Mediaboss Marketing

Offering statues as gifts to other nations has long been a subtle way of extending politicsinto the realm of arts. New York's Statue of Liberty, for instance, wasfunded by France to celebrate freedom and enlightenment.

But a similar gift from China is now putting Germans in a rather awkward position. The influential Germantrading partner wants to buy the town of Trier a statue of Karl Marx to honor him as one of the co-authors of the Communist Manifesto, a political text written with Friedrich Engels in 1848. Another German town accepted a similaroffer two years ago.

To some in Trier, the giftis a welcome expression of Chinese-German partnership. To others, however, the free Karl Marx is a provocation, given that Eastern Germany's own communist experiment resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people who tried to flee from the communist east into the west before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. They also think accepting such a gift from China, which is frequently criticized for violating human rights, would send the wrong message at a time when Western liberalism isunder attack by right-wing populists and authoritarianregimes.

The council of Trier accepted the gift Monday evening, paving the way for a permanent bronze statue, erected in the city center ahead ofthe philosopher's birthday 200 years ago in May next year.

It is a decision that is likely to surprise those who witnessed the early days after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Across Eastern Europe, statues of communist heroes such as Marx and Vladimir Lenin were toppledduring the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.In 2014, during the Ukraine conflict, more than 200 remaining Lenin statues were destroyed within days in an expression of anger toward the Kremlin.

Although Lenin statues have long beenhard to find in Germany, a number of Marx monuments continue to surprise visitors in cities such as Berlin and Chemnitz in east Germany. The latter used to be called "Karl Marx City" until one year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when officials decided it was time for Marx to assume a more subtle role.

Chemnitz's Marx statue was nottaken down, though,and it has once again become the city's landmark its head alone being 23 feet tall. In Trier, the Marx monument will probablybe much smaller.

City officials refrained from making a final decision on its height Monday evening, probably making it the city's next talking point. Some think that a tall statue standing on a plinth overlooking tourists and city residentswouldimply Marx's intellectual incontestability, whereas in reality his theories remain contentious in Germany. Critics want the Chinese statue of Marx to be of real-life height so that tourists can confront the communist theorist eye to eye.

"Take him down from the plinth," one resident told a German radio station. "I like that compromise -- [Marx being] on an equal footing [with everyone]."

Read more:

What toppled Lenin statues tell us about Ukraines crisis

A giant Lenin head was unearthed in Germany

Read the original here:
China keeps buying Karl Marx statues for Germany to celebrate communism. Not all want to join the party. - Washington Post

Wenceslao: Pope on communists | SunStar Sun.Star I understand that prejudices and biases against communists and communism is still widespread even decades after the end of the Cold War. I listen to even my friends and am amazed by the many misconceptions they harbor about the rebels and their ...

Read more:
Wenceslao: Pope on communists | SunStar - Sun.Star

The theory of communism is a fantastic idea. Really. The same goes for patriarchy.

That might be the last thing you ever expected a libertarian feminist to say, but there it is.

Communisms theoretical definition is a system in which labor and resources are equally distributed with everyone working towards a greater societal good. Because everyone is working towards the same goal no one person is overworked, and everyone reaps the benefits. Whats wrong with that?

Patriarchy has come to mean different things to different people. I define it as a society in which men hold power, responsible for the well-being, financial stability, and protection of those under their authority.

In theory, women in a patriarchal world just have to look after the house and kids and not worry themselves with things such as taxes, military service, and politics. It can be a highly stable system and was a trait of all of historys major world conquerors (Egypt, Rome, the Mongols, Great Britain, etc.).

Both communism and patriarchy are great ideas, but they have the same problemthey dont work in real life, and they fail for the same reason.

Both involve taking power from one group, which loses most if not all individual autonomy, and giving it to another group. Whats worse, the group in power rarely suffers consequences for abusing their power.

In practice, communism must be organized by an authoritarian figure who must be able to perfectly foresee and plan for everything from healthcare needs, natural disasters, food requirements, necessary buildings, and so on. Dictatorial power is needed to control all this and it also means that the average person has no power. Ergo, what we inevitably see develop under communism is a slave-state.

In a truly communist society, taking matters into ones own hands can be a capital offense. Since people have no power to address hunger and famine by, say, growing their own food, they are utterly at the mercy of the governing body.

Keeping with the food example, having private providers of resources is a threat to the governments control and a capital offense in some cases (dictators are not historically understanding or sympathetic people). It doesnt matter if the government is providing sufficient resources or not. Therefore, we see these systems deteriorate until people are making boats out of tires and crawling through barbed wire to escape.

Its the same with patriarchy. In a patriarchal world, a girl supposedly doesnt have to worry about her food, shelter, or upkeep. But when taking care of her constitutes a burden to her male guardian, we get things like sex-selective abortions and infanticide to curb the number of women within the population. There also exists a push to marry off young girls so as to limit the number of years they must be supported by their families.

When a girl grows up, she becomes subject to her husband whobecause he is the one assigned power and obviously knows whats bestcan pretty much do whatever he wants with her. Her medical, financial, and personal life are dictated wholly by his decree.

Affirmative action is another great idea, as it is supposed to lift minorities out of poverty by offering them government jobs. What actually happens is these jobs primarily go to minority workers who are already part of the middle class.

Affirmative action changed the social standing of very few. In addition, now every minority worker is suspected of having their job only because of diversity quotas, regardless of how skilled or effective they might be.

Subsidies and government pressure on banks to give every US citizen ownership of a home also seems great on the surface. It was so great that both Democrats and Republicans loved it right up until a bunch of people who couldnt sustain mortgage payments (and shouldve never been given loans in the first place) went bankrupt. The American populace collectively suffered from the Great Recession of 2008, but it was totally the banks fault.

All these ideas are rooted in the belief that a certain group of peoplelower classes, women, and minoritiescant take care of themselves. These systems developed around the good intention to care for those who were weaker.

But we all know what they say about good intentions and the road to Hell.

In the end, efforts to help are flawed because rather than creating a system where the disadvantaged could compete, we assigned a group already in powerpolitical leaders, men, banks, etc.to level the playing field. No one was empowered, no one was given liberty. In the end, we left power where it had always been.

The lesson we should learn is that assigning one group to look after another does not end well. Only by granting people personal freedom and autonomy can we ensure that they can at least work to secure what they need. Im not saying its perfect, no system is. However, its about as close as we can get.

Rather than designating one group of people to look out for another, be it the government or a group of private citizens, disadvantaged groups should have control over, and responsibility for, their own lives. No matter if those in power are richer, more educated, or more charismatic, we should never allow someone else to take care of us if we can help it. In the words of my favorite Avenger, The best hands are still our own.

* Elisabeth Wheatley is a college student, blogger, and fiction writer who loves freedom. Besides playing the token conservative in an aptly named liberal arts school, she is a gigantic nerd and pro-life feminist who dreams of owning a hobbit house.

Like Loading...

Read the original:
Communism, Patriarchy, and Other Great Ideas That Don't Work - Being Libertarian

Steps Part 1 Learning What Communism is All About

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Remember that communism is strongly opposed to the acquisition of private property, and needless consumption. One of the most communist things you can do is to rely on the public library and used bookstores to accomplish your research goals

1

2

3

4

Keep in mind that even peaceful demonstrations can lead to legal consequences. Learn the laws in your area, and be prepared to be chastised and possibly even arrested for participation in political demonstrations.

1

2

3

Join a co-op. For a small annual fee, you can take part-ownership of your food distribution source. Most co-ops also offer opportunities for members to share their labor, as well.

4

5

6

Treat your employees well if you are an employer. Pay all employees a fair, living wage, and allow them to participate in the direction, profits and ideally the ownership of the company.

7

Advance the cause of labor if you are an employee. Participate in labor unions and employee organizations, and advocate for your fellow workers. If labor is not organized in your place of business, do your part to make this happen.

8

9

Avoid causing physical or mental harm other people in the course of your revolutionary activities. Becoming an oppressor yourself will not further the communist cause, and will only land you in jail!

How do I tell my close friends and family I'm a communist without incurring judgement?

Be a great example of a good communist, as described above. When they notice and ask why, that is a good time to share. It takes patience.

You put CPUSA, yet they endorsed Hillary Clinton and are very uncommunist.

CPUSA deals with objective reality well. To work effectively in the real world, they often have to support, not endorse, people they are not in agreement with and/or don't like. This is in accordance with Leninist principles. CPUSA has a 97-year track record of effective struggle for the working class, while seldom getting the credit.

Can communism implement democracy in a way that is conducive to civilization?

wikiHow Contributor

It depends on what you mean by 'communism.' A lasting Communism must be voluntary - taxation is not considered to be such by leading philosophers. Communism in its current incarnation is heavily Marxist, which is causative of corruption. Implementing voluntary communism can be done within a democratic society, provided that it casts off the problems inherent in Marxist ideology.

Shouldn't you list PCUSA instead of CPUSA?

No. CPUSA has the unenviable position of being a revolutionary party in a country that is not yet ready for revolution. To try and force progress upon a population is useless and counterproductive. PCUSA is a break off group that could not abide by the decision of the CPUSA majority.

Ask a Question

If this question (or a similar one) is answered twice in this section, please click here to let us know.

Thanks to all authors for creating a page that has been read 157,346 times.

Yes No

Read more:
How to Be a Communist (with Pictures) - wikiHow

Published on 8 March 2017 13:17, Adelina Marini, Twitter: @euinside Last change on 8 March 2017 13:19

There was anotherhearingin the European Parliament last week on the state of human rights and rule of law in Hungary, but as a Hungarian colleague of mine wrote to me did they say anything new to make it worth watching. He had not watched it. Actually there were new things, but he is correct in being sceptical that this hearing will likely not change anything. Or would it? Because in Jean-Claude JunckersWhite Paperon the future of Europe one can see signs of rapidly depleting patience in some influential EU member states with the attempts at restoring totalitarian regimes and all displays of Euroscepticism.

My democracy is better than your democracy

The hearing was organised by the Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs Committee of the European Parliament on February 27th, with the participation of Hungarian Justice Minister Lszl Trcsnyi and representatives of several non-governmental organisations, one of which was clearly pro-governmental. The agenda of the hearing included the issues of Hungarys attitude towards refugees and migrants, the media environment, the undermining of the rule of law. As expected, the biggest accent in the two-hour long hearing was on refugees. The first to speak was Lszl Trcsnyi, who tabled the issue of Communism, reminding that the hearing was held in the EP building named after Jzsef Antall who played a major role in Hungary against Communist dictatorship. Jzsef Antall was the first democratically elected prime minister of Hungary after the fall of Communism.

"So, it's worth remembering that on the 25th of February we commemorated the victims of communism and we are in the enviable situation today to live in a democracy where debate and exchange of ideas is free, desirable and good thing", said the Hungarian minister of justice and continued on to delegitimising the NGOs. Civil organisations have a very limited level of legitimacy. The government is always led by officials elected byuniversal suffrage, added the minister. Further on he spoke at length about the migrant and refugee crisis, stating that in fact many member states have a problem with fundamental rights.

"Hungary has taken its responsibility to protect the external borders of the Schengen area very seriously. In 2015 Hungary received a great deal of criticism but today we've seen that the common policy of the EU is now focusing on the protection of the EU's external borders. We are proud that we were able to bring about this change in mindset", he said.

Following him spoke Mikls Sznth, Director of the Centre for Fundamental Rights, who took an entirely pro-governmental stance. The focus of his speech was that democracy in Hungary is perfectly healthy and functioning normally. He outlaid a few different versions of democracy, underlining that there is no universal definition of democracy or rule of law. Nation states shall not be called to account uniformly on such polyphonic and vague standards, he said, seemingly supporting the illiberal road, picked by PM Viktor Orbn. Mikls Sznth further said that some countries dont even have a Constitutional Court, like The Netherlands and Sweden for example, very much reminding of theargument that ensued recently between Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski and the First Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans (The Netherlands, Socialists and Democrats).

Moreover, he said, in some cases, like in France for example, the chief prosecutor is a member of the government, not an independent institution like in Hungary. And France is a clearly functioning democracy, added the analyst. His conclusion was more than pregnant with messages. Therefore, I think if we are discussing seemingly democracy, in truth we're talking about different perceptions of sovereignty but not about democracy. It's not a legal or professional debate on fundamental rights or related procedures, but is a clash of world viewsor ideologies of national sovereignties of member states how far or shall be the competences shared with the member states and the EU".

Mikls Sznth was convinced that broad changes are starting regarding the nature and the paradigm of democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights, and sovereignty. "It is obvious that this is just the beginning of wider and broader changes around the nature and paradigm of democracy, the meaning of rule of law and fundamental rights or overall about sovereignty. And its also clear that the political and legal battle between those who embrace supranational solutions for the sake of all mankind and those who embrace national identity, including the identification and definition of fundamental rights as a number one priority must not only take place in Hungary but Europe and the whole Western world as we know it. So, the best and most interesting days of our lives, I think, are still ahead of us", concluded Mr Sznth.

Stefnia Kapronczay, Executive Director of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union adamantly dismissed these claims. In her opinion, currently two tendencies can be outlined in Hungary, which are undermining freedom and pluralism. Word is of the restructuring of the media market and the manipulation of revenue distribution. She feels that there is a process of soft censorship going on in Hungary, where it is not individual pieces of news that are under attack but entire media enterprises, leading to interference with the supply of content rather than any specific content. Regarding the restructuring of the media market, Stefnia Kapronczay quoted the OSCE findings from 2014, following the parliamentary elections, which stated that very few media can be called independent.

Most of them are concentrated in the hands of businessmen with close ties to the ruling party. The second tendency is the one of uneven distribution of state-sponsored advertisement. A problem, which is seen in almost all EU membership candidate states. In addition, there are cases of limiting journalists access to information. There are several occasions when certain journalists have been denied access to refugee camps during the refugee crisis of 2015. Several journalists and even entire media enterprises have been denied access to the parliament building on the personal order of the Speaker. The usually quoted reason is attempted recording in restricted areas.

Some bans have been lifted since, but there is legal pressure to silence criticism against the government. Stefnia Kapronczay reminded that in Hungary defamation remains a criminal offence. Charges are regularly brought against investigative journalists, defenders and watchdog organisations. She also reminded that the amendments of the freedom and information act in 2015 have also rendered access more difficult to public data. Regarding NGOs, the problem is very serious, she explained. A new impetus was given to the process of stigmatising independent civil organisations. An amendment to the law on civil organisations is scheduled on the agenda of the spring session of Parliament.

From data leaked so far it becomes evident that a tightening of the regime is imminent for organisations financed from abroad, as well as the politically active ones. Most of these organisations are again linked mainly to the migrant crisis. The rhetoric or tactics shall be familiar from Israel or Russia, added Stefnia Kapronczay. She quoted data, according to which 87% of journalists in Hungary believe that the political class controls the media and not the other way around. Threatening and stigmatising NGOs is putting into question the very nature of democracy, she reminded.

Mikls Sznth intervened towards the end of the hearing with yet another troubling statement, saying that during the first decade of the new century liberal media dominated in Hungary. Today the situation is more balanced and now if owners have made certain decisions that is because of market forces. There is civil society which is healthy in Hungary, he repeated. The minister of justice concurred with this appraisal and stated that last year he proposed a bill, making NGO registration much easier. Now they do not have to wait before beginning their activities. Nobody congratulated me at the time. Nobody said its excellent now that NGOs can begin their work immediately. Now I'm not asking for congratulations, but I would like that to be a general recognition that registration has been made easier, he said. He announced that there are 6000 NGOs currently operating in Hungary. They're flourishing, he stated.

He reminded once more that NGOs do not possess the same legitimacy as directly elected governments and asked whether not accepting an NGOs opinion necessarily makes the state a dictatorship. German MEP Birgit Sippel (Socialists and Democrats) reacted sharply to these claims by saying that no one is questioning the legitimacy of governments. But if you are elected and whatever the majorities are you have to respect different political statements, groups and also different positions from NGOs and from citizens. And in a democracy you have to make sure that all these different positions and arguments can be heard. So, freedom of media and freedom of expression of positions is very important. And is also necessary in a democracy that media have the possibility and the duty to be very critical, she added.

According to Todor Gardos of Amnesty International, there are other problems, like for example the evasive use of cardinal laws that require super majority without consultation or genuine debate. Also problematic are media laws, a regressive definition of family and weakened legal protection of sexual minorities. He pointed out that there are currently ongoing processes of dismantling of checks & balances regarding the Constitutional court and the judiciary. NGOs are often the subject of intimidation and harassment, often ordered by the prime minister himself. Over the past years the government and governing party members have themselves uttered intolerant and discriminatory statements against women, Muslims, Roma and LGBTI people.

"We call on you to keep asking questions about Hungary and to keep pressure on the Commission and member states to deliver on their obligations. What is happening in Hungary today is a deliberate targeting of various groups in society, often those who are already severely marginalised and deprived", added the human rights activist. No lesser problem is the one with the refugees. Mistreatment of refugees is a common sight; laws make it virtually impossible to file for asylum, aiming at making the lives of those who managed to squeeze through exceptionally difficult. There was an openletterpublished in the day of the hearing, addressed to Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos (Greece, EPP), which calls for looking into the preparation of a new draft bill, which would make applying for asylum in Hungary extremely difficult. The bill was approved today (March 7).

To all the criticism the Hungarian minister and the pro-government analyst replied using the argument that there are similar problems elsewhere and that Hungary is in fact doing its job. Accusations followed that the NGOs are not as critical regarding refugee problems elsewhere. At the end of the hearing Lszl Trcsnyi even announced that Central Europe is being discriminated against. He gave an example with the problems of Hungarian enterprises, squeezed by competition. Actually, competition is violating fundamental rights as well, were his words. Of such discrimination often talks the Polish foreign minister, according to whom Western companies have benefited from the enlargement of the EU at the expense of national enterprises. On March22 in the EP Civil Liberties Committee there will be a hearing of Frans Timmermans about the procedure for the protection of the rule of law against Poland.

Translated by Stanimir Stoev

More:
Hungary Brings Up Communism as a Shield Against Criticism About ... - euinside.eu