Mediaboss Marketing

A customer browses imported Soviet-era books at a store in Golpark, India, in 2017. | Anuradha Sengupta / The Hindu via Twitter

After the triumph of the Bolshevik Revolution, John Reed, famed author of Ten Days that Shook the World, wrote, The thirst for education, so long thwarted, burst with the Revolution into a frenzy of expression. From Smolny Institute alone, the first six months, went out everyday tons, car-loads, train-loads of literature, saturating the land. Russia absorbed reading matter like hot sand drinks water, insatiable.

According to Vijay Prashad in his introduction to the collection of short essays that constitute The East Was Read: Socialist Culture in The Third World, The literacy campaign was not conducted in Russian alone, but in the languages of the many nationalities of the USSR. Thirty years later, despite the ravages of two world wars, it was announced that all [Soviet] citizens could read and write. This was a considerable feat.

The East Was Read isnt just about literacy or the production, distribution, and consumption of books in the Soviet Union, though. Its goal is considerably more ambitious, despite being only 153 pages.

The goal of The East Was Read is two-fold: to [pay] homage to the lost world ofSoviet books, their impact across the globe, and to highlight socialist culture in the Third World.

As Prashad notes, Generations in the Global South grew up with Soviet books on our shelves. If we could afford books, they would be lavishly illustrated Soviet childrens books, then a volume or two of Tolstoy, and then, finally, perhaps a few volumes of Lenins writings. It is these books, from novels to primers in mathematics, that flooded the continents of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, providing precious knowledge to places that did not have the capacity to publish such a range of what became world literature.

The Indian author, Pankaj Mishra, recalled the impact the magazine Soviet Life had on him as a young boy. When a new issue slipped through the mail slot, I would smell its glossy pages and run my fingers across them. I lingered longest over the pages with pictures of Young Pioneers, the communist childrens organization, perhaps envisioning adventure and comradery with other youth across the world.

For millions of young readers in the Third World, Soviet and Eastern European literature was an inexpensive window into a world largely beyond reach.

But it wasnt just Soviet-produced books, magazines, journals, and newspapers that Mishra recalls. The Soviet Union had [also] helped set up and then subsidize publishing houses and bookshops across much of what was then known as the developing world, a contribution to literacy, education, and revolution largely lost with the demise of socialism in Eastern Europe.

Another essay, by Rossen Djagalov, an Assistant Professor of Russian at New York University, briefly touches on the history of Progress Publishers, based in Moscow. According to Djagalov, In the history of publishing, there has probably never been a press so linguistically ambitious as Progress.

By 1991, Progress Publishers was a behemoth publishing yearly close to 2,000 new titles with a print run approaching 30 million copies, in every language imaginable. Many around the world fondly remember Progresss cheap, high quality editions of otherwise unavailable Marxist literature, Djagalov concluded.

In The East Was Read, you will not only learn about Soviet domestic literacy campaigns and Progress Publishers; youll also read about the Foreign Language Publishing House, the first Soviet press to publish works for the non-Soviet world. But most importantly, you will get a sense of what the cheap, high quality books and magazines meant to the millions of people across the globe who were inspired by them.

Another contributor to the collection added, in a time when foreign was really distant and thus especially exotic, these books brought the tundra home, eliminating several emotional, political, social, and physical geographies.

The East Was Read, though, isnt just about books; it is about culture geared towards liberation. Another chapter discusses the early 1968 Cultural Congress of Havana, a colossal event, considered of pivotal importance not only for Cuba, but for the Third World project as a whole. There are also chapters on Socialist Cinema and poetry.

As a short book, The East Was Read is a huge accomplishment. The individual chapters consumed as a whole succeed to painting a unique pictureof nostalgia, yes, but also of the possibilities inherent in the human capacity to grow, evolve, and build solidarity across continents and generations, all towards the goal of constructing a literate, educated, socialist community of nations, a project that has unfortunately largely been forgotten with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European states.

The East Was Read reminds us of the possibilities of another time and place and thereby provides hope for the future as well. It is highly recommended.

The East Was Read: Socialist Culture in The Third World

Edited by Vijay Prashad

LeftWord Books, 2019, 153 pages

See the original post:
How Soviet books brought literacy and socialist culture to the Third World - People's World

The pearl-clutching cry of socialism has been the cudgel used by conservatives to try and beat back every social program that has benefited Americans since the New Deal, from Social Security to unemployment insurance to Medicare.

And the Tweeter-In-Chiefs all-caps screeching of the word will only get louder as we head into a primary season with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in contention for the Democratic nomination for president.

Never in the history of human language has a word been more misused, misunderstood, weaponized and demonized than socialism, so lets stop hyperventilating for a moment and take a look at what socialism is and is not.

First off, socialism is not gulags, concentration camp or any other Fox News fever dream of left-wing totalitarianism. Sure, the Nazis called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party, but North Korea calls itself the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, so I think we can disabuse ourselves of the notion that the words fascist dictatorships choose to describe themselves with are being used with honest intent.

The word socialism is traditionally associated with Marxist theory, but the concept of socialism actually predated Marx in classical economics, most notably by economist David Ricardo whose work influenced Marx though Marx later rejected many tenants of Ricardian Socialism.

In classical economic theory, socialism works within market processes, not as a replacement for them, as in Marxism.

In America, the question, Are you a capitalist or a socialist? is a false choice. The answer, to those who understand how our economy works, is ... both.

Our economy is a mixed economy, which is defined as a combination of private enterprise (capitalism) and public enterprise (socialism). When those two enterprises are balanced, our economy zings along at maximum freedom and efficiency. When imbalanced, we run into trouble.

The trick in a free market mixed economy is to balance the freedom of the owners with the freedom of the workers. One of the inherent flaws in capitalism is its inevitability for either a single entity or a small number of entities to gobble up every resource in its path, eventually leading to a tyranny of the private sector.

On the other hand, a heavy-handed public sector can stifle the markets and slow economic activity. At worst, the public sector can hijack the private sector altogether, leading to a tyranny of the state. Obviously, neither of those extreme outcomes jibes with a free society, which is why we need a balance between the two enterprises.

What weve been living with for the last 40 years has been a slowly growing cancer of imbalance in our mixed economy, whose capitalist side of the scale got so weighed down, it crashed the entire world economy in 2008.

Rather than rebalancing the scales after the crash, though, we doubled down on the private sector by issuing obscenely large bailouts to the banks that caused the crash in the first place an ironic use of socialism if ever there was one and the banks used those bailouts in ways that created more income inequality (which inhibits social mobility for the lower and middle classes), more market consolidation (which squashes competition and opportunity for small businesses), and allowed more power and wealth to be vacuumed up by a smaller and smaller number of people, to the point where today, the richest 1% of our population holds more wealth than the entire bottom 90%.

The president loves to brag about the stock market, but we have to stop judging the health of the economy by how well the rich people are doing. Those of us in that bottom 90% know that

our paychecks struggle to keep up with the needs of our daily lives.

Therefore, it should not come as a shock to anyone that Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC are gaining traction. Theyre not arguing for authoritarian communism, theyre simply saying we need to rebalance the scales of our mixed economy.

Is anyone really surprised that a new generation of voters who have grown up in an America that has been at war their entire lives, whose parents lost homes and jobs in the 2008 crash, and who are entering the workforce with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt might just think, Hmm ... maybe we ought to try something different to fix this mess, cause what theyve been doing aint working?

So what would that rebalance look like? It would look like regulating the private sector in a way that values public need as much as the profit motive. It would look like making sure that everyone, regardless of class, race or gender has equal access to the same quality of resources that provide opportunities for success.

It would look like expanding and ensuring voting rights, so that every single voting age American has a say in how they are governed.

Thats not socialism its problem solving. Its common sense in a mixed economy, and its long past time we rebalance the scales.

The younger voting generations understand this, which is why a majority of Millennials and Gen Z view socialism more favorably than capitalism, in recent polling. Even a majority of my fellow Gen Xers said government needs to be more involved in solving social problems in a recent Pew Research poll.

So keep crying socialism at your own peril, GOP. The electorate will continue to pass you by.

Steve Smith is a husband, father, artist, and progressive. He serves on the Executive Board of the Forsyth County Democratic Committee, http://www.forsythdems.org. Follow Steve on Twitter @FoCoSteve.

Continued here:
Opinion: The party that cried 'socialism' - Forsyth County News Online

Weeks ago, the university students appeared at the city squares of Pakistan to raise their concerns. Clad in red, they were chanting in rhythmic notes the chunks from the poems of rebel poets whose poetry disseminates the message of revolution.

The posture of the students amazed many. Some called them socialists, while others termed them liberals.

Many ask whose agenda they are on. The important point is whether they are on some agenda or they are ideologically motivated ones, they have managed to resuscitate the debate symbolizing red colour.

But there is a confusion as to what these students are exhibiting are they liberals, communists or socialists? Let us strive to clear the dust gathered around the thought being propounded by the students.

Simply put, there is a need to clarify the terms like liberalism, communism and socialism to reach reality.

Liberalism is a philosophy which promotes endeavours to remove obstacles in the way of individuals liberty. The obstacles are poverty, ignorance, disease and social discrimination, which impede an individuals will to live freely. In so doing, liberalism may remain within the ambit of a capitalist polity having a free competitive market.

Communism commands disbanding the capitalist structure, which produces unevenness in society. In contrast, socialism does not dismantle the existing structure. It readily adjusts itself under already present political format it could also be a capital set-up seeking to liberate the proletariats from the totalitarian policies of the ruling class. Thus, socialism does not necessarily endorse collision with capitalism. That is why political parties of Pakistan have been nurturing socialist agenda speaking for the rights of labour-class.

Let us now travel down to the history-lane to ascertain reality.

The seeds of socialism can be traced even before the partition of the sub-continent. The ideology sneaked into the region along with Red Revolution in Russia. Peshawar Conspiracy Cases that befell between 1922-27 and the Kanpur Bolshevik Case of May 1924 provide a peep into the efforts to bring socialism in revolt to the British imperialism.

After Pakistan came into being, Pakistan Socialist Party (PSP) could not create ripples in the face of conservative parties which had just supported the creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion.

The Communist Party, in contrast, was able to win over the farmers and the labourers as it participated actively in labour strikes and language protests in the early 1950s. In 1954, it formed the government with the backing of Awami Party in East Pakistan. Soon in the wake of clashes between police and the Communist Party, Sikandar Mirza imposed the first martial law on 7 October 1958.

During the Ayub era, the dissenting voices were considerably curbed. But following the Tashkent Declaration, the atmosphere in Pakistan turned antagonistic to President Ayub. Socialist elements again woke up from their snooze. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was shrewd enough to capture the direction of the veering winds, and thus founded Pakistan Peoples Party whose manifesto, Islam is our religion, democracy is our politics, socialism is our economy, and power lies with the people, was written by a Bengali communist, J.A. Rahim.

The PPPs massive land reforms, nationalization campaign and efforts to abolish feudalism pleased the working class, which joined the party in flocks.

Despite having similar ideologies, the PPP could not get close to the Red Shirts movement of Abdul Ghaffar Khan because of his looking at Pakistan through the prism of Afghanistan.

In General Zias epoch, the left-wing activists formed a Struggle Group to resist the repression of the military government. The group, soon, started publishing a magazine, Jidd-o-Jehed, which carried the revolutionary poems of Habib Jalib, Ahmad Fraz and Faiz Ahmad Faiz. In 1984, the poem, Main Baghi Hun written by Khalid Javed Jan became a symbol of struggle against the dictatorial reign of General Zia.

On the heels of 9/11 debacle and Pakistans joining as the front line ally of the US, the socialist strain made its presence felt from the art and cultural platforms through theatres, peace conferences, songs and literature. Literary festivals at Karachi Arts Council and Alhamra Hall Lahore apprised the people of the work of poets and writers who spur the masses for social reforms away from the shackles of fascism.

The recent rise of students activities is not an outcome of some abrupt outpouring; rather, the continuation of a socialist thought that has been appearing in every political phase of Pakistan.

But where does the problem lie? Why does these students ideology not have acceptance in our society?

The answer is that there has always been the idea of socialism being anti-religion; whereas it is to be understood that socialism may make an adjustment with already existing frameworks.

Another reason for not having acceptability is the culture of free mixing of both genders in the demonstrations. The optics of girls and boys shouting revolution being in proximity for many is outrageous in Pakistan, which still is dominated by conservatives.

Last but not least, in rising for the rights of the working class, the current movements biggest flaw may be to get aligned with the organizations having an inordinate anti-army stance. Lessons could be learnt from the postures of the nascent PPP in the 1970s which distanced itself from the National Awami Partys pro-Afghan manoeuvrings. Then it also raised the slogan of Islamic Socialism to create its acceptability in an otherwise conservative society.

If these issues are properly dealt with, the current movement may produce its inlets in Pakistans socio-political milieu, or else, it is likely to meet the same fate as the efforts in the past have faced.

Read more from the original source:
Reviving socialism in Pakistan - The Nation

Rail gardens a great idea

Re: Urban farm sprouts up along rail DART teams with nonprofits to plant community gardens, Monday Metro story.

Love this article! I ride trains a lot in Europe and at the edge of towns and cities I see many garden plots along the tracks; most complete with small tool sheds, some even with decorative window boxes. Urban farms along the rails: what a great idea.

Shirley Lewis, Arlington

Re: Reverchon ballpark revival strikes out, by Robert Wilonsky, Friday Metro & Business column.

I am so disgusted with the city of Dallas. No wonder it keeps losing people. Ive kept abreast of this issue and am very disappointed. How is it the city can have freeway parks and not allow an intercity park to exist? Maybe council member Adam Medrano or others have something in their pocket.

This would be a great place for citizens in these and other areas to enjoy with their families. Dallas, do not allow this to happen! I am not resident of Dallas (I used to be), but am still concerned that all be equally shared especially since all Dallas appears to do is appeal to the rich and young. They forget that it took the older generation to get where it is today.

Marie C. Hogeda, Grand Prairie

The impeachment articles and pending trial are misguided, and not just because it is doomed in a GOP-controlled Senate. What the Democrats fail to grasp is that Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom. Trump is exactly what he has always been, exactly what anyone should have expected. To keep attacking Trump is counter-productive and energizes his supporters. Not only will impeachment fail, but acquittal will embolden Trump to take further liberties, and will also probably lead to his re-election.

The questions that the Democratic National Committee and Democratic congressional leaders should be addressing are: What are the beliefs, attitudes and conditions that facilitated his election in the first place? What do the 40%+ who approve of and defend his actions believe? What message can be formulated that will provide a clear vision of how things should and can be better?

A primary focus in my work experience was that you dont just complain about poor performance or a bad situation, you present a plan to fix things. That should be the Democrats primary focus: present something voters can believe in and rally around, something that will win at the polls. If they dont or cant do that, Trump wins.

John Gahan, McKinney

Re: Query a question of politics Texans Are you a socialist or a capitalist? is a new spin on old GOP tactic, Monday news story.

Congressman Roger Williams kept asking banking CEOs if they were capitalists or socialist. Wait, they get loans from the federal government at the fed rate (socialism) and complain when they get reeled in for literally gambling with that and investors money (sub-prime lending)? Then, we bailed them out (more socialism).

Williams cites socialist states of Venezuela and Russia, both of which are corrupt. As for Cuba, they are doing surprisingly well given the near obscene restrictions we put on them for overthrowing a corrupt government over 50 years ago.

We have a lot of socialism in the U.S. Fire, police, education, parks, roads, military, Social Security and tax breaks for corporations all fit the description. Are we going to privatize or eliminate it all, or shall we stick with some socialism?

John C. Jacobs, Carrollton

Instead of bringing up terms that incite emotional reactions as is being done by the far-right Republicans, lets ask that question another way. Do we want the laws of this country written to ensure that everyone who is willing to work hard and is able to find a job that pays a living wage will share in the results of the marketplace or do we want to let those who have little conscience and are overly ambitious and/or greedy reap 99% of it?

LeRoy White, Denton

Re: 2 Texas Dems will vote aye Reps. Allred and Fletcher are facing tough races in 2020," Sunday news story.

Texas Reps Lizzie Fletcher and Colin Allred and now Michigans Elissa Slotkin also have made courageous decisions to vote in favor of impeachment, even though they are aware that a significant number of constituents will disapprove of their decisions. They are upholding their sworn oath of office, made by every elected official on both sides of the aisle, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I believe the evidence of the presidents offenses against his oath of office is overwhelming, and I call on my own Rep. Kenny Marchant, and other members of Congress both Democrats and Republicans to follow the example of Allred, Fletcher and Slotkin, even if it jeopardizes their re-election.

This is one of those times when standing up for principle is necessary, even if it carries significant personal cost. Standing bravely together in defense of the principle that the power of the presidency must not be hijacked for personal gain would restore some faith in our battered institutions and provide some healing in our current time of polarization. Wouldnt it be a splendid reuniting if both Democrats and Republicans stood together?

Eulaine Hall, Northwest Dallas

As I write this, I am on my way to see my 92-year-old father, who is a disabled veteran of two wars and a man who loves his country. For the first time in decades, I will be able to tell him I am being represented in the House by a representative who cares more about the people of Texas than about the bribes he is getting from businessmen and maybe even Vladimir Putin.

I am grateful for Colin Allreds vote to impeach Donald Trump, the symptom of the cancer of greed in the Republican Party. I will never support another member of the corrupt GOP.

Alicea Lynn Fletcher, University Park

Click here to submit a letter to the editor.

Original post:
Letters to the Editor Urban farms, Reverchon ballpark, a plan for Democrats, socialism, US Rep. Roger Williams, US Rep. Colin Allred - The Dallas...

For once, Labour has been quick off the mark. It is only 10 days since the party lost a fourth consecutive general election and it is already preparing for its next defeat.

Despite the obvious truth that Jeremy Corbyn must take the blame for the worst result in almost 100 years, Rebecca Long Bailey, his anointed successor, is the favourite to succeed him as party leader. Her election would be the public statement that Corbyn has gone but Corbynism lives on.

Labour supporters, who want to win the next election, should not despair. The partys future success, perhaps even its survival, depends on the genuine democratic socialists in the parliamentary party seizing control of the political agenda. The elevation of Long Bailey would provide an early opportunity to demonstrate that they mean business.

The cause would be best served by an outright refusal to accept the imposition of a leader who does not command their confidence. A formal protest with a recorded vote would be almost as effective. Emboldened, they must then insist that the shadow cabinet is, once again, elected giving its members an independent authority that they would not possess as the leaders nominees. With their status restored, they would be free to challenge the strategy and tactics of both the leader and the advisers who, with Corbyn, must take some of the blame for the bloodbath of black Thursday and are, even now, arranging to remain surrogate leaders in the new regime.

Labour MPs are notorious for their reluctance to fight the ideological battle for democratic socialism. The common response to the complaint that they have watched, but not opposed, the triumphant progress of the far left is the claim that at least they stayed and fought. More often than not, they stayed without fighting.

If they fight now they will, of course, be accused of splitting the party. In truth they will be preventing, or at worst postponing, the real split that is bound to follow a further drift to the unelectable left. The second accusation will be the creation of a party within a party. A distinct and separate party of the far left has been a cuckoo in Labours nest ever since Ed Milibands invention of cut-price membership. Men and women who had spent long, dark nights outside Labour meetings hawking revolutionary newspapers came in from the cold bringing their sectarian intolerance with them.

They became the pathfinders for the most extensive and, it must be admitted, most successful takeover bid in Labour history. At its heart was Momentum, which began life under the guise of Corbyns Praetorian Guard but swiftly evolved into a vehicle for moving the party to what turned out to be the unelectable left. Momentum infiltrated constituency parties, enrolled enough delegates to successive annual conferences to gain a stranglehold on party policy, took effective control of Labours national executive committee and attempted with a measure of success to deselect Labour MPs who did not share its prejudices. Momentum found natural allies in recent conversions from Marxist and Trotskyite factions who, encouraged by the hope of colonising a real and functioning political party, suddenly saw the light.

Compared with Momentum, the Militant tendency which attempted to subvert Labour in the 1980s was a ragbag of second-rate conspirators who took corrupt control of Liverpool but were only an irritant in other parts of the country. No Militant sympathisers were employed in the Labour party headquarters or in its regional offices, and no major trade union leader supported Militants aims. Now full-time officials openly boast of their Momentum membership. Militant remained an obscure sect.

Thanks in part to Momentum, the Corbyn project was endorsed by thousands of good democratic socialists. The radical rhetoric obscured the fatal flaws of Corbyns philosophy the blanket opposition to private enterprise, the support for any tinpot dictator who called himself a socialist, the intolerance of disagreement, the failure to cleanse Labour of antisemitism which proved that, although he hated racial prejudice, there were some racial prejudices that he did not hate enough. There is no doubt that there is still an army of Labour party members who cannot bring themselves to believe that the Corbyn project was destined to end in disaster. They have to be persuaded that Corbyns way could only ever lead to the disappointment of defeat and the betrayal of the millions of families who need a Labour government. No doubt Momentums leaders are still rejoicing about the control they achieved over the party machine. The celebrations are not being replicated in the food bank queues that, following Labours defeat, will only lengthen.

Before the brilliance of Neil Kinnocks Bournemouth conference speech in 1985 extinguished the hopes of Militant, outriders spent two years preparing the ground for his final assault. For Labour to become a party of government again it needs another army of genuine democratic socialist MPs mounting a similar onslaught on the great ideals false friends. Their task will be more than the recruitment of new party members to become a counterweight to infiltrators from the unelectable extremes. They must convince floating voters that democratic socialism is alive, well and ready to wake from its slumbers and is worth voting for. Thanks to the Corbyn project, few people believe that today.

It may be that the parliamentary party is not in a mood to heed the calls to arms. The self-styled moderates have always suffered from an excess of caution. But if there is to be a fight, have no doubt that the real democratic socialists will occupy the high ground.

We are the apostles of true equality and the personal freedom that it must sustain. And we offer the politics of hope not empty slogans about the better world we hope to build but a real chance of bringing it about. A genuine democratic socialist party can win elections. The time has come to rise up against all who stand in our way.

Roy Hattersley served in James Callaghans cabinet and later became deputy leader of the Labour party

Original post:
We fought Militant in the 1980s. The far lefts hold is now much worse - The Guardian