Mediaboss Marketing

A debate on socialism has been underway in the Left circles of Nepal for some time now. Friends from the Nepali Congress too occasionally become part of this chorus on socialism.

Had it been an academic debate among the scholars or the politicians for that matter, it would have gone unnoticed as debates and deliberations are an inalienable part of the academic world. But when such discussions are organised by fora affiliated to the ruling Communist party where senior Communist party leaders deliver key note address, focused on building socialism in Nepal, the event becomes all the more important.

Socialism is a philosophy, and political and economic theory aimed at the overall development of humanity. Even the arch rivals of socialism cannot ignore the welfare state, which is the principal part of socialism. From each according to his ability and to each according to his work is a key economic slogan of socialism. Other defining features of socialism are characterised by free availability of basic needs of the people, such as education, health and housing from the state.

Also read:Despite Stirrings, Revival of Nepals Monarchy and Hindu Character Unlikely

The constitution of Nepal has envisioned a socialism-oriented prosperous Nepal. However, all the vital sectors of the economy and public life have been assigned to the private sector.

A futile discussion

Laying the foundation of socialism over a tattered social and economic base, as in Nepal, is simply inconceivable. Ironically, the leaders have not refrained from debating on the topic of building socialism in Nepal, ignoring the gloomy situation in the country for which corrupt bureaucrats and politicians are solely responsible.

Rather than engaging in a futile debate on socialism and selling the dreams of prosperous Nepal, it would have been better had the party leaders channelised their energy to transform the corrupt and dilapidated polity and fulfil the remaining task of nation-building.

Laying the foundation of socialism over a tattered and pathetic social and economic base as in Nepal is simply inconceivable. Photo: Discover Nepal

In this choreography of building a socialist society, senior-most leaders of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) and leaders of the Nepali Congress (NC) take part occasionally with equal zeal. Those are the same set of NCP and NC leaders who at one time or the other had made it to the top level of the government. By virtue of their position, they were fully armed with powers and prerogatives to change the status quo. But they did nothing to transform the state of affairs, nor do they seem interested to effect changes in the corrupt system.

The irony of the present-day federal democratic republic is that its rulers have adopted a policy of exporting able-bodied and able-minded human resources leading to the flight of almost half of the working-age population abroad. They have entirely washed their hands of generating employment in the country and preventing the exodus of human capital. It is a self-defeating exercise to debate building socialism in Nepal by sending half of the human capital abroad, and overlooking the bitter fact that the state is being run on remittances.

The momentum of Nepali renaissance squandered

The discourse beginning since the 1950s, the period which could also be termed as the Nepali renaissance, has always moved in the wrong direction. In 1951, Nepali people achieved some democratic rights, such as freedom of assembly and expression and party formation. But on the other hand, some of the members of cabinet would demand Indian army deployment to curb the K.I. Singh uprising, Khukuri Dal revolt and the peasants uprising led by Bhim Datt Pant.

The leaders in Delhi would issue a statement that the northern border of India is extended up to the Himalayas. Delhi and its advisors played a decisive role in the formation of ministries in Nepal, drafting of the constitution and the formulation of development plans. This meant that Nepal has had to traverse a long journey to become a sovereign and independent nation.

When King Mahendra dissolved the parliament in 1960, Tanka Prasad Acharya, a supporter of leftist ideology, became the prime minister for a brief period. Mahendra strived hard to make Nepal independent but he did not succeed completely.

Soldiers from Nepals Armed Police Force patrolling a disputed area along the India-Nepal border. Photo: Rastriya Samachar Samiti, Nepal.

Over the past seven decades, Nepal has experimented with several political systems. Some may find it amazing, but the fact is that Nepal could not become an independent nation, not only in the political and economic sense, but also in terms of geographical sovereignty even after seven-decade-old tumultuous struggle in which thousands of people sacrificed their lives. One does not need to go very far to understand this, only one simple example would suffice: the border with India has been left open.

One is free to interpret this situation, but the real meaning is that by keeping the border open with India, Nepal has been virtually merged into India. The merger was beneficial to the British as well as to the Ranas to facilitate the hassle-free movement of fighter youths and high-quality timber from Nepal. But even after the dawn of democracy, the borders have been left open.

Reworking of priorities required

To talk about building socialism in Nepal by leaving the border open with a very close but extremely difficult neighbour is utterly ridiculous. Open and unsecured border with a powerful country, which has one of the largest economy and military force, where the forces have a mentality of India extending from the Indian ocean to the Himalayas has been ingrained, is strategically dangerous for a weak nation. Moreover, Indias past history of the annexation of Sikkim and the creation of Bangladesh and its aggressive gestures still today towards its small neighbours make the situation all the more vulnerable.

Also read:Nepal Redraws Political Map by Incorporating Three Disputed Areas With India

Making the borders secure, maintaining a record of foreigners and fellow citizens entering and exiting the country through a passport and visa regime are the primary and fundamental duties of any government. Without fulfilling these primary duties, a nation can never attain the status of a sovereign nation. Without fulfilling primary tasks for the people, the talk of socialist paradise is just day-dreaming.

If the very people on whose shoulder lies the responsibility of making Nepal a separate and independent country by abrogating unequal treaties, regulation of the border with India and undoing the humiliating tradition of Gorkha recruitment, shut their eyes to these stark realities and engage themselves in platitudes of building socialism in Nepal, it makes no sense. It is not wise to waste time talking about a PhD without clearing a high school examination. Before talking about tying the knot, let us first decide who is going to marry whom.

Laxman Pant is a central committee member of the Nepal Communist Party.

See original here:
Why the Current Debate on Socialism in Nepal is So Much Hot Air - The Wire

Bob Jones The meaning of the word socialism is not in dispute. The Oxford dictionary describes it as,

A political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, capital and property. Also, a transitionary social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realisation of communism.

Now its indisputable that that is very clear. Given that why do so many female Labour candidates brag that theyre socialists?

Obvious explanations are stupidity and ignorance as I dont for a second believe they really seek a communist society.

After the exposure of both communism and western big government in the 1980s and 90s and the substitution of market economies, the lefts women found it hard to abandon the word and tried to mute it by idiotically describing themselves as democratic socialists, as if that made any difference.

Yet the brighter Labour types knew as far back as the late 1970s that socialism was redundant and tried to shy from it.

In New Zealand cities in the late 1970s urban female trendies, driven by a loathing of Muldoon, flocked to Labour and preached what they had no wish to practise.

This reached a climax when one such, who being a relative shall remain unnamed, rose at the 1977 Labour annual conference, a huge event in those highly politicised days, and proposed the Party change its name to the New Zealand Socialist Labour Party.

Labour leader Bill Rowling was furious and I suspect blamed me as hed done explaining his defeat in his opening words television concession speech in 1975.

Anyway, this put the Party on the spot. They did the sensible thing, namely voting to change the Party name then totally ignoring it.

In 1990 after Cath Tizard was announced as our first female Governor General she was interviewed a few days later on National Radio.

Im still a socialist, she proudly proclaimed to which the interviewer asked what she meant by that.

For five or six minutes she waxed on, beginning every explanatory sentence with, When I say socialist I dont mean

We never did find out what she did mean.

Ill excuse that madness through her then delirious state given a couple of days earlier at a function in Auckland Id reminded her that as Governor General shed also be Chief Scoutmaster.

She was horror-struck and went absolutely white, then declared I wont do it. I wont do it. And I suspect, if so to her great credit, it was she who put an end to this farcical linkage.

The latest female Labour politician to declare herself, not once but repeatedly as a socialist, was List Labour MP Ginny Andersen, in an interview a few days ago. Shes contesting the traditional Labour Hutt South seat, forfeited by Trevor Mallard who with Speaker ambitions, went on the list last time. Andersen then lost to the Nats Chris Bishop. I suspect Bishop will get up again while Labour will gain the majority of Party votes.

But regardless, Id love to grill Ginny on her avowed state ownership of everything advocacy. I suspect the result would be another Tizard, When I say socialism I dont mean performance.

As written at the beginning the word has a clear meaning and she cant shy from that.

I dont for a second, albeit not knowing her, believe she wants to nationalise our farms and businesses and if Im right she should stop unthinkingly calling herself a socialist.

Source: NoPunchesPulled

Read the original:
Socialists . . And The Need To Explain 'Socialism' - Lawfuel

Date:October 14, 2020Host:Jim SchneiderGuest: William Federer MP3|Order

Socialism is hitting America like a tidal wave striking at our values, our private property rights, at parental authority, at religious freedom and the very heart and soul of our U.S. Constitution. As we discussed on a recent program, this issue is really a revolution in the making to completely dismantle our constitutional republic and turn it over to socialism. Its confronting us in numerous ways and what happens in this election will greatly determine the destiny of our nation.

Joining Jim for in-depth discussion on this issue was William Federer. William is a nationally known speaker, historian, author, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, a publishing company dedicated to researching Americas noble heritage. Hes the speaker on The American Minute daily broadcast. He has authored numerous books including, Americas God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, The Original 13: History of Religion in Americas First Thirteen States, Who is the King in America? and the newly released Socialism: The Real History From Plato to the Present in which he analyzes how the deep state capitalizes on crises to consolidate control.

Jim quoted from Williams latest book where Plato said: When the true philosopher-kings are born in state they will set in order their own city. They will take possession of the children who will be unaffected by the habits of their parents. These they will train in their own habits and laws.

According to William, the children are the prize. He used the analogy of computers. In that realm you have software and hardware. The question then remains as to who gets to load the software. God has given children the hardware which is their bodies and brains. They also have their software which is the ideology theyre taught that gives them their identity and purpose. In Gods plan that includes family and loving each other but those opposed to God want to load viruses and malware. Its all about who gets to program the next generation. Take the children away from the family before theyve been affected by the habits of their parents and indoctrinate them with what Plato described as noble lies.

This is all about giving up your values and embracing the states values. An example from the Bible includes King Saul telling his soldiers to kill priests. They wouldnt because they knew individually they are accountable to God. Doeg the Edomite took out a sword and killed them all. In essence, Doeg had surrendered his conscience to Saul, being willing to do whatever Saul ordered. This is what dictators want, a population that will simply obey them.

William went on to explain that the nation is controlled by laws. Laws are controlled by politicians. Politicians are controlled by voters. Voters are controlled by public opinion. Public opinion is controlled by education, the media and the Internet. So whoever controls education, the media and the Internet controls the nation.

Since the forces behind socialism control these variables, its easy to see who gets to load the software onto the next generation.

Review this edition of Crosstalk to learn more as well as hear what others around America had to say.

More Information

Socialism: The Real History from Plato to the Present is available for a donation of $18 or more to Crosstalk. Go to vcyamerica.org or call 1-800-729-9829.

Read more from the original source:
Socialism and Education VCY America - VCY America

Russell G. Lloyd, Jr., Viewpoint Published 9:47 p.m. CT Oct. 8, 2020

As the November elections rapidly approach I continue to be dismayed to see our young people marching and chanting to the banner of the new socialists in our midst. Whether its called democratic socialism or the old revolutionary Marxism the results are always the same: disastrous economics, poverty and loss of freedom where ever applied.

Free market capitalism is the economic system thats lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the globe. When you combine free markets with a democratic government and the rule of law, the United States and western democracies have flourished for nearly 250 years in unparalleled freedom for their people with growing innovation and prosperity. So why do our young people turn away from free markets and capitalism to advocate for socialism?

Briefly I would like to compare these two vastly different economic systems.

Free market capitalism requires the rule of law, free and fair trade, private property and individual ownership that is protected by a fair court system, relatively low taxes, capital markets, freedom to travel and a military having a small percent of ownership or participation in the economy. The best examples of countries that have free markets and participatory democracies include Australia and New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the United States. You can check out the Index of Economic Freedom to see a ranking of the top performing countries.

On the other hand, socialism and itsdespicable cousin communism include societal components where the central government elites set the rules and enforce them to control the population, most times against their will. Socialist economies have high levels of government ownership of land, property, resources and businesses.

The state owns much of the natural resources but allows favored private enterprises to develop them under strict and sometimes confiscatory agreements. Citizens have limited rights, are under surveillance, many times cant travel out of the country and generally cant criticize the state. The courts and justice system operate at the direction of the state and typical have large prison populations that include political prisoners. With the government controlling a large share of the economy taxes are usually high and the military constitutes a large share of production, gross domestic product and business activity.

The repressive societies and economies are evident in states such as Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Venezuela and the old Soviet Union, Eastern bloc and pre 1980s Communist China.

How can these systems be attractive to our young people? Former socialist countries like India, Mexico, Vietnam and Hungary are moving to the free market capitalist model. Unfortunately the free market economy of Hong Kong appears to be going the other way as Communist China attempts to exert more control over the island. We see people trying to flee these rotten economies while their governments move to keep them in.

In the last hundred years socialism and communism are responsible for the untimely deaths of millions of people, the enslavement of millions more while operating repressive governments with failed economic systems causing much poverty. Dont believe what Sanders and Ocasio Cortez are peddling socialism follows the same disastrous road that leads to Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung with imprisonment, loss of freedom, untimely death and poverty the result.

The United States has the greatest economic system created by man, free market capitalism, when coupled with representative democracy it is the envy of the world! Lets work to improve it. And move to put socialism in the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Russell G. Lloyd, Jr. is the current city controller and former mayor of Evansville. The opinions here are his personal views and do not represent the City of Evansville.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/2020/10/08/viewpoint-socialism-not-answer/5932036002/

Continue reading here:
Viewpoint: Socialism is not the answer - Courier & Press

Editors note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

Socialism in the US? Really!! Even Communist China gave up Socialism. After 25 years of totalitarian Communist Rule and Socialist Economic policies, China came to the conclusion that Socialism was a failure, the famine and the death that Socialism caused eventually threatened Chinas Communist Party rule and China was moving toward anarchy and the destruction of Chinese Totalitarian Communist Party control and power.

The Chinese people were rising up and ready to take back their government. In order to save all the Communist Power over the people, the Communists decided to discard their chosen Socialist Economic structure and embrace Market Economic policies if not just to try to keep their power over their people. It worked!! Over the last 50 years China has first been able to feed its people, excellent, keep its people from taking down the Communist Power Structure, and now looking toward becoming a rival to the U.S. Superpower. Quite the accomplishment.

But even though China abandoned Socialism long ago, they do not support a Free Market System like here in the West. No Communism does not allow freedom, China requires total control. Is this what our leftist friends want for the United States? Do they realize or even recognize Communist China got rid of Socialism long ago? Because everywhere its been truly tried, its killed tens of thousands of people by hunger and violence, mainly perpetrated by authoritarian government leaders? Socialism is, will be, and has always been a train wreck.

The inventor of Socialism Karl Marx, an admitted racist, thought he got it all right, but actually got it all wrong. Socialism does not work, and invariably leads to death and despair. History shows this in every historic case. Dont fall for the argument theres a utopia of a pure Socialist system, it does not and will never exist.

Human nature will be human nature and Socialism will always fail to live up to how Karl Marx thought humans would react and respond. Racist Carl Marx is discredited in every way. Even in and by Communist China.

Barry MannieVancouver

View original post here:
Letter: 'Socialism does not work, and invariably leads to death and despair. History shows this in every historic case' - clarkcountytoday.com