Mediaboss Marketing

Leaders on the right and centre of Bulgarias political spectrum honoured the victims of the countrys communist era in annual commemorations on February 1 2021.

On this date in 1945, the communist Peoples Court handed down death penalties to a large number of figures from the former royal regime, including three regents, 67 members of Parliament, 22 Cabinet ministers, 47 generals and other senior officers and eight royal counsellors.

The executions were carried out on the night of February 1. Apart from the death sentences, there were a large number of imprisonments. Ahead of the Peoples Court process, there were numerous extra-judicial killings amid the communist takeover of Bulgaria.

The first Boiko Borissov government decreed the day of commemoration in 2011, acting on the recommendation of former presidents Zhelyu Zhelev and Petar Stoyanov, two of the democratically-elected presidents in Bulgarias post-communist era.

The reformist Democratic Bulgaria, which held a wreath-laying ceremony at the monument in Sofia to the victims of communism, said in a statement that despite our desire to look to the future and not to dig into old crimes, the truths about the communist regime must remain alive in the memory and the lessons must not be forgotten, as well as the national betrayal committed by the Bulgarian Communist Party that handed over Bulgarian independence and sovereignty to the Soviet Union.

Prime Minister Borissov, in a post on Facebook, said that the so-called Peoples Court which was neither a peoples institution nor a court marked the beginning of one of the darkest trials in our history.

Illegitimate, primitive and politically controlled, it physically liquidated much of the nations elite, Borissov said.

Unfortunately, there are still voices that this criminal act was necessary and unavoidable justice. There are still politicians who speak too timidly on the subject and claim to be democrats, he said.

That is why I am glad that our efforts have paid off and the tenth graders are already studying the history of communism in Bulgaria. Only an objective knowledge of the past can give us the necessary lessons for the future.

Today our country is a respected member of the EU, which is a guarantor of respect for human rights and democratic principles. Undoubtedly, the thousands of victims are the most painful, but not the only, consequence of the communist regime. The damage to the economy that the communists and their successors left, we are repairing to this day, Borissov said.

Tsveta Karayancheva, Speaker of the National Assembly and a senior member of Borissovs GERB party, said: We bow our heads in pain to the memory of the representatives of Bulgarias intellectual, spiritual and economic elite destroyed by totalitarian repression. But also to all those ordinary Bulgarians whose dreams, dignity, future were brutally trampled by an arrogant elite that came to power with a coup and lies.

Karayancheva said that even today, there were attempts to justify the Peoples Court and even calls for its example to be repeated. Because only a few months ago we witnessed attacks on political opponents in the form of coffins, black sacks and erected gallows. This was a reference to the anti-government street protests in the second half of 2020.

One of the greatest fears of the regime, whose victims we honour today, was the fear of protests. Thats why it crushed everything that even remotely resembled a protest from the length of the skirt to the length of the hair, she said.

Karayancheva said that one of the great advantages of democracy is the right to protest.

When protesting, let us not use images from a dark past and techniques reminiscent of times of reckless political repressionlet us continue together to defend democratic values and human dignity, regardless of the differences between us, she said.

(Photos from the Facebook page of Democratic Bulgaria)

The Sofia Globe has no connection whatsoever to any Bulgarian government or state institution, nor to any Bulgarian political, business or media grouping. If you would like to support independent coverage of Bulgaria, please consider supporting The Sofia Globe via its Patreon account, for as little as three euro a month, or the equivalent in other major currencies:

Become a Patron!

More here:
Victims of communism commemorated in Bulgaria - The Sofia Globe

OPINION: I took the long-suffering wife to Cuba for our honeymoon. Shes a lucky woman. Back then Fidel Castro was still in charge and I wanted to see what real communism looked like.

Readers, it wasnt pretty. We saw children with treatable deformities in a country that claims to have a world-class health system. We encountered intelligent ambitious men reduced to pan handling for tips as bellhops and endured street girls touting themselves brazenly for a few dollars.

Cuba isnt the only dictatorship Mrs Grant has been dragged to. Gadhafis Libya was the other stand-out, but weve travelled to Myanmar, Mozambique, Vietnam and Cambodia. I proposed in Laos, a country that has never had a free election and has engaged in brutal oppression of the Hmong people.

I had no moral qualms in visiting countries ruled by evil governments. I have done business in China and have commercial contracts with a firm in Vietnam. I tried to get a visa to North Korea a few years back, but was denied on account of being a columnist. Journalists are banned from the Hermit Kingdom and the distinction between a columnist and a journalist got lost in translation. Or perhaps they took the time to read my columns. I remain unsure.

Many reasonable people feel a deep sense of unease trading with countries that are ruled by malevolent governments and this issue was highlighted for many last week when we signed an updated free-trade agreement with China.

READ MORE:* With the US now calling China's treatment of the Uyghurs 'genocide', how should NZ respond?* New Zealand signs upgraded free trade agreement with China* China is building vast new detention centres for Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang

These concerns are sensible; Id be worried about the humanity of an individual who didnt consider the ethics involved; so let me share my perspective.

For a start, sanctions do not work. No tyrant has moderated his behaviour once they were imposed. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Saddam Husseins Iraq and dozens of African kleptocrats provide a mountain of evidence for the thesis that tyrants are impervious to external economic forces.

Governments that are subject to political and economic pressures at home can be bullied into behaving better domestically. South Africa is the most obvious example but there are others. Such niceties are utterly ineffective against true dictatorships such as Cuba, North Korea and China.

The Kim family developed a communist dynasty in North Korea whilst their people starved. Sanctions did nothing to dent the ruling familys power or moderate their tyranny. Today, while many of his people live on the edge of hunger Kim Jong-uns quality of life remains undiminished.

Not only do they not work, the rationale for limiting trade is immoral. At the extreme, it amounts to a demand upon a civilian population to risk their lives to topple a government or face the economic consequences. Sometimes these consequences are barbaric; with much of the population of Iraq exposed to malnutrition in the 1990s.

On the surface, the logic of sanctions is appealing. What, a reasonable person can ask, is the moral justification of doing business with places like Saudi Arabia, where women are denied the same rights as men and dissidents are whipped and often beheaded?

If sanctions worked imposing a short-term economic harm on ourselves to help free an oppressed people would be the right thing to do. But they dont. They impoverish the civilian population, sometimes resulting in their death, for no material advantage.

Saul Loeb/AP

Outgoing US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared China was committing a genocide against the Uyghur. (File photo)

Today, the super-power of human rights abuses is China and the outgoing American Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, declared that China was committing a genocide against the Uyghur. Surely if we are ever to draw the line, it must be at genocide?

To understand why the answer is no, consider that we do not trade with a nation. We trade with firms, individuals, collectives or whatever enterprise has been established to undertake commerce.

To refuse to trade with the factories, farms and supermarkets in China because of the crimes committed by those running the Communist Party is to engage in collective responsibility and punishment. We are harming one person for the crimes of another and doing nothing to assist the victims while the perpetrators live in undiminished luxury.

But if you still remain unconvinced let us look a China through a longer historical lens.

Under the isolationist and inward-looking Mao Zedong, tens of millions of Chinese perished in his various programmes. He is, objectively, the bloodiest tyrant in human history. Since his death, China has embraced not only its unique version of capitalism but the world; through trade, education and tourism.

China has moderated as a direct result of its economic engagement with the West and this transformation began with Richard Nixons visit to China in 1972, during the height of the Cultural Revolution. The deepening economic ties has helped lift a billion Chinese out of poverty and makes a return to the violent extremes of the past unlikely.

An argument can be made that trade enhances the economic power of countries with expansionary ambitions and self-preservation dictates prudence. I am unpersuaded by this line of thought but that isnt the focus of this column.

Stuff

Damien Grant: We may be economically impotent but our voice carries a heavy moral weight. We should use it.

We should be more concerned about China using economic levers to pressure us. New Zealand appears to be distancing itself from its five-eyes partners in recent months, especially in response to Hong Kong. A cynical observer may suspect that our muted reaction to the crackdown in the former British colony and our improved free-trade deal are connected.

Given the importance of our trade with China, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her new Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta have a difficult path to walk.

While threats of economic pain for their citizens do not deter dictatorships, those running these regimes have demonstrated a desire for respectability. China in particular appears highly sensitive to criticism. We may be economically impotent but our voice carries a heavy moral weight. We should use it.

If Beijing elects to retaliate that is beyond our control; but while I believe we should trade with China, we should not become a vassal state in the process.

* Damien Grant is a regular columnist for Stuff, and a business owner based in Auckland. He writes from a libertarian perspective and is a member of the Taxpayers Union but not of any political party.

See the rest here:
The logic of sanctions is appealing, but do not work with communist countries - Stuff.co.nz

The formal end of the apartheid government in South Africa was hard-won. It took decades of activism from both inside and outside the country, as well as international economic pressure, to end the regime that allowed the countrys white minority to subjugate its Black majority. This work culminated in the dismantling of apartheid between 1990 and 1994. On April 27, 1994, the country elected Nelson Mandela, an activist who had spent 27 years in prison for his opposition to apartheid, in its first free presidential election.

The white minority who controlled the apartheid government were Afrikaanersdescendants of mostly Dutch colonists who had invaded South Africa starting in the 17th century. Although Afrikaaner oppression of Black South Africans predates the formal establishment of apartheid in 1948, apartheid legalized and enforced a specific racial ideology that separated South Africans into legally distinct racial groups: white, African, coloured (i.e., multiracial) and Indian. The apartheid government used violence to enforce segregation between these groups, and forcibly separated many families containing people assigned to different racial categories.

Black South Africans resisted apartheid from the very beginning. In the early 1950s, the African National Congress, or ANC, launched a Defiance Campaign. The purpose of this campaign was for Black South Africans to break apartheid laws by entering white areas, using white facilities and refusing to carry passesdomestic passports the government used to restrict the movements of Black South Africans in their own country. In response, the government banned the ANC in 1960, and arrested the prominent ANC activist Nelson Mandela in August 1962.

The banning of the ANC and the incarceration of its leaders forced many ANC members into exile. But it did not stop resistance within South Africa, says Wessel Visser, a history lecturer at Stellenbosch University in South Africa.

What many dissidents started to do inside the country was to form a kind of an alternativeresistance movement called the United Democratic Front, he says. The UDF, formed in 1983, was a [collaboration] of church leaders and political leaders who were not banned at that stage, community leaders, trade unionists, etc., he says.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Reverend Allan Boesak, two of the UDFs main leaders, started to organize marches to parliament, in Cape Town, in Pretoria, Johannesburgcrowds of 50 to 80,000 people, so there was definitely a groundswell of resistance against apartheid, he says. And around the world, this activism drew attention.

Ronald Reagan delivers a speech regarding South Africa, July 1986.

Dirck Halstead/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images

One of the big moments for international awareness of apartheid was in 1976, when thousands of Black children in the Soweto township protested a government policy mandating that all classes be taught in Afrikaans. Police responded to the protests with violence, killing at least 176 people and injuring over 1,000 more. The massacre drew more attention to activists calls to divest from South Africa, something the United Nations General Assembly had first called on member states to do back in 1962.

Campaigns for economic sanctions against South Africa gained steam in the 1980s, but faced considerable resistance from two important heads of state: United States President Ronald Reagan and United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Both Reagan and Thatcher condemned Mandela and the ANC as communists and terrorists at a time when the apartheid government promoted itself as a Cold War ally against communism.

Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, but the U.S. Congress overrode his decision with a two-thirds majority, passing the act to impose sanctions on South Africa. The U.K. also imposed limited sanctions despite Thatchers objections. The combination of international sanctions placed significant economic pressure on South Africa, which was then at war with the present-day nations of Namibia, Zambia and Angola.

Anti-apartheid activism also drew international attention to Mandela. International advocates urged South Africa to release him and other imprisoned ANC members and allow exiled members back into the country.

As early as 1984 there were attempts by national intelligence inside the government structures and also by some of the ministers to make contact with the ANC and sound out the waters of a possibility of a negotiated settlement, says Anton Ehlers, a history lecturer at Stellenbosch University.

Anti-apartheid leader and African National Congress member Nelson Mandela and his wife anti-apartheid campaigner Winnie raise fists upon Mandela's release from prison on February 11, 1990.

Alexander Joe/AFP/Getty Images

Visser speculates that the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 helped speed the process of ending apartheid along because it took away one of the governments main defenses of itself among Western allies: that it needed to remain in place to fight communism. The argument that the ANC are only the puppets of the Reds couldnt be used anymore, Visser says, both because the Cold War was ending and because the ANC now had a lot more support in Europe and the U.S.

Mandela finally walked free on February 11, 1990, and negotiations to end apartheid formally began that year. These negotiations lasted for four years, ending with the election of Mandela as president. In 1996, the country initiated a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in an attempt to reckon with the gross human rights violations during apartheid.

View post:
Key Steps That Led to End of Apartheid - History

In your book Communism has a future if we free it from the past (1) , here you are continuing a path which leads you to the idea of a rediscovery of Marx. How does this translate?

Bernard Vasseur Indeed, looking at what is happening in the world today, what is being written, what is also thought, I found something new. Thirty years ago, when you looked in the windows of bookstores, you couldnt find a single book by Marx. The German philosopher was treated like a dead dog. He was equated with the failure of the socialist countries and the USSR. At the moment, on the contrary, we see a kind of incredible flowering of books by Marx and books on Marx. We find new translations, writings that we did not know in my youth. Marx with Engels are being rediscovered. Its very strong. Within the French labor movement, two dimensions were separated for a long time in Marx. We have seen in him the thinker of anticapitalism and the class struggle, but we have often forgotten that he is also a thinker of communism, what he calls the Classless society or The end of the prehistory of human society. A Classless society, it is a society without dominants, nor dominated. This speaks to us immediately when we think of the inequalities of all kinds (not just income) that are exploding and which are perceived as unacceptable. Communism is the aim of human emancipation. So it is certainly not the big night, but it is indeed a revolution. It is the idea of a change of era of humanity, where each human being decides, individually and collectively, to fight for control of his life and to decide his work. I recall the beginning of the Communist Party Manifesto: The history of any society up to the present day has only been the history of class struggles. Marx also poses the question of a real transformation, of a change in the way of making humanity and of working for the human race , according to the famous word of the International. For me, we must reconcile the two dimensions and not stop at the thought of against in order to be, at the same time for . We fight this capitalist society and we act in favor of a change of civilization. And besides, the current challenges are such that we cannot be satisfied with changing power or government, we need a deep, civilizational change. I would add that when we see the success of intellectuals like Alain Badiou, tienne Balibar, Frdric Lordon, David Graeber, Bernard Friot, etc., and even Thomas Piketty in his own way and within his limits, who speak of Marx or the Communism, one can be astonished that the Communists themselves, and the party which is right to want to remain Communist, do not more proclaim themselves the heirs of Marx and evoke so little communism. It is also this paradox that led me to write this book. Another effort, comrades!

How then is Marx fully relevant today?

Bernard Vasseur I was talking about the many intellectual works. But, if we look at the latest social struggles and the Covid-19 health crisis, we can still see the shadow of Marx hovering there. We recall. The caregivers, especially the hospital workers, led a very long strike. I remember this slogan: The state is counting its money, we will count the dead. We see what truth this warning acquires today in the midst of an epidemic. In the earlier period, this remark meant: health is not a commodity. We cannot run the public hospital like a capitalist enterprise with the dictatorship of numbers, with what Alain Supiot calls the Governance by numbers. Lets take the yellow vests again. They have brought to the fore the precariousness of life, the poverty of people who work but who can no longer make a living from their work. The question of inequalities and the political representation of the humble, of the rank and file was raised. Here again, we can find Marxs shadow with the stake of reappropriating the policy that he places at the heart of the communist idea. What is often translated in French by The withering away of the class state. Third example, the retirement movement: everyone has understood that the government project was intended to make us work longer. In a capitalist regime, this means being exploited for longer. The fact of living longer became a prey in order to make ever more profits. Here again, the shadow of Marx and his idea of communism appear. It is not only in intellectual circles that we see it, ideas are born today within the social movement. Which makes me say that communism is fully topical.

And then there is the health crisis and the climatic challenges we are facing. You have also published, with the Editions de lHumanit, a small essay entitled After the health crisis? Post-capitalism. How do these threats to life raise the question of overcoming the capitalist system? And how to do it in the age of neoliberal globalization?

Bernard Vasseur Regarding Covid-19, we have talked a lot about next day . Hay herbal teas and lukewarm water, for my part, I spoke of the After system, therefore, post-capitalism. It is this struggle in the present to get out of capitalism that Marx qualifies as communism, and not a distant horizon, a marvelous ideal or a social model presenting the portrait of a society of the future like a tourist brochure. Now this idea of leaving capitalism, of a new civilization, is coming of age. I read zoonoses specialists (those diseases that pass from animals to humans). To explain the pandemic, they call into question the most high-tech contemporary mode of development of capitalism. Now, capitalism is now rushing into the world without obstacles or safeguards, it dominates societies like no other mode of production before it and it is alone on the trail. He cannot disguise or erase his responsibilities and we can look him in the face, as Marx did in his time. The pandemic which strikes the world sows disease and death, makes visible to all that it imposes a mode of development and existence which is distressing and deadly. This is indeed a de-civilization that must be stopped if we want to continue living by leaving fear. Behind the globalization of capital, that is to say the crazy dream of imposing on the entire planet the Western way of inhabiting it, arise the always most essential impulses of capitalism: the insatiable will to power, the wild competition, inequality, cash fetishism. They have been known for a long time, but they take on considerable proportions, become visible and largely shocking. Here again, the exit from capitalism: this is a good rallying point. Finally, there are the ecological disasters that are looming and which are also becoming visible: the earth is heating up, the polar caps and glaciers are melting, natural resources are being exhausted. For all this too, exit from capitalism!

Does capitalism, with the development of a green market, want to give itself an environmental face?

Bernard Vasseur I show in my book that green capitalism is inconceivable. There is indeed an operation underway to do green marketing around ecology. But capitalism cannot reconcile the search for profit and ecosystems, a myriad of private enterprises and social control of respect for ecological standards, the short term of finance and the long term of planetary balances. If we really read Marx by getting rid of the reading imposed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, first by German Social Democracy and then by the Soviet reading of the Third International, we will find absolutely pioneering texts by Marx in it. matter. John Bellamy Foster made this remarkably evident in his Ecologist Marx (Amsterdam, 2011). The productivism that we associate with Marx today is not found in his work, which, on the contrary, is concerned with natural balances in several texts of the Capital. But this is what the Soviet conception of Stakhanovism slipped under its name and made it take for its thought. This is the reason why I say that communism has a future, on condition that it is freed from the traditions of the past. Free Marx from the militant Marxism of the past.

In this concern to free oneself from the past, you insist on the fact that socialism and communism have too often been confused. What do you mean ?

Bernard Vasseur Indeed, there is an anomaly a ruse of history in the development of the workers movement. I repeat: Marx and Engels are thinkers of communism. But what prevailed for two centuries was the word socialism, both in German social democracy and in Soviet socialism. Even today, these two words are still considered synonyms. Did Marx identify them? I think not and I am trying to demonstrate it. In 1848, Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Party manifesto. Subsequently, we called for socialism but, in my opinion, there is a difference in ambition and political means between the two. For example, socialism suffers from its belief in the state as the engine of social dynamics, not communism. Communism according to Marx has never been tried.

But how is post-capitalism, in other words communism, capable of being the first reference point for change?

Bernard Vasseur In 1992, in the end of history and the last man, Fukuyama portrayed a world where triumphant capitalism achieves Intimate marriage market economy and representative democracy. The time for such enthusiasm has long passed. However, what weighs on social struggles is the idea that what collapsed in the twentieth century was communism. So if communism is dead, there can be nothing other than capitalism. This seriously handicaps all current social movements, which must therefore remain on the defensive. We can only defend ourselves against but we have nothing to propose for. I believe that if one decides to speak of communism as Marx thought it, things can evolve. In the capital, Marx writes: Communism is a form of superior society, the fundamental principle of which is the full and free development of each individual. If we look at what happened in the twentieth century, what we call communism and that we should actually call Failure of the socialist countries, Has nothing to do with The full and free development of each individual. In the first part of Communism? (La Dispute, 2018), Lucien Sve produced a corner stone that we can draw on this story. In view of the world around us, we have to step into the breach. It is time to put Marx and communism back in the public debate, and to recreate the idea that there are two paths for humanity. We are not condemned to capitalism ad vitam aeternam. The second path, that of human emancipation, which has been called communism for more than three centuries, has a future.

(1) Communism has a future if we free it from the past, by Bernard Vasseur, Editions de lHumanit, 344 pages, 11.50 euros. available here.

For the release of his essay Communism has a future if we free it from the past, Bernard Vasseur was the guest of the issue of the books of Humanity, At the foot of the letter, released on November 12.

See the rest here:
Bernard Vasseur: It is time to put Marx and communism back in the public debate - Pledge Times

Dong Fang | Wikimedia Commons | Photo CourtesyCommunism might work better in theory than in practice.This form of government might not be as exciting as you think

With the United States election finally coming to a close there has been a conversation of what it means to be democratic and what it could mean to be part of a more socialist society.

And despite what Twitter would like you to believe, neither Biden nor Trump are the biggest threat to our democracy. Who is the monster under Americas bed? The shadow in our closet? The creature in the corn we should be fearful of? Communist North Korea.

Some Americans truly believe that a socialist and communist style of government would be more beneficial to America and her people. Yeonmi Park, a human rights activist and defector from North Korea, recommends that if you truly believe that communism is much better then you should go live there.

She details her escape in her book, In Order to Live, and also on her YouTube channel where she speaks even more in-depth about growing up in a communist regime and what motivated her to escape.

She has spent a lot of time in the states talking about how her experience growing up in North Korea has shaped her as an individual. She talks about eating frogs, dragonflies, grasshoppers and anything else she could forage on the mountainside because she was so desperately hungry. How the mountains had no trees from people finding anything that can be burned to try and keep their families warm during harsh winters. How she grew up in a home with a maximum of two blankets and eating frozen potatoes to survive.

There are also many things punishable by death or by a sentence to a prison camp. These things include watching foreign films, reading the bible or any religious text, attempting to defect, falling out of favor with the dear leader Kim Jung-Un and fortune-telling are among some of the reasons for listed executions. The executions themselves are often inhumane with public and brutal killings such as burning to death by flamethrower, which was the death of the dictators nephew.

A fate worse than death is the infamous prison camps. There are consistent reports of sexual assault, starvation, torture, slave labor and infanticide, among other unspeakable horrors. There are estimated to be up to 200,000 prisoners in up to 12 camps, some of which have merged or been closed, and one known suppressed rebellion that left 5,000 dead.

Additionally, when one person commits a crime as determined by the regime, three generations of family members can be sent to prison camp: grandparents, parents and children,

Life of a North Korean means living without power, without food, without blankets. The regime is meeting none of the necessities of its people. Those who do escape often end up as sex slaves in communist China. China also has a record of returning escapes to North Korea for execution. Chinas influence makes the regime in North Korea possible.

As Park put it, North Korea is not an oil-producing country. If we cut off China supplying the regime with oil, then the needs of the higher-ups will no longer be met and the regime will begin to collapse in on itself. She does express that food, water and other necessities should not be cut off because that ultimately only hurts the people, not the leaders.

Many believe that the reason that North Koreans live in such dire conditions is that its a third-world country which, according to Park, simply isnt true. North Korea accumulates wealth by manufacturing drugs and selling weapons to the middle east. The reason they choose not to feed and house people is that when people arent hungry, when people arent spending all their time trying to survive, then people begin to think critically and ask questions and the dictator doesnt want that.

North Korea should not have the privilege of hiding from the world. It is truly one of the darkest places on earth, and not just because there is rarely power.The people who live there should not have to continue to suffer. They deserve basic human rights and America shouldnt continue to allow the regime to amass wealth and become a nuclear powerhouse. They have a population of 25 million slaves with no rights, no food, and no hope.

People like Park are the courageous individuals we should be looking up to. She risked it all for food and found freedom. Her compassion for her people inspires us to take a closer look at the secrets that are hidden behind closed doors, and fight to give those without opportunities the chance they deserve.

There are so many more crimes I could talk about like the forced military service, sexual assault, domestic violence, brainwashing, propaganda or the fact that the dictators wife hasnt been seen in 9 months. All of which are problems that can arise from any system but are worsened by the regimes suppression of people and their rights.

North Korea isnt the only country where communism is tearing itself apart. Communist and socialist Venezuela also has dire living conditions, no access to medicine and food and has refused any and all aid from the US and other countries as well.

As nice it sounds in practice, communism isnt effective. Humans are selfish, greedy creatures and it doesnt make sense to give one group all the resources and all the wealth and hope that they evenly and fairly distribute it. People are selfish and once they are in that position of unchecked power they have no reasons to fairly distribute their wealth.

Capitalism isnt perfect. It is flawed, as weve seen this year, and has many problems, such as those within humongous corporations like big tech. But at least we are given basic rights, we can speak freely, at least I have the freedom to get a job and provide for myself. I can choose my profession, control my finances. But these are not universal principles, and we should not be too quick to forget that, because the alternative is disastrous.

Read the original:
Communism? Yikes. - the Spectrum - NDSU The Spectrum