Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

JUST PLAIN TALK: Socialism doesn’t have to be a dirty word – Destin Log

Pam Griffin|The Destin Log

People living between the Blackwater River in Northwest Florida to the Sabine River on the Texas-Louisiana border have to feel like they joined the Hurricane of the Month club. Living on the Florida coast, it's always a relief when a storm makes landfall away from us, but the multiple strikes west of us do bring a twinge of guilt. Jimmy Buffett wrote "Trying to Reason with Hurricane Season" almost 50 years ago, but that was about one storm, not a series.

By the time this goes to press, all the 2020 election votes will have been cast. Since hurricane season doesn't end until Nov. 30, maybe all the clamor about socialism will end. If a coastal community gets hit by a hurricane, socialism bails them out. Don't you believe me? When Hurricane Sally hit Pensacola, the winds had not died down before politicians had FEMA on speed-dial.

I grew up in rural Georgia, right on the Georgia-Florida line (not the Florida-Georgia line). Folks there would still be picking up debris from Hurricane Michael's 2018 devastation if it weren't for FEMA.Natural disasters overwhelm local and state governments, and a national response is the only suitable option. America tried the other way, and it didn't work.

A hundred years ago, a series of devastating floods wracked the Mississippi Delta. Arkansas suffered so severely the state declared bankruptcy. For decades the state didn't issue bonds and infrastructure withered. The flood's damage was catastrophic, and the region became ground zero for parts of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Critics called it socialism then, too.

South Walton real estate would suffer without the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), subsidized mightily by the federal government. According to a Congressional Budget Office study, the NFIP has a $1.4 billion annual deficit. Premiums collected by the NFIP leave a 25% shortfall annually. It's a government hand-out; deal with it. Even though I don't own an NFIP policy, we benefit since flood insurance props up property values. I'm not fool-hardy; we live on top of a hill.

I listen to Mike's Weather Page more than Jimmy Buffet or local prognosticators during hurricaneseason. Mike blogs about the weather, primarily hurricanes, but all of his data comes from the National Weather Service, along with information gleaned from other countries'weather forecasts. Civilized societies benefit from publicly-funded weather sources.

Americans have ingrained mythology about rugged individualism. We reflexively distrust government;after all, we overthrew one to get things going. But the first decade after the British sailed away was chaotic, and we formed a more perfect union; it's in the Preamble to the Constitution. Private industry can create the proverbial better mousetrap and improve society. Government programs have a place,too. The key is to find the mesh between them. Too often, especially in the heat of elections, we heara lot of misplaced rhetoric. Lots of people complain about socialism but cash the checks.

You can't always get what you want, but Buz Livingston, CFP, can help you figure out what you need. For specific advice, visit livingstonfinancial.net or drop by, masked, 2050 West County Highway 30A, M1 Suite 230.

Excerpt from:
JUST PLAIN TALK: Socialism doesn't have to be a dirty word - Destin Log

Why Trumps Efforts to Paint Biden as a Socialist Are Not Working – The New York Times

A supermajority two-thirds of respondents, including a solid majority of Republicans supports a 2 percent tax on households whose total net worth, including stocks and real estate, exceeds $50 million. Support for such a proposal, which was a plank in Senator Elizabeth Warrens bid for the Democratic nomination, has increased from where it was a year ago.

Oct. 14, 2020, 11:31 p.m. ET

Taxes on the rich is an objectively popular policy, said Sean McElwee, executive director of Data for Progress, a progressive think tank that has polled extensively on support for liberal policy plans. Over the long term, the wind is in the sails of progressives, in terms of demand from the public.

Mr. Trump and his party have tried to sow concern about socialism for several years. In the fall of 2018, as midterm elections approached, Mr. Trumps White House Council of Economic Advisers produced a 72-page report warning of the dangers of socialist policies to the American economy. The White House promoted it in a news release with the headline, Congressional Democrats Want to Take Money From Hardworking Americans to Fund Failed Socialist Policies.

In the abstract, the messaging would appear to fit with Americans views about economic policy. Polls show a significant majority of Americans approve of capitalism and disapprove of socialism. But there are movements toward socialism in subgroups of the country. Majorities of young voters, and Democrats overall, have a favorable view of the concept.

Some of the split comes from disagreements over how to define the term. Americans who favor socialism tend to associate it with Scandinavian countries like Finland or Denmark, whose economic and social welfare systems are more commonly referred to as the Nordic model, the Pew Research Center has found. Its opponents tend to associate it with Venezuela.

That range of definitions has allowed Republicans to lump a growing number of policies favored by liberal groups under the socialism banner. In a recent attack, Mr. Trumps first example of Ms. Harriss so-called communist views was her position on immigration policy, accusing her of wanting to open up the borders of the United States.

In my district, I hear a lot of fear about the dramatic turn the Democratic Party has taken toward socialism, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said in an interview. My constituents are fearful when they see proposals to defund the police, abolish our immigration and customs enforcement, when there is burning and looting in cities, concerns over the Green New Deal.

Go here to read the rest:
Why Trumps Efforts to Paint Biden as a Socialist Are Not Working - The New York Times

The Socialist Moment, and How to Extend It – The American Prospect

While Joe Biden has been making it unmistakably clear that hes nobodys socialist tool, the American socialist movementmost of whose adherents will be voting for Bidenhas continued to expand. The Democratic Socialists of America (to which Ive belonged since the Neolithic Age) now has more than 70,000 members and has launched a campaign to raise that number to 100,000. At its current rate of growth, its membership rolls may well surpass that of the Debs-era Socialist Party, which claimed 118,000 dues-payers at its early-20th-century zenith.

The rebirth of American socialism has come complete with any number of explanatory and exhortatory books, the best of which was published late last month: The Socialist Awakening: Whats Different Now About the Left, a brief, incisive volume by veteran political journalist, longtime democratic socialist, and sometime American Prospect contributor John B. Judis. The book is Judiss third in a series published by Columbia Global Reports. In it, as in its two predecessors The Populist Explosion and The Nationalist Revival, Judis tracks the consequences of the failures of globalized capitalism to sustain working- and middle-class prosperity and stability since the 2008 collapse, and the concomitant rise of both left and right in the wake of those failures. As is not the case in the other two volumes, however, Judis writes not merely as an analyst of an ideologys return but as an advocate for its necessity, with particularly shrewd assessments of how the new American socialism can advance, and, alternatively, how it may marginalize itself into irrelevance.

More from Harold Meyerson

Judis focuses on two periods in American socialisms long history: the Debs Era of 1900 through 1920, and the Bernie Sanders Surge, which began to incubate with the Occupy movement of 2011 but didnt really take off until Sanders began running for president in 2015. Both were periods in which capital concentrated wealth and power, in which little of either trickled down to most Americans, in which the New Deals semisocial democratic reforms had either not yet been enacted or had been discarded in the post-1970 turn toward laissez-faire.

Sanders has always made it plain that socialist leader Eugene V. Debs was his hero, but in Judiss telling, the key to Sanderss zeitgeist-changing success was his move away from the socialist insularity that Debs espoused. While nominally remaining a political independent, Sanders won election to Congress on a social democratic platform of greater regulation of capital, greater power for workers, an expansion of social welfare and economic rights, and a pledge that hed caucus with the Democrats. When he began running for president in 2015, Sanders made clear his model of socialism was the Scandinavian mixed economy. But as Judis recounts, after Columbia University historian Eric Foner sent him an open letter that emphasized a more American pedigree for socialist initiatives, Sanders took the hint. As I recounted in the Prospect, in Sanderss two speeches that he billed as his definition of socialismone given at Georgetown University in 2015, the second at George Washington University in 2019he cited Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King as his forebears in the struggle for socialist reforms.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

In keeping with that expansive definition, Judis emphasizes the broad socialist network thats emerged today, which extends well beyond DSA card-carriers. It includes a range of progressive think tanks (like the Economic Policy Institute and the Roosevelt Institute) and magazines; most importantly, it includes not just the avowed socialists in elected office but a host of progressives whose politics are indistinguishable from the socialists politics, as Elizabeth Warrens were from Sanderss.

Expanding that network, as socialists like union leaders Sidney Hillman, A. Philip Randolph, and Walter Reuther did during the New Deal and the postwar period, will be as important, if not more important, to the social democratization of todays United States than the growth of DSA per se, Judis contends. What could retard that growth, he continues, would be continuing the hold that a relatively small group of orthodox Trotskyists now have over DSAs leadership. The majority of DSA members, he argues, are Berniecrats, happy to work for socialist and other progressive candidates seeking office as Democrats. (I believe hes right about this.) They understand, as Sanders does and as DSA founder Michael Harrington did, that third-party politics are a dead end in the current configuration of the American electoral system, and that socialists have won power in democracies only when allied with other progressives on behalf of social democratic programs. Such an approach is anathema to the neo-Trotskyist cadres in DSA, for whom a kind of socialist identity politics eclipses both class politics and that of a 21st-century popular front.

Judis also makes the case for a socialist version of nationalism, at which many in todays socialist movement will look askance. So long as democratic nations offer the one kind of government where majority rule holds sway, though, I think Judis has a point. While capitalism has had no trouble going global (in part to escape the regulations enacted by democratic nations), socialism cannot yet call on any planetary democratic body to reform the global economy. Moreover, peoples support for welfare states funded with their taxes, Judis points out, seldom extends beyond their nations borders. To advance a slightly different viewpoint, its worth noting that the nation that has given the highest share of its GDP in foreign aidsometimes to insurgent movements, like the African National Congresswas Sweden under the Social Democrats. Of course, that was when Sweden also had the worlds most expansive welfare state for its own citizens.

Judis writes not merely as an analyst of an ideologys return but as an advocate for its necessity.

As events would have it, the publication of Judiss book coincides with the premiere of a film that seeks to introduce and normalize socialism to American viewers. Indeed, The Big Scary S Word, a film by documentarian Yael Bridge, will have its first festival screening later today.

In Judiss terminology, The Big Scary S Word is a film about the broad socialist network, and broad left history, rather than a look at, say, the American Socialist and Communist Parties, or at DSA today. The focus is on progressives in motion, then and now, and their connection, explicit or implicit, to socialists and socialism, as distinct from the substance of their involvement in the socialist movement as such. Rather than disentangle the socialist and nonsocialist threads that came together to make the civil rights movement, for instance, the picture simply documents the socialism of Martin Luther King. Some of the environmental protests it shows may not have been populated by socialists, but theyre juxtaposed with interviews with Naomi Klein in which she connects a socialist perspective to any serious effort to save the planet. Theres a marvelous segment, replete with old films and photos, on the socialists 40-year control of Milwaukees city government, but no discussion of the social democratic meliorism of Victor Berger, the Milwaukee socialist leader and a contemporary of Debs who did not share Debss antipathy to reformist socialism. For that, you need to consult Judiss book, which is pitched at a narrower audience than Bridges film.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

Just as Eric Foner plays a key role in Judiss account of the Americanization of Bernie Sanderss socialism, so Foner plays a key role in explaining the contributions of socialists to American struggles for justice in Bridges picture. In this task, he is joined by Klein, Cornel West, The Nations John Nichols, and a host of others. In documenting the rise of socialism today, the picture focuses on Lee Carter, a DSA member and the one socialist in the Virginia legislature, as well as on a teacher who assumed a leadership role during the Oklahoma teachers strike and became a socialist in the process.

As its title suggests, The Big Scary S Word makes a broad and pointedly reassuring case for socialism as the remedy to our towering inequities. Judiss book makes a compelling case for what it will take to roll the revived socialist movement on, and offers a pointed critique of how sectarianism could derail it. The former is essential viewing for a broad audience; the latter essential reading for progressives and socialists.

Continued here:
The Socialist Moment, and How to Extend It - The American Prospect

Why the Current Debate on Socialism in Nepal is So Much Hot Air – The Wire

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

Socialists . . And The Need To Explain ‘Socialism’ – Lawfuel

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