Mediaboss Marketing

Editor,

There is an enduring right-wing canard that were hearing more of these days: the Democratic Party is intent on turning America into a socialist nation. Cynical Republican politicians, Fox News and talk radio pundits, voices from the fever swamps of social media and more than a few Standard-Speaker letter writers are singing from the same hymnal.

They are not unlike Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass when he says to Alice: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

So what does socialism actually mean? The Oxford American Dictionary defines it as a political economic theory which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution and exchange. Which means in practice that a one-party central government runs a planned command and control economy which restricts private enterprise and property. That of course is the opposite of a democratic, free market society.

As most of us know, socialism has been thrown onto the dung heap of history. The stunning economic rise of communist China is precisely because it has abandoned the socialist system in favor of state capitalism while remaining a politically repressive dictatorship.

Paradoxically, some on the left such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez style themselves as Democratic Socialists, perhaps to make themselves appear to be more interesting than they actually are. Yet none of them have advocated the nationalization of Exxon, General Motors, Amazon or any other company. They are actually more like Scandinavian social democrats, who embrace capitalism tempered by generous social programs and a strong social safety net. Those nations are among the happiest in the world, as contrasted with America, which is experiencing decreased longevity, income inequality, social turmoil and increasing pessimism.

The Democratic agenda that is attempting to address the historical marginalization of women, racial minorities and the LGBTQ community is not socialistic. It is about economic and social justice. Furthermore, the American far left project of defunding the police, abolishing ICE and opening the borders to unlimited immigration is not socialistic. Socialist regimes are notoriously xenophobic police states.

Whatever the American left is actually all about, it is not socialist. Republicans need not worry that the Democrats will start a revolution. If the ultra progressives try to go too far left, they will lose Congress in the midterm election. Thats why we have a two-party system, to keep the country somewhere near the political middle.

Drew Magill

Sugarloaf Twp.

See original here:
What the Left is really about | Letters to the Editor | standardspeaker.com - Standard Speaker

The Daily Beast

Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/US Justice DepartmentIn February, a 95-year-old man was deported to Germany, a year after he was found to have served as a guard at Meppen, a Nazi concentration sub-camp of Neuengamme. It wasnt one of the worst campsit had no modern gas chambers, but instead relied on the old-school expedient of working the prisoners to death. An assemblage of Danes, Dutch, French, Italians, Jews, Latvians, Poles, and Russians were forced by the guards to dig anti-tank fortifications during the winter of 1945, to the point of exhaustion and death.This particular guard, Friedrich Karl Berger, who had lived in comfort and safety in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, since 1959, enjoying, presumably, all the benefits of life in the U.S. for law-abiding citizens who keep their heads down, claimed he was 1.) just following orders, 2.) theyd made him do it, 3.) he hadnt been there long, and 4.) he couldnt be tied to any particular murder.Elderly Nazis Laugh as They Recall Massacring JewsThat defense, however, which had worked to the advantage of so many death-camp low lives in the past, proved outdated, and had since John Demjanjuk, a death camp guard whod been living his own version of the American good life as an auto worker near Cleveland, was convicted in 2011 on 28,000 counts of accessory to murder. This legal construct gave prosecutors a way in, since it had proved nearly impossible to pin specific deaths on the surviving perpetrators, particularly as years went by.And it came just in time. The last of these war criminals are now in their nineties, some older. One former guard under indictment in Germany is 100. Apologists for these ancient criminals are suggesting that bygones be bygones. That we the people let them live out their lives in whatever peace they have conjured for themselves. That we leave justice to God. Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/US Justice Department This argument might better wash if there were evidence of some moral atonement on the part of the perps. But they, for the most part, seem to have walked away from the death camps, whistling a merry tune. Some were helped to South America via the Ratline, with our CIA paving the way. Josef Mengele, the sadist who found his spiritual home at Auschwitz and whose only regret was that the killing didnt reach its ultimate conclusion, lived pleasantly amidst friends and supporters in So Paulo till he drowned swimming at his leisure on a beautiful beach. That list goes on, and on, not excluding the princes of commerce, most of whom profited from slave labor. Bayer, Siemens, I.G. Farben, Krupp, Mercedes, and Volkswagen built their factories right next to the death camps and signed contracts with the SS, who would provide a specified supply of guards, dogs and whips, along with steady replacements for prisoners who would, it was understood, be worked to death. None of those responsible paid any significant price.In light of this, these last old Nazis being dragged in to face the music at this point look like very small fry, as indeed they were and are. On the other hand, as Raul Hilberg pointed out in Claud Lanzmanns film Shoah and elsewhere, it was these cogs on whom the whole death machine depended. Without the guards at the camps, or the schedulers of the trains full of prisoners, running with storied efficiency day and night, or the wholesalers of the barely used baby clothes flooding from Auschwitz into Berlin, none of it would have worked, or not nearly so seamlessly. Even a guard who didnt personally sic his dog on a faltering inmate or turn a beautiful young girl over to Ilse Koch to make her skin into gloves, was, if you stand back a bit, guilty.And where theres guilt, theres also a need for justice. Without it, one is left with resignation, fine for a Buddhist monk in a rhododendron forest, but not quite the thing for a judge and jury in contemporary Americanot to mention a general public, who have by now read Anne Frank and Night. Who had to watch last month as home-grown Nazis sporting Camp Auschwitz hoodies beat our own police officers to death.As we seek justice in Washington for these contemporary crazed haters, who, by the way, we can easily see standing shoulder to shoulder with the last of these indicted Nazis, whip or club or fire extinguisher in hand, we are reminded viscerally of why it matters so much. As Hannah Arendt wrote in Eichmann in Jerusalem, what we as a society are saying is that Something happened to which we cannot reconcile ourselves.Nor are we, as Americans whose fathers and grandfather fought and died to stop the Nazis, willing yet to reconcile ourselves to what happened to men, women, and children at their hands, not while there is still some measure of punishment to be meted out. Its true that these last convicts are old, but Justice has no expiration date, as Christoph Heubner, vice-president of the International Auschwitz Committee put it.Berger protested his deportation to a judge. After 75 years, this is ridiculousI cannot believe it. Youre forcing me out of my home.Welcome to the Holocaust, Mr. Berger.Victoria Shorr is the author of the novel The Plum Trees, a story of loss and survival during the Holocaust.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

Read more here:
Kudlow: Green Socialism coming on heels of massive stimulus - Yahoo News

Let me start with my favourite question. Why is it that, of the thirty/ forty nascent nations which emerged from the yoke of imperialism in the first half of the twentieth century in Asia, Australasia, Africa and South-America, India comprises the only country of its size and diversity to have remained a vibrant functioning democracy, while innumerable contemporary wrecks and ruins of constitutionalism litter the global landscape?

No doubt the first answer is possibly sheer good luck. But a close second is that while Gandhi and his atomic weapon of Ahimsa was vital to attain independence, India has remained a functioning & vibrant democracy because of Nehru as Indias first Prime Minister. India was singularly fortunate in getting its sequencing right: Gandhi first and Nehru later.

Nehru, intuitively, typified and practiced Voltaires famous dictum (also the essence of democracy) : I disagree vehemently with you but defend to death your right to disagree with me.

Three of the five tenets which he considered to be foundational to Indias destiny remain a vital part of the less visible non-institutional pillars of Indian democracy ( the other two being Parliamentary

Democracy and non-alignment). They are Secularism, Socialism and Federalism.

SECULARISM has been the heart and soul of Indian democracy from its inception, though it found express Constitutional expression much later. There is no more diverse spot on earth than India: the worlds largest democracy, the second most populous, the seventh largest in terms of area and the fourth largest by national GDP measured on purchasing power parity (PPP).

Its diversity is manifested in 22 scheduled languages, over 700 mother tongues, over 2000 dialects, the worlds largest population of 4 religions (Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Parsi), the worlds second largest population of Muslims, and a significant number of other religious adherents. Every major racial grouping is present in India and it has thousands of bewildering rituals, foods, smells, sounds, music in all forms, dances and so on.

With such pluralities, Secularism is a self-protective mechanism for India. India has had a remarkable record of secular, non theocratic governance, but if truth be told, the more one lets go in India, the more India binds and holds together. Conversely, the more one pulls or tries to bind or impose any uniform ethic, the more India is likely to break apart.

Secularism has been an effective vehicle to manage diversities. It has generated a sense of reassurance and security to Indias multiple diversities and provided a crucial underpinning for democracy. It is meant and intended to convey part ownership of democracy. Without this sense of belonging to and ownership of democracy by each Aam Admi, democracy cannot succeed.

As usual, the threats are almost entirely from within. There is a sinister and sustained attempt to impose a uniform ethic, to paternalistically decide what a citizen can wear, sing and eat, how he can behave, what he must think on certain occasions and what he must say on others. Instead of celebrating diversity, we mourn it as the biggest obstruction to nationalism.

We distort the idea of India by redefining the India of our dreams as the India of our demands. We live by a new ethic of suspicion and distrust, of glee at the fellow citizens discomfiture and of fear of speaking up in his favour when he is being tormented.

FEDERALISM: A second non-institutional pillar of democracy is federalism. It is vital for managing diversities. Federalism operates as a safety valve for the three Ds-dissent, discomfort and dissatisfaction. It channels these three Ds into relatively manageable outlets of constitutional structures, whether they are provincial legislatures, district level autonomous councils or models of local governance like Panchayati Raj. Indian federalism has quarantined conflicts within states or sub-state units and thus successfully prevented national conflagration.

Five significant developments have transmuted, over the last 70 years, the heavily unitary, quasi federal India at inception into a significantly more federal entity in operation, rightly resulting in it being called accidental or inadvertent federalism. Linguistic diversity resulted in creation of new states on the principle of linguistic contiguity and the three-language formula largely quietened the language riots of the 1960s.

Secondly, vigorous judicial review by the apex court since the new millennium has repeatedly quashed Article 356 incursions into federal autonomy. Thirdly, Panchayati Raj and local self-government, has created a humongous diaspora of elected local Panchayat officials (including 1.5 million women) who administer local self-government in the worlds largest model of fiscal and administrative decentralisation. Fourthly, economic liberalisation since 1988 and 1991 has considerably diluted the stranglehold of the central government in decision making. Finally, fiscal federalism, results in almost 45% receipts of the centre being transferred to the state either as the sharable tax revenues or as Central grants.

Threats to federalism include Central government discriminatory practices in fund devolution, selective waivers of financial demands according to matching or differing political colors of the Centre and the state concerned and a clearly Presidential style of central governance focussed on micro managing everything. Catchwords or jumlebaazi like competitive or cooperative federalism cannot camouflage these aberrations.

SOCIALISM: Modern arm chair critics who retrospectively criticise Nehrus belief in socialisma third non institutional pillar by saying that it consigned India to a low so called Hindu rate of growth between 3.5. to 4.5%, fail to realise that it was socialist philosophy which laid a firm foundation for the public sector in India and resulted in Indias solidity and self-reliance in core sectors like steel, chemicals, textiles,indigenous defence manufacturing and banking. It gave us both a self reliant as well as a competitive edge, though, concededly, it overstayed its welcome. Our ability to weather the 2008 global financial crisis with minimum pain and regain the 8.5% annual trajectory of growth within one year owes a lot to these foundations. One contemporary counterpart of Nehrus philosophy of socialism has been the worlds largest social welfare scheme, MNREGA, which despite opportunistic criticism when in opposition, has been largely followed and reluctantly lauded by the right wing successor government.

This vituperative criticism when in opposition and ready adaptation without attribution when in power model has been perfected by the present dispensation. Manifested across the board-from Aadhar, MNREGA, Food Security, GST to many othersthese compliments, albeit left handed, say it all.

In conclusion, Indias amazing diversity is its best insurance against degeneration of democracy or institutionalisation of dictatorship. To that must necessarily be added the intrinsic nature of India and of Indians viz. absorbent and highly argumentative.

Democracy in India has many miles to walk and many promises to keep. If it cannot be fairly castigated as an imperfect democracy, it is certainly also nowhere near being a perfect or near perfect democracy. It is difficult to quantitatively calibrate whether we have covered half or more than 75% of the journey from imperfection to perfection. We have not achieved, for example, the more capacious concept ofdemocracy beyond the narrower view of seeing democracy exclusively in terms of public balloting and not as the exercise of public reason i.e. the larger concept of providing opportunities for citizens to participate in political discussion and, more importantly, to informed public choices in methods that transcend the ballot box.

Personally, I have no doubt, that we are well past the midway mark in the journey and that we will get there in the fairly proximate future. But the story has never been only about the destination or the result. It has been, as much, if not more, about the journey and that has undoubtedly been exciting and unusual.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Read more from the original source:
Democracy beyond ballots: Threats to secularism, socialism & federalism - The Times of India Blog

Its importance and its achievements, however, will undoubtedly find expression in the activity of the women comrades of all countries who sent their representatives to the meeting. And this is what matters. If we examine the outcome of the proceedings in Copenhagen from this perspective, then the female comrades ought to be satisfied with it. The conference broadened and strengthened the relations between the socialist women of the various countries and here and there increased the common understanding of the central features of the movement. For some it shed clear light on the fundamental socialist attitude on many important questions, while for others it led to new, fruitful suggestions for practice. So it was that nobody went home from the meetings empty-handed, and those who had things to offer in one respect benefited in another. The appreciative and uplifting awareness of this interaction can only help to strengthen the bonds that unite the female comrades of all countries in their will to work as uniformly as possible in the service of the great, shared goal of socialism.

If the necessity of international coordination between socialist women had not yet been established, then the Copenhagen Conference did so not only by its sizeable attendance, which speaks of a vividly felt need for such discussions, but also, and above all, by the course of the negotiations themselves. Delegates were present from 17 different nations and it is both understandable and extremely gratifying that the Danish and Swedish women comrades sent a particularly strong delegation. We may hope that from now on the women comrades in the Scandinavian countries - whose work exhibits both so much freshness and a deep, yet controlled, enthusiasm - will have established close contact with the Socialist Womens International. The same is true of the women comrades from America, but it will take time for an organised socialist womens movement to develop in the Romance-speaking countries that will seek connections with the sister movements abroad.[1]

There are many signs that our hopes for this are certainly justified. The trade association of seamstresses and shopfitters in Lisbon wanted to express its solidarity with the comrades at the congress and its desire for constant contact with them, so it gave comrade [Clara] Zetkin a mandate. In the Italian Socialist Party, there is a growing recognition that the women of the working people also must be trained in socialism and united in an organisation. A discussion of the woman question at the forthcoming party congress is to set in motion the related systematic work and draw up guidelines for it. The executive committee of our fraternal party in Italy therefore sent comrade [Angelica] Balabanoff to the conference as a delegate and conveyed its heartfelt congratulations for the work of the congress, which unfortunately arrived too late to be read out.[2] The same happened to two other letters: one from comrade Tillmann, who wrote on behalf of the National Association of Socialist Women in Belgium; and another from a recently founded socialist womens group in Lille (north France). We are convinced that the beginnings of the unified activity of the female comrades in the Romance countries will be fostered by these international links. The next International Socialist Womens Conference will therefore no longer exhibit the gaps and shortcomings that we are so painfully aware of at the moment.

During the discussions on the means of making international relations between the women comrades of all countries more regular and firmer, there were many proposals and suggestions for things that already exist, such as the international exchange of socialist womens publications, the submission of correspondence to a central office for further dissemination, and so on. Of course, such proposals came from women comrades who had only recently, or almost never, come into contact with the International Secretariat [of the womens International].

Much more ambitious was the proposal of our female comrades from the Netherlands to establish an international womens journal that would not only provide information about the state of the socialist womens movement in the individual countries, but would also deal with emerging problems of the woman question from a socialist point of view, taking into account everything that relates to that question. The comrades justified this demand in particular with reference to the urgent need to train women comrades in the fundamentals and to the inadequate treatment of the various aspects of the woman question in the socialist press.

The Dutch comrades withdrew the motion after comrade Zietz had convincingly shown both the practical impossibility of its realisation and that this need should be addressed in another way.[3] Through their correspondents, she said, the comrades of the different countries should bring their desire for a theoretical discussion of individual questions to the attention of the international secretary, who would then see to it that they were dealt with in Die Gleichheit [Equality]. Comrade Zietz rightly pointed out that the articles in question would be useful not only to female comrades abroad, but also to newly recruited women. Her suggestion met with general approval, since - as was stressed by all sides - Die Gleichheit has certainly proved its worth as a central agency and publication for international correspondence.

Without doubt, the highlight of the conference was the discussion on female suffrage. Once again, it became apparent how, as soon as major questions of principle are fought over, the debates acquire inner substance, strength and momentum. And that was the case here too. Those comrades present who were familiar with the situation and knew that a not inconsiderable number of leading English female comrades - despite all of the resolutions passed by the trade union and party congresses in their own country and the International Socialist Congress in 1907 - unfortunately were fighting alongside bourgeois womens rights activists for a restricted womens suffrage; for those comrades familiar with this situation, it was clear from the outset that the discussions would revolve not around the question of the means, but the goal itself. And so it came to pass. The well-represented English comrades, who belong to the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society, warmly advocated that the passage characterising the restricted right of women to vote in a sharp and principled manner should be deleted from the resolution that proclaimed the struggle for universal suffrage for all adults. This characterisation, they argued, was an indirect condemnation of the attitude of those comrades who had initially supported the demand for a restricted right to vote for women in England.

The comrades Murphy, Butcher, Philips and others tried in vain to justify this position.[4] Their reasoning is well-known: the nature and the effects of a restricted suffrage are not as bad as they appear in principle, they said; it could, of course, not be the overall goal of the struggle for the political emancipation of the female sex, but represented an important step in that direction; in England they had to take what could be achieved at this moment in time and so on. The fact that this reasoning was repeated on several occasions did not exactly bolster its cogency. Nor did it become more convincing by the fact that it was combined with a glorification of the good hearts and minds of the bourgeois ladies, as well as of the advantages that could be gained from working hand in hand with the womens rightists: in short, this reasoning lacked a correct understanding of the significance of class contradictions.[5]

It also completely undermined the impact of the speech by Mrs Charlotte Despard, one of the most passionate and energetic leaders of the Suffragettes, in which she defended a restricted franchise for women.[6] To be sure, all delegates were unanimous in holding this distinguished old woman, and the civic virtues she has practised, in the highest esteem. However, the overwhelming majority of them were just as united in regretting that such great, beautiful qualities were being wasted on such a petty and unfortunate matter as restricted female suffrage.

The delegates responded with a virtually unanimous, unflinching no to the proposal to advocate universal suffrage without a corresponding denunciation of restricted female suffrage. The resolution was adopted with 10 votes against, which were cast by a section of the English delegation. Led by comrade Montefiore, the commendable champion of suffrage for all adults, a minority of that delegation sharply criticised the tactic of compromise.[7]

The debate that preceded the vote was a vivid demonstration of how fruitful the Stuttgart conference had been, and how much clarity and consolidation the international socialist womens movement owes to its work.[8] It was a pleasure to listen to the speeches by comrades Twining and May Wood-Simons from the United States, comrades Dahlstrm and Gustafson from Sweden, comrade Gjstein from Norway, comrade Kollontai from Russia, comrades Zietz and Popp from Germany and Austria respectively, comrades Montefiore, Grundy and Burrows from England.[9] In each speech there was the same basic tone but no tiring repetition, because in each address the clear grasp of principles was supported by valuable factual material that outlined the character and the effects of restricted female suffrage and the role of class antagonisms in the world of women [Frauenwelt].

The statements made by our American comrades deserve special mention in this context. They outlined a splendid refutation of the fondly told fairy tale of the sisterhood of the female sex; the fairy tale of the bourgeois womens movement showing sympathy for proletarian interests, wherever that movement is in bloom and its political demands have been fulfilled.

It should be noted that the German comrades resolution on the question of womens suffrage was improved by two amendments from the Austrian comrades. They prevent any misunderstanding of our demand by expressly calling for womens suffrage in the individual federal states or crown lands, and call for the right of women to stand for all legislative and administrative bodies. The proposals on how to develop the most uniform, practical work possible for the introduction of womens suffrage found unanimous approval. Now it is up to the female comrades of all countries to put the resolutions into practice. This particularly applies to the decision to deploy a new means of agitation in the form of Womens Day: we use this new means without any illusions. We know that it does not mean the world for the conquest of political rights for women, but we also have a firm will to give it the practical scope that a well-prepared Womens Day can have and must eventually gain.

The Womens Conference was not spared the loss of concentration and freshness, which, as experience shows, tends to follow major debates of matters of principle at all conferences. We regret that the treatment of the questions of social childcare and schools suffered as a result. The discussion of these issues also suffered from other factors, such as the lack of time and the discussion of a matter that had not been foreseen, namely the prohibition of nightwork for women.

As a result, maternity and childcare could not be dealt with in the breadth or depth that the range of the conditions and demands for reform deserved. Comrade Duncker, who spoke to the resolution of the German women comrades, gave a concise, but incisive, presentation on this subject, which, together with the speech of comrades Nielsen12 (Denmark) and Prsinnei (Finland), highlighted just how many factual insights we would have gained from further discussion.[10]

The debate concluded with the adoption of a resolution from the German comrades and a motion from England, which outlined the general principle that society is obliged to care for mother and child. In our opinion, this does not settle this important question once and for all for the female comrades from the various countries. Some of its aspects will need to be dealt with on another occasion: we are thinking in particular of the important social measures to benefit school-age children that are not being provided for. The conference also referred to the next conference two motions from our Finnish comrades on the position of mothers who have given birth out of wedlock and on the punishment for infanticide.

The fact that a socialist womens conference could be called upon to oppose a ban on nightwork for women was a painful surprise to some comrades. This demand was passionately supported by the large majority of Danish and Swedish delegates, and is characteristic of the fact that the movement in these countries has not shed either the influence of feminist views nor the narrow ties of an egotistical guild-professional evaluation of things. It was the feminist platitude of the womans right to work, of the mechanical equality of the sexes, it was considerations that only took into account the circumstances of the small group of women typesetters that led to the demand: No ban on night work for women.

Unfortunately, the majority of Swedish female comrades has already made it difficult for the Social Democratic Party there to advocate this urgently needed reform by organising a protest action. In Denmark, the Social Democratic Party is similarly in the embarrassing position that a considerable number of women comrades are still fighting against the ban on female nightwork.

In light of this situation, a confrontation on this contentious question - which is no longer an issue at all for the women comrades in any other country - became inevitable. At the eleventh hour, female comrades from Denmark put forward a motion opposing the ban on nightwork for women, which, according to the conference decision, had to be dealt with together with social welfare for mother and child. The protest against the ban came in particular from the Danish comrade Frone, a Social Democratic city councillor in Copenhagen, who spoke emphatically and spiritedly and had the strong support of the great majority of Danish and Swedish delegates.

Comrade Vang (Copenhagen) responded to this protest with a declaration in which she, as a member of the Social Democratic Partys executive committee, briefly explained the opposite point of view held by the Danish Social Democrats and the minority of Danish delegates to the Womens Conference. Comrade Hanna, the representative of the Women Workers Commission of the German trade unions, spoke convincingly against the motion.[11] In the vote, all the nations represented came out against the motion, with the exception of the Danish and Swedish delegations, in which, however, there was also a minority against it. We hope that these discussions will help to support the educational work being conducted by this minority and lead the entirety of the Danish and Swedish women comrades to demand a ban on nightwork for women.

The Danish comrades had tabled a second motion to summon the social democratic parties of all countries to support vigorously the legal prohibition of the domestic handicraft industry.[12] However, they withdrew it after the German delegation had responded with a counter-motion, calling for its legal regulation and restructuring.

Two proposals from the League for the Interests of Working Women in England were approved in principle by the conference. One spoke in favour of state insurance for widows; the other in favour of measures to benefit unemployed women. The very different degrees of internal and external development of the womens movement in the individual countries was expressed through numerous motions that demanded what has long existed, and has become a matter of course, wherever female comrades are well organised with a clear awareness of their aims in their ranks.

In order to promote the movements progress in those countries where this is not yet the case, the conference approved several such proposals in principle. They relate to agitation among the female proletariat, the training of female comrades, affiliations to the party and the trade unions, moral and material support for social democratic womens publications, and so on. Of greater importance was a resolution from the female comrades in Austria - moved effectively by comrade Freundlich - which sought to make the artificial rise in the proletarian cost of living the point of departure for systematic agitation that can enlighten women about the essence of the capitalist social order and lead them to join the political organisations, the trade unions and the consumer associations in which the spirit of the modern workers movement is vibrant.[13]

Two other conference decisions deserve special mention. Before starting its business, the conference agreed by acclamation a resolution tabled and moved by comrade Zetkin, which denounced Russian tsarisms attack on Finlands political freedom and expressed the deepest sympathy for the struggle of the Finnish people for their rights. Likewise by acclamation, the conference agreed the resolution from the German and Austrian delegations and the Socialist Womens Bureau in England, which reminded the socialist women of all countries of their special task in the struggle against militarism and war: to educate the youth in socialist ideas and, through incessant agitation amongst the female proletariat, to strengthen the awareness of the power that women enjoy due their role in economic life that they can - and must - assert. With this resolution, the conference dealt with motions from Sweden and England that were in line with comrade Ihrers splendid remarks on the need to place the maintenance of peace on the conference agenda.[14]

In conclusion, it should be noted that the conference was delighted to receive a letter from August Bebel. The stormy applause with which the delegates met the letter and the proposal to send him the conferences best of thanks and warmest wishes, was testament to the deep admiration that the female comrades of all countries have for this great champion of the rights of the female sex and of the liberation of the working class.

The International Womens Secretariat will continue to exist in its current form. Comrade Zetkin was unanimously re-elected as its international secretary. The Third International Womens Conference will take place after the next International Socialist Congress, which will take place in 1913 in Vienna.[15] In future, a working committee of comrades from different countries will participate in the preparation and organisation of the conferences, so that a preliminary meeting can be held in good time to make the arrangements for fruitful discussions.

This decision, which the experience of the first two conferences has shown to be a practical necessity, is very much to be welcomed. Implementing it means avoiding the disturbances and grievances that made themselves uncomfortably felt at the second international conference. It will also relieve the secretary of additional organisational work, which is absolutely necessary. It would be easy to say a great deal about this deficiency, with which the conference was confronted and that all international meetings are likely to face and which, on top of everything else, occurs during the particularly difficult conditions of organising the womens conference.

But it strikes us as more important to demonstrate the valuable work that has been done in Copenhagen. It will stimulate the further work of the female comrades in all countries, make it more uniform, clearer, and make it an increasingly valuable part of the proletarian struggle for emancipation. Our deepest thanks must go to the Danish comrades, as well as the political and trade union organisations behind them, who made the conference in Copenhagen both possible and successful, and who ensured that the hours of effort and work were enriched by infinitely amiable and warm hospitality.

The socialist womens young international has but one slogan: Forward!

Source: First published in Die Gleichheit, No25 (September 12 1910), first translation Weekly Worker.

Follow this link:
The Second International Socialist Congress of Women in Copenhagen - International Viewpoint

The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.

The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.

Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.

This was the brief statement issued by Buckingham Palace on March 9, around 40 hours after Oprah Winfreys interview with Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and his wife, Meghan Markle, was broadcast on CNN. It combines expressions of sympathy for the couple and an oblique reference to the issue of race with an insistence that these matters should be addressed privately and the caveat that some recollections of events may vary.

This failed to dampen a media-driven debate on the future of the monarchy, centring on whether it can still be reformed to reflect modern cultural norms or should be abolished. It is hard to give the full flavour of how pathetic and out of touch with social and political realities are the statements made on both sides.

Politicians and celebrities in the US, including tennis star Serena Williams, Beyonc and lesser-known figures, lined up to express their disappointment that Meghan was not welcomed by the House of Windsoras if a black princess would prove that an institution rooted in hereditary and class privilege and imperial subjugation was fit for the 21st century. Their every stupid comment was presented as of immense interest.

US first National Youth Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman declared pathetically, Meghan was the Crowns greatest opportunity for change, regeneration, and reconciliation in a new era. They didnt just maltreat her lightthey missed out on it. It was, she added, Unclear if this will change the royal family, but Meghans strength will certainly redefine family elsewhere.

US President Joe Biden limited himself to a statement by his press secretary, Jen Psaki, praising Meghan as someone who came forward to speak about her struggles with mental health and tell their own personal story, that takes courage and that's certainly something the president believes.

Easily the most nauseating statement came from Hillary Clinton, who found the interview heart-rending to watch. It was also heartbreaking to see the two of them sitting there having to describe how difficult it was to be accepted, to be integrated, not just into the royal family as they described, but more painfully into the larger societies whose narrative is driven by tabloids that are living in the past.

This is said during the tenth anniversary of the Libyan war, which saw an eight-month bombardment by the US that left the country in ruins. When then Secretary of State Clinton was told of the torture and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, this supposedly sensitive soul, who cannot bear the suffering inflicted on the Duke and Duchess, laughed and said, We came, we saw, he died.

Open calls for abolishing the monarchy have been very rare and most often equally delusional. The Guardian, for example, featured an opinion piece by Nylah Burton, a lifestyle writer at Bustle magazine, that combined fawning on Harry and Meghan with a supposedly radical message. She wrote, Lashing out at the Windsors is the appropriate response, but its my hope that those who were outraged at hearing how Meghan was treated will further interrogate the nature of this institution, and become radicalized into being anti-monarchists and anti-imperialists.

Burton felt compelled to clarify that these arent the Sussexes political stances there is nothing to indicate that theyd like to abolish the system. Nevertheless, If that interview chilled us, we should examine whether we believe a monarchy can or should exist in a just world we dont need them to be radicalized for us to use this moment to question everything we thought we knew about this elitist system.

In the real world, the response of those in power was far more cautious regarding an institution that still occupies a central role in British constitutional and political life.

Internationally, accusations of racism were decried as a political blow to brand Britain, especially in the 54 Commonwealth countries, of which Queen Elizabeth is the head of state of 16, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand. But the response was mainly limited to calls for carefully calibrated changes only after the queen steps down.

Former Australian prime minister and leader or the Australian Republican Movement, Malcolm Turnbull, said the interview bolstered his case for breaking away from the British monarchy. But he told ABC, After the end of the Queen's reign, that is the time for us to say, 'OK, we've passed that watershed.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern put her republican posturing to one side and said there was no likelihood of a break from the British monarchy in the near future. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the interview should not have a bearing on Canadas constitutional status.

Domestically, things were also muted. The Guardians editorial, Heavy is the head that wears the crown, made the only hint of constitutional change, meekly suggesting, Whether a hereditary head of state is required today ought to be considered in a programme of reform that the British state clearlyand urgentlyneeds.

Elsewhere, Good Morning Britain news presenter Piers Morgan was forced to resign after saying he didn't believe a word Meghan said in her interview.

Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors, was also forced to resign after organising an open letter stating that Harrys description of some British tabloids as racist and bigoted and a large part of why he and his wife had left the UK was not acceptable without providing evidence.

Labour MP for Halifax Holly Lynch is one of a number reported to have made preliminary enquiries to see if a House of Commons debate could be held on racism in the media, the mental health strains of persistent press coverage and on further press regulation.

While the media focuses on blanket coverage of the doings of the royals at Buckingham Palace and Montecito California, Britain is in the grip of a social and economic crisis of unprecedented dimensions. Figures published by the UKs statistics agencies for deaths where COVID-19 has been mentioned on the death certificate show there have now been over 144,000 deaths involving coronavirus in the UK. Over 4 million have been infected, often with serious and long-term consequences.

Fully 1.3 million children under the age of five are living in poverty. The number of people on Universal Credit benefits has doubled in just a few months to 5.7 million. Another 2 million are still waiting to get on the list.

Payroll numbers have already dropped as much as 5.5 percent in London. Going forward, 274,720 jobs are at risk of being lost following the end of the furlough scheme, according to insolvency analysts. A survey by the Office for National Statistics found that 15 percent of businesses that had not stopped permanently trading had little or no confidence that their business would survive the next three months. That figure rises to 53 per cent in the hospitality sector.

At such a point in history, there is nothing radical whatsoever about calls for an end to the monarchy when not framed within a call to mobilise the working class against capitalism and for socialism. Policed and safely presented by the mass media, they act as one of many mechanisms through which social and political discontent is directed into safe political channels that do not threaten the ruling class and the profit system. As the saga is played out to mind-numbing effect, ever more people will see through this bogus debate.

More:
Crisis of monarchy over Harry and Meghan dominates UK media - WSWS