaughter are we willing to tolerate in the meantime and what comes next? As we know all-too-well, terrorist groups such as ISIS, Al Nusra and Al Qaeda have found fertile recruiting ground amidst the chaos in Syria and Iraq. When not pressed into service through force, a combination of desperation, misguided devotion and sheer opportunism drives young Syrians and Iraqis to join ISIS.

Yet even in countries like Tunisia which, as a burgeoning democracy, remains the sole success story of the Arab Spring young people are leaving in droves to become foreign fighters. The drivers are complex, but it is clear that at least one of the motivations is a profound feeling of disenfranchisement and hopelessness the sense of many young adults that their voice is not heard, and that they have no stake in the future of their country. In contrast, the Islamic State offers the false promise of adventure, of absolute certainty, and perhaps most importantly, of purpose and self-worth.

Democracy assistance programs supported by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy are helping countries such as Tunisia to combat vulnerabilities to extremism by building a better future for their people. Through my involvement as a board member of the International Republican Institute, Ive seen the incredible impact of these efforts first-hand.

By deploying our expertise to support and strengthen democratic institutions such as the rule of law, representative government and free expression, the U.S. can help to stabilize and strengthen vulnerable countries and undercut the appeal of violent extremism. This approach complements military and counterintelligence efforts, and has been widely cited by military leaders as a crucial means of preventing costly future interventions. As General James Mattis observed when asked about funding for foreign assistance programs,If you don't fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately Its a cost-benefit ratio.

In the 35 years since President Reagan launched his campaign for democracy, weve seen numerous examples of successful transitions to democracy, ranging from the former Eastern Bloc to Indonesia. Those transitions were very often aided by the institutes which arose in the wake of the Westminster speech. And at less than 1 percent of the total U.S. government expenditure, its hard to argue against the wisdom of our investment.

This work is by no means easy, nor does it always yield immediate returns. It requires patience, fortitude and commitment to long-term strategic objectives. Yet as President Reagan recognized, evil cannot be vanquished by weapons alone. Ultimately, terrorism wont be defeated just with superior weaponry, but by helping to build stronger societies capable of consigning this scourge to the ash-heap of history.

Kelly AyotteKelly AyotteOPINION: Democracy will send ISIS to the same grave as communism Kelly Ayotte joins defense contractor's board of directors Week ahead: Comey firing dominates Washington MORE served in the U.S. Senate for New Hampshire from 2011 to 2017. She is now a member of the board of directors at the International Republican Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on advancing democracy around the world.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read this article:
OPINION: Democracy will send ISIS to the same grave as communism - The Hill (blog)

Forbes

Greece's Long Love Affair With Soviet-Maoist Communism Forbes Greece's biggest problem isn't a heavy debt burden. It's the love affair of its citizens with Soviet-Maoist communism, a system that wastes the country's resources and talent, killing sensible economic growth initiatives. Greece never became a ...

The rest is here:
Greece's Long Love Affair With Soviet-Maoist Communism - Forbes

President Trump announced his decision on Friday to partially reverse the previous administration's Cuba policies during in speech in Miami. "It's hard to think of a policy that makes less sense than the prior administration's terrible and misguided deal with the Castro regime," Trump said.

The president seized the opportunity to issue a forceful and vivid rebuke of the island nation's communist regime. "Many of you witnessed terrible crimes committed in service of a depraved ideology. You saw the dreams of a generation held captive. And, just literally, you look at what happened and what communism has done," Trump told the crowd of cheering Cuban Americans gathered in Miami's Little Havana neighborhood.

"You knew faces that disappeared, innocents locked in prisons, and believers persecuted for preaching the word of God. You watched the women in white, bruised, bloodied and captured on their way from mass. You have heard the chilling cries of loved ones or the crack so for firing squads piercing through the ocean breeze," he said. "Not a good sound."

Trump continued, drawing on the plight of the Cubans to speak more broadly about the dangers of communism as a model of government. "The exiles and dissidents here today have witnessed communism destroy a nation," the president observed, "just as communism has destroyed every single nation where it has ever been tried."

"But we will not be silent in the face of communist oppression any longer," Trump promised the crowd.

By contrast, former President Barack Obama did not use any form of the word "communism" in his May 2016 speech in Havana, choosing instead to speak of the country's "one-party system," "socialist economic model," and emphasis on "the role and rights of the state."

Emily Jashinskyis a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Link:
Trump's forceful condemnation of Cuban communism - Washington Examiner