Mediaboss Marketing

To the editor:

Re: The letter to the editor entitled Biden is Destroying our Country by Karen Ostrom-Kelly. (Voice of the public, March 24)

Dear Karen, it might be useful to look up the word socialism before using it. Thats a good idea with any word you dont understand. Its not the scary buzz-word you want it to be. If youve ever driven on a road, youve got socialism to thank. As an actual socialist, I would be overjoyed if Biden or any Dem were one. They are not.

Madam, I want you and other readers to understand that no person is illegal. Immigrants to this country pay their taxes the same as you; they just use a Tax ID Number instead of a Social Security Number.

In fact, by your argument theyre owed even more, since we happily tax them without directly representing them.

Charity, madam, begins in the heart, so try to have one.

Jean Sanson

Attleboro

Excerpt from:
Letter to the editor: Socialism is not a bad word - The Sun Chronicle

A century ago, the Mother Ship of Socialismthe Soviet Unionwas teetering on the precipice. The Poles had just vanquished the hopes of dictator Vladimir Lenin to sweep across Europe. Under the bludgeon of Marxist central planning, the economy had collapsed to a fraction of its pre-war dimensions. The country was seething in discontent. Insurrection seemed imminent. Indeed, the month of March 1921 had begun with hungry Soviet soldiers and sailors mounting the Kronstadt Rebellion against the Bolshevik regime.

What was Lenins remedy for his unfolding socialist catastrophe? It wasnt more socialism, at least for the moment. That would be like chasing a glass of tainted water with a gallon of Clorox. Desperate to reverse the consequences of socialism, Lenin turned to their only known antidotecapitalism.

Sunday marked the 100th anniversary of the start of Lenins New Economic Policy (NEP). In a stunning about-face on March 21, 1921, the NEP began undoing the previous four years. Expropriation of businesses and the nationalization of industries stopped. Lenin proclaimed a partial restoration of, in his own words, a free market and capitalism. Even state-owned firms would seek to operate on a profit basis. Individuals could own small enterprises again. Market prices would be permitted in place of state directives.

A little bit of freedom goes a long way. In this instance, it turned the economy around and saved the infant Bolshevik tyranny. But it did not last long. Three years later, Lenin would be dead. Before the end of the decade, Stalin obliterated the NEP with a massive collectivist campaign to re-socialize the economy. Of the NEP, former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his 1989 book, The Grand Failure, For many Russians, even more than sixty years later, these were the best years of the era ushered in by the revolution of 1917.

On that March day in 1921, the very day winter bowed to spring, the socialists in Moscow effectively admitted they had to stop stealing. There just was not much left to steal. In a 1990 article, economist Peter Boettke cited a litany of mea culpas from leading Soviet intellectuals, including a most revealing tribute to free market economist Ludwig von Mises from socialist architect Nikolai Bukharin. He grudgingly admitted that Misess devastating critique of socialism made him one of the most learned critics.

It would be Mises, nearly 30 years later in Human Action, who expressed the distinction between socialism and capitalism in the following eloquent fashion:

A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.

Many socialists, however, stubbornly adhere to their vision no matter what happens along the way. Some will read the above paragraphs and object that what Lenin sought to reverse was a more radical version of their philosophy. They will say, Were not for that! We are democratic socialists! as if the veneer of democracy blesses socialisms multitudinous sins. The truth is this: disastrous policies are disastrous policies; it does not matter much that their advocates were voted in.

The track record of the 20th century brand of socialism often labeled communism is horrificthe worst mass murdering cause in world history. The Black Book of Communism documented its crimes, including the murder of more than 100 million people.

Democratic socialism may be more seductive and less bloody but it too has a miserable track record. Like its nuttier communist cousin, it consumes lives and wealth and must sooner or later be administered the capitalist antidote. If countries embrace democratic socialism and stay afloat, their longevity is always explained not by the socialism they adopt, but rather, by the capitalism they have not yet destroyed. And the more a country drowns itself in democratic socialism, the more the democracy part evaporates in the face of concentrated state power.

Socialists and socialism possess no theory of wealth creation; indeed, they show no interest in it. Wealth is just there for them to vilify, confiscate and redistributeuntil its producers produce no more. Long-term thinking is not their strong suit.

The next time you hear a democratic socialist declare that his system hasnt been tried yet, reel off this list for starters (for more, check out the recommended readings below):

Ancient Romes Republic began its deadly experiment in democratic socialism in the 2nd Century B.C. It began as a welfare state, degenerated into a regulatory nightmare and finally collapsed into an imperial autocracy. Legislative assemblies voted into office by the Roman electorate constructed the socialist edifice brick by brick. Rome was not built in a day, but concentrated state power had no trouble tearing it down completely.

The Pilgrims of Plymouth, Massachusetts famously tried another version of democratic socialism seventeen centuries later. It was the communal variety, in which they placed the fruits of their labors into a common storehouse and then distributed it to each other equally. Their Governor was elected, by the way, which made it democratic. Starvation forced them to scrap it rather quickly in favor of private property.

Adolf Hitlers National Socialists came to power through the democratic process in 1933. Oops, back to the drawing board for socialists on that one too!

After World War II, Great Britain voted the democratic socialists into power and turned the country into the Sick Man of Europe. Margaret Thatcher administered a strong dose of capitalism 30 years later, before the patient would have expired.

Scandinavia adopted the welfare state version of socialism around the same time as Britain. Economic decline set in as it took hold. But Norwegians, Danes and Swedes learned much from their mistakes and reversed many of them. Today, their economies are among the freest in the world.

New Zealand found itself mired in the doldrums of democratic socialism by the 1980s but recovered dramatically through drastic reductions in government. (See New Zealands Path to Prosperity Began With Rejecting Democratic Socialism.)

On and on it goes, like a broken record. Socialists make big promises, wrap them in velvet, and beat the economy into submission using the iron fist within. Then when its victims have had enough, capitalism must come to the rescue.

Wouldnt it make a lot more sense to simply avoid the socialist trap in the first place?

Soviet Admissions: Communism Doesnt Work by Peter J. Boettke

Private Ownership: A Must by Henry Hazlitt

The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991 and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime by Richard Pipes, Martin Malia and Ralph Raico

Socialism: Force or Fantasy by Lawrence W. Reed

Four Ways Socialism is Anti-Social by Lawrence W. Reed

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism: 20 of Her Best Quotes by Lawrence W. Reed

The British Parliamentarian Who Jumped Ship from Socialism by Lawrence W. Reed

Socialism on My Mind by Lawrence W. Reed

61 Quick Facts and Observations on Socialism, Jesus and Wealth by Jon Miltimore

A Revolution to Always Remember but Never Celebrate by Lawrence W. Reed

Dont Call Scandinavian Countries Socialist by Lawrence W. Reed

Read the original post:
When the Soviets Admitted Socialism Doesn't Work - Foundation for Economic Education

In China, Yang Lians poetry has been banned, destroyed and derided as spiritual pollution.

The censorship began in earnest in the early 1980s, after Yang wrote the poem Nuorilang, which deploys Tibetan mythology and was seen as a critique of Han Chinese nationalism. It reached its peak in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre and another poem, 1989, in which he said the violence and suppression were nothing new and they signified no doubt a perfectly ordinary year.

But in Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy and Scandinavia, the dissident is hailed as a literary superstar, a poet praised by Allen Ginsberg before the Beat poets death for his individualism, and even tipped as a future Nobel laureate.

To his mantelpiece of honours, as of yesterday, Yang can add another: the inaugural Sarah Maguire Prize for Poetry in Translation, for his book Anniversary Snow. He shares what will be a biennial award in memory of one of Britains most distinguished champions of international poetry with his long-time Scottish translator, Brian Holton.

Yang describes the process of reinventing his work in English as like growing a second tree but from the same root. But this second tree, I have to say, is a very beautiful tree.

Were sort of like the Morecambe and Wise of our language pair, says Holton, who has worked with Yang since 1993. I dont know of any other translator and poet whove stayed together so long.

The Scotsman is delighted, too, to see some adulation for his own craft. Translators always feel underappreciated, you know. As I have written, the translation may be a cover version, but some cover versions are as good as the original. Some are better, even.

Read more:
China is the worst capitalism plus the worst socialism: poet Yang Lian on the regime he fled - Telegraph.co.uk

The statement but real Socialism has never been tried can be seen on forums across the internet. It really is quite fascinating how convinced many people are by this statement. The underlying implication is that these forum commenters think that they know what real socialism is and that they could make it work. Not only is this incredibly narcissistic, but its a fundamental untruth. Socialism has been tried again and again, and it just hasnt succeeded. I think American economist Thomas Sowell says it best. Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. Even countries that were once more prosperous than their neighbors have found themselves much poorer than their neighbors after just one generation of socialistic policies.

Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it

Thomas Sowell

This is not for lack of effort on the part of those that have tried to implement a socialist form of government, but because the Father of Socialism, Karl Marxs theory is dependent on a continuous transformation of human nature, these attempts have taken many forms. Whilst cultural norms do slowly shift over time, the basic principles of human nature are static. For thousands of years, subsistence agriculture was the primary source of food for the majority of families. If a family had a little surplus, they didnt hand it off to whoever owned their land for even distribution. They fed their own children a little more or stored it in case next years crop failed. A 21st century American would do the same with a little extra money. Given the choice between handing it over to the government in hopes they disperse it evenly or spending it on loved ones, pretty much everyone would spend it on their loved ones. A person putting their loved ones before strangers is human nature. Being wary of the people who hold power is also human nature. Even if the system in place to collect and distribute resources from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs, was miraculously one hundred percent free from corruption, human nature makes it unsustainable. It doesnt matter how magnanimous you believe yourself to be.

Consider your grade point average. If its at or near a 4.0, you very likely had to put in a lot of work to earn it. That probably involved missing out on nights with your friends, putting a stop to Netflix binges, and dealing with a chronically high stress level for months on end. Seeing those high marks on your transcript though really makes it worth it. Now imagine that, after getting near perfect scores on every exam, you look at your transcript and realize you ended up with straight Cs. You ask the professor what your final percentage in the class was and are informed it was well within what is usually the A range from that class. So why did you get a C? The professor tells you that new school policy is that grades have to be distributed evenly since some kids struggle in school or have other commitments that eat into their study time. They cant prove that any given student was slacking off or if they truly were having trouble, so to be fair they just spread out all earned percentage points in the class evenly.

Can you honestly say that you would miss out on nights out with your friends the next semester to study for hours before an exam that you will get a C on whether you study or not? A person that would is certainly too rare for a socialist grading system like this to work. Working for no incentive is against human nature, and thus that system would not be sustainable.

Some like to point out things that are government funded like K-12 schools, USPS and the DMV as a form of socialism. Even if someone believes that to be true, thats not a good argument. A 2014 study conducted by the ACT found that homeschooled students had composite scores an average of 2.2 points higher than public school students. A package from the USPS takes an average of 4-5 days to arrive at its destination compared to Amazons average of 2-3 days. As for the DMV, its not uncommon to sit and wait around for 2 hours before its your turn to go up to the counter. People across the country will tell you most government services arent known for being efficient or easy to deal with.

People that call for less government intervention and socialism in the same breath seem to have missed the fact that a big government is necessary to oversee any socialist system. All four countries currently classified as socialist are unitary one-party states. Take that information as you will.

Continued here:
Yes, We Have Tried Real Socialism - Kent Kaiser

Bangladeshs heavy dependence on foreign aid in those early years made us vulnerable to pressure from aid donors. This was particularly uncomfortable for those of us in the Commission who had for many years criticised the hegemonic influence of the USA and the World Bank in the politics and policy agendas of the Pakistan state through the 1960s.

In the immediate aftermath of liberation, we discovered that Tajuddin Ahmad was even more strongly inimical to restoring any form of aid dependence on the USA and the World Bank.

When Bangladesh was liberated on 16 December 1971, the World Bank had every expectation of capitalising on the positive position it assumed during the war and hoped to establish ready access to the political leadership and decision-makers in Bangladesh. In early February 1972, Nurul Islam received a message from Cargill that the Bank president, Robert McNamara, was keen to use his official visit to India to visit Bangladesh. He offered to fly from Kolkata to Dhaka by helicopter to discuss the Banks possible contribution to reconstructing the war-devastated economy.

The political mood at that stage was highly nationalistic and animated by suspicion towards the USA. The Banks president was regarded as a card-carrying member of the Washington power elite even though he was no longer serving the government.

Furthermore, the Bank had as yet not formally recognised the sovereignty of Bangladesh by accepting us as a member. There was some suggestion led by Tajuddin Ahmad, who was then minister of finance and planning and was particularly hostile to any idea of restoring Western influence over Bangladesh, that we have nothing to do with the Bank or the USA. Bangabandhu, however, took the position that this would be a gratuitous discourtesy but that no great event should be made of McNamaras visit.

He, the president of one of the most powerful international institutions in the world, was coming personally to this destitute, war-shattered country as an angel of mercy anxious to put Bangladesh under the Banks bounty. He expected the overwhelmed government to lay down a red carpet for him and his Bank.

In their long-standing relations with Pakistan, Cargill as vice-president of the Bank had always been received on arrival by none other than the deputy chairman of the Commission and was royally feted by him. The Bank, at the least, expected similar treatment by Nurul. Cargill hoped to renew relations with me on as cordial terms as when he had hosted me at the Royal Monceau hotel in Paris in 1971. Sadly for the Bank, we were both advised to avoid any direct contact with the Bank.

Whilst the encounter was a major blow to McNamaras ego and reflected poorly on the public relations skills of the new regime, it certainly conveyed to the Bank the political mood in Bangladesh and the awareness that Bangladesh at that stage was unwilling to open itself up as a pasture to donor influence.

In this world, I found no socialists and my idealistic attempts to invoke notions of socialist fraternity in negotiating terms were contemptuously disregarded. We should have learnt from our experience, as we are learning today in our dealings with the Chinese version of socialism, that socialism as we understood it was largely a product of the romantic imagination of the Third World and Western intellectuals of a Left-wing persuasion.

It was virtually impossible on visits to socialist countries to find anyone, apart from leaders of the Communist Party, who was at all inclined to discuss the issue of socialism as it applied to their country or as a general concept. The disintegration of socialism in Europe did not come as a great surprise to me though the speed and totality of the process were beyond my imagination.

In Dhaka, we had already noted how some officials from the economic sections of the various embassies from the socialist countries were making private business deals with Bangladeshi middlemen, usually with political connections, and accumulating small fortunes before they returned home. We noted that some of the principal suppliers to stores in Gulshan of duty-free canned provisions, stores and under-the-counter alcoholic drinks originated from the staff of these embassies.

In those early days, those on the Left entertained the belief that because the West had colonised us and was the principal hegemonic force in the world, they must be challenged at all points. The corresponding notion that openings to the socialist world would provide us with compensatory benefits was founded on our imperfect reading of literature. It was only when we came to do business with them that we learnt of the gap between the imagined and the real world in these countries.

Excerpted with permission from Untranquil Recollections: Nation-Building in Post Liberation Bangladesh, Rehman Sobhan, Sage India.

More:
How the World Bank tried to muscle into a newly-liberated Bangladesh but failed - Scroll.in