Mediaboss Marketing

In our contemporary global society, socialism has become a clich that denotes a vast array of political approaches and ideologies that purportedly defy the political, economic and cultural status quo. It is in vogue to refer to a person as a socialist if he or she has an intellectual bent that advocates vague notions of religious freedom, economic equity, cultural revivalism and political egalitarianism.

While it is true that socialist ideals are founded on an alternative political and economic order from capitalism, they do not advocate an interpretive theoretical model that lumps together religion, culture, the economy and politics as mere analytical categories.

One must make a clear distinction between socialist idealism as an interpretive scheme with a set of moral narratives of an imagined egalitarian society and scientific socialism as an objective critique of capitalism. Despite all its variants, socialist ideals have somehow become a symbol of resistance and aspiration for a better society no matter how ill-founded these ideals of a new society are.

Far removed from working class movements, a large number of social democrats, anarchists, Maoists, civil society groups and human right activists consider themselves to be socialists. Under the rubric of socialism as we understand it today, little attention is paid to the most significant ideological contribution of socialism as a form of economic advancement. Scientific socialism unleashes the force of transformation through an organic political movement of the working class without recourse to a messianic political narrative of an exalted society.

In an ideological state like Pakistan, political non-conformity to the state ideology is socialism. This is sacrilegious, condemnable, treasonous and one of the key factors that promote moral turpitude in society. Socialism, secularism, atheism and profanity are used interchangeably as concepts that are inimical to the integrity of state and religious morality. Religious moralists argue that socialists do not practice what they preach and are, therefore, hypocrites. This interpretation of socialism by religious moralists in Pakistan emanates from real-life experiences as all alterative political thoughts are dubbed as acts of disloyalty to the state.

Elsewhere in the world, socialism has been distorted for short-term political mileage and often as a form of disdain and resentment to neoliberalism. Former US president Barrack Obama was seen wearing a T-shirt bearing the picture of Che Guevara during his visit to Cuba as a political symbol to resist the visible return of the far-right in America.

In the recent past, at political rallies against the execution of Mumtaz Qadri for killing former Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer a group of students of religious seminaries were seen carrying placards with pictures of Che Guevara. When asked what made them carry these placards, the students had no clue about the political ideology of Che. But they knew one thing: the man on the placard was a revolutionary who had fought against injustice and corruption. Che Guevara has also become a brand for trendy young people who can be seen wearing a Che cap and a T-shirt with his picture.

According to some political analysts, the revolutionary ideals of Che have been decontextualised. This has diluted the spirit of the class struggle through the political frivolity of religious infighting, the symbolic defiance to the status quo by liberals and by the attempts to turn political resistance into an insignia for brand-loving trendy lads. Che is for sale in supermarkets as a product that fits into an economic proposition of value for money and a means of political mileage.

This is, of course, not new in human history where change-makers and revolutionaries have been turned into the statues of grandeur, political supremacy and control. Che is also subjected to the tyranny of the history of the ruling class albeit with slightly better treatment than what Romans did to Christ.

Regardless of their religious or sacrilegious significance, reformers and revolutionaries have either been vilified or glorified in the political and cultural narratives as a means of establishing the ideological hegemony. Che may continue to be a symbol of resistance for millions of people across the world with the sting of his political ideology taken out. But the revival of Che is not only frivolous. It is easy to lose sight of the political and historical context of his struggle. However, resistance against neoliberalism is much deeper than the political frivolity today.

Whistle-blowers like Joseph Stiglitz and Al Gore have been vocal against the neoliberal economic and political onslaught on a variety of global issues, ranging from international trade to climate change. Local manifestations of resistance against the adverse trickledown effects of neoliberalism vary from moral narratives of religion and the cultural discourse of nationalism to the politico-economic counter-narratives of socialism. It would, therefore, be simplistic to discount the impact of religious and cultural movements on anti-neoliberal narratives of globalisation.

Many liberal and progressive thinkers in Pakistan dismiss religious movements as intrigues of the establishment. But in doing so, they also discount the transformative potential of millions of the wretched poor associated with these movements. These liberal thinkers and their political tactics become irrelevant to a clear majority of the working class whose wretchedness is left for religious zealots to exploit.

Nationalist groups in Balochistan, Sindh, KP, Gilgit-Baltistan and AJK have their own political narratives that are essentially territorial in nature borrowing the phrase of late Professor Hamza Alavi. These territorial narratives are confined to a political discourse of cultural purity, ethnocentricity and geographical grandeur, with an aspiration for equitable access to national resources within the context of a nation-state.

Owing to their narrowly defined ethnocentric agenda, nationalist movements are less effective than religious movements in asserting their political influence on policymaking. As a result, they have, at times, been neutralised by religious forces. Left-wing political groups have traditionally entered into alliances with nationalist groups because of their secular outlook.

In many instances, the left was submerged into these nationalist groups. For instance, the ANP, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), the Jeay Sindh and the Karakoram National Front (KNM) could attract a sizeable number of progressive political activists who became the intellectual core of these nationalist forces.

It has been one of the biggest failures of left politics in Pakistan that a vast majority of poor people were left at the mercy of religious bigotry. With a strong intellectual tradition, left politics lacked praxis and therefore could not penetrate the rank and file of the people and the working class. Socialism is, of course, about a post-capitalist economic system, ie the economic and political advancement of a society with collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism is not a moral theory that provides scholastic interpretation of morality, values and normative/prescriptive political solutions from the outside. Instead, it is all about an objective and scientific analysis of material conditions under the capitalistic mode of production and aims to strategise for a transformation by linking together the organic working class movements. Socialism is not about individual purification, self-cleansing and moral sublimity, which are the products of the interplay of political and economic forces that the moral systems are founded upon.

In a nutshell, socialism is all about the qualitative political and economic transformation of capitalism into a system of political and economic democracy. The qualitative transformation of a system requires a systemic view rather than groping in the darkness of individual morality, which is as ephemeral as a chimera in the darkness and a mirage in the desert.

With all the wrong moral assumptions, we, perhaps, expect too much from a socialist to surrender all worldly pleasures like a hermit and become a pauper to show disdain towards capitalism. Socialism is not anti-capitalism. It is post-capitalism, a much-refined and developed economic system for which socialism lays out well-defined principles. One may disagree with the economic principles of socialism without getting into an irrelevant moral debate of individual purification.

Email: [emailprotected]

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.

Read more here:
How to define socialism - The News International

The country that today holds the largest proven reserves of crude oil, a resource that in the early 1900s became synonymous with wealth, is quickly descending into chaos. A hunger crisis has hit Venezuela, where people are protesting against President Nicols Maduro Moros and demanding his removal from office.

Political crisis, policy paralysis and crashing oil prices have left the countrys socialist government with little foreign currency to buy goods from other countries. Imports are down 50 per cent from a year ago, pushing the country deeper into a hunger crisis.

Various news reports in the last week have brought to light the chronic food shortage in the country. According to Miami Herald, Venezuelan soldiers in uniform were caught begging for food in neighbouring Guyana last week. That soldiers would cross into Guyana is telling because reports in the last few months have suggested that the military, which has largely remained loyal to the unpopular government, has been in control of food resources to a large extent and has been trafficking it.

Thieves in Venezuela are stealing animals from a zoo to eat and sell them, The Guardian has reported. According to the World Health Organization, hospitals there lack 95 per cent of necessary medicines. At least 75 per cent of the population has lost an average of at least 19 pounds in 2016 due to a lack of proper nutrition amid the ongoing crisis.

According to the International Monetary Fund, inflation is expected to rise 720 per cent this year and over 2,000 per cent the next year. In response to high inflation, Venezuela's socialist government has raised the minimum wage by 60 per cent to 200,021 bolivares ($45 on the unofficial but often-used exchange rate as calculated by dolartoday.com) a month, including food stamps.

Food prices in the markets around the country have skyrocketed. In March, a basket of basic grocery items which includes eggs, milk and fruits cost 772,614 bolivares, close to four times the monthly minimum wage, according to the Venezuela-based Center of Social Analysis and Documentation.

Visit link:
Socialism Wreaks Havoc In Venezuela As Country Suffers From Chronic Food Shortage - Swarajya

The term "alt-right" was coined in 2010 by socialist and white supremacist Richard Spencer and has never been an entity within the Republican Party or conservative movement. The term specifically refers to an "alternative right" in which the Republican Party is to be invaded in an attempt to use it for the advancement of socialist ideals.

However, Spencer's plan to alter the conservative movement has not worked well for him, as true conservatives have undoubtedly and expectedly refused to welcome Spencer into our circles. True conservatives do not respect Spencer, and he has never respected conservatives either, oftentimes referring to us as "cucks" and "the fake right."

Time and time again, Spencer proudly admits to wanting to "co-opt" the Right in order to achieve his own personal goal of replacing conservative values with policies he finds more ideal.

Spencer's ideal vision is to see the Republican Party riddled with socialism. As a national-socialist himself, the alt-right leader's two biggest problems with the Republican Party is our championing of individuality and free markets. Spencer would rather see conservatives engage in similar practices of the Left, such as focusing predominantly on collectivism and grouping people based on identity, such as skin color.

Spencer also advocates for a single-payer, universal healthcare system, believing that the United States could benefit from imitating "democratic socialist countries" in Europe.

Spencer has previously said, "I am not totally opposed to socialism, when done right I think we should have a national healthcare system."

Spencer criticizes free markets, agreeing with Karl Marx's statement that capitalism, not communism, is to blame for an "undifferentiated, alienated proletarian mass." Spencer stands for everything the liberty movement is against.

Socialism, whether it is adorned with a hammer and sickle or a swastika, is responsible for killing millions of people throughout history. It is fundamentally anti-American, and no political party in the country should ever invite it into their worlds.

Despite having horrible views on politics and ethics, Spencer does know what he's doing. The current political climate makes right now more than ever the best opportunity for Spencer to gain popularity by fueling his own publicity off the hysteria of the Left.

The hysterical Left make themselves vulnerable by jumping at every opportunity they can to label even the most mundane and non-radical ideas "fascism." By this premise, Spencer knows that when a real white supremacist becomes vocal, such as himself, that he will find himself effortlessly basking in massive amounts of free publicity given to him by the Left.

Leftists are making Spencer relevant in a society that at its core has no interest in anything the man has to say.

No decent person wants someone with radically fringe positions to have influence in our society, not even in the slightest. Therefore, the Left should join conservatives in ignoring Richard Spencer and this ridiculous "alt-right" movement, because it is impossible to be heard when nobody is listening to you.

Alana Mastrangelo is a political activist and writer.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Continue reading here:
The alt-right is not truly right - Washington Examiner

Socialist thugs violently clashed in Charlottesville this weekend. One group railed against bigotry. The other group embraced it. The anti-racist group departs more radically from their ideological forebears even if they manage to convince everyone that the nationalist-socialists they brawl with represent the real imposters.

The history of American socialism, until fairly recently, was a history of American racism.

New Harmony, the 1820s Indiana commune founded by the man credited with coining the term socialism, banned African Americans. Karl Marx, Margaret Sanger, and John Reed all used the N-word to refer to black people in correspondence. The Communist Party supported the internment of Japanese and relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II. W.E.B. Du Bois, kicked out of the NAACP he helped found by embracing black separatism in the 1930s, traveled to the Third Reich in 1936 only to return to the United States to pen an article entitled The German Case Against Jews that uncritically repeated justifications for thepersecution of Jews by Hitler.

Victor Berger, the first member of the Socialist Party elected to Congress, openly endorsed white supremacy.

There can be no doubt that the negroes and mulattoes constitute a lower racethat the Caucasian and indeed even the Mongolian have the start on them in civilization by many thousand yearsso that negroes will find it difficult ever to overtake them, Berger opined. The many cases of rape which occur whenever negroes are settled in large numbers prove, moreover, that the free contact with the whites has led to the further degeneration of the negroes, as well as all other inferior races.

Appeal to Reason, the most successful publication in the history of the American Left whose pages gave birth both to Upton Sinclairs The Jungle and Eugene Debss presidential campaigns, unabashedly maintained that socialism meant separatism and capitalism meant integration. The publication that eclipsed the million-reader mark in its brief history informed subscribers that while private ownership of industries mixes up the races, reducing blacks, whites, and yellows to a common levelsocialism would separate the races and lift them up to the highest level each were capable. The weekly, using ALL CAPS to emphasize its outrage, complained: IN THE SIGHT OF THE CAPITALIST ALL WORKERS LOOK ALIKE.

Some socialists (Norman Thomas, to name one), like many Democrats and Republicans, fought against racism. But nothing inherent within the ideology of socialism meant that its adherents reflexively stood up against racistsat least when it really, reallymattered. When racism inspired lynchings, blocked blacks from the ballot box, and forced African Americans into separate schools, theaters, and bathrooms, socialists were racists. Once racists became punchlines and human curios appearing on Geraldo Riveras daytime talk show and people who looked right and left and right before telling jokes, socialists embarked on a crusade against bigots.

Perhaps some socialist, surely conducting research on the racism endemic to the political foes of his creed and not reading Breitbart for pleasure or edification, stumbles upon this article (or gets sent it by some vile conservative as a taunt) and subsequently reorients the Talibanesque vandalism campaign to targets closer to the hearts of the people who have lost their heads over statuary.

Exactly when do the socialists tearing down monuments to the Confederacy begin tearing down memorials of socialists? A controlled implosion of the 26-story W.E.B. Du Bois library at the University of Massachusetts? A hammer to the bust of Margaret Sanger in the Smithsonians National Portrait Gallery? A bonfire for all extant copies of the hagiographic Warren Beatty-Diane Keaton Reds biopic of Jack Reed?

Not likely. Some racists are more equal than others.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

More:
Flynn: When Do Anti-Racist Socialists Begin Vandalizing Monuments to Racist Socialists? - Breitbart News

THE recent General Election, which reduced the Tories to a minority government and put UK Labour some 50 seats behind them, has caused shock waves across politics not least in the movement for Scottish independence.

Recent weeks have displayed a range of in-fighting, name-calling, political confusion, bile and in some cases simply personal posturing. This has including attacks on Yes backers who voted Labour, criticism on the topic of who is or isnt acceptable within the Yes camp and how all this should be reported.

This culminated with a series of columns from various Yes luminaries arguing that the Yes movement is really alive and well and citing in one case as a football team the talents in its ranks.

Incidentally, unlike the Scotland teams which used to actually win in the glory years, it was fairly light on working-class talent.

It is probably necessary here to set out two truths about this spat and what it tells about the politics currently facing supporters of independence today.

First it simply flies in the face of reality to suggest that the broad, pluralist mass Yes movement built around the 2014 referendum still exists today. It clearly does not.

Of course a movement exists but it is a changed formation to that which so closely challenged the power of the British state in 2014. Most notably the mass upsurge in support moving from Yes as a movement to the SNP as a party radically changed the dynamics and nature of the former.

Apart from sporadic demonstrations, the public face of Yes has merged with that of the SNP and has, in turn, become linked in the public mind with the fortunes on that party. Bluntly, this has at best becalmed the independence movement and evidence suggests it has set it back.

In place of the vibrant, optimistic mass movement of 2014 which was the Wind that shook the Unionist Barley, Yes is now equated with an ultra-cautious SNP government which looks increasingly like a centrist formation stifling the real thirst for radical change of 2014.

The second truth flowing from this is that in place of being part of a movement, prominent non-SNP independence supporters are now largely to be found in the columns of newspapers, websites and cyberspace where in turn they rehearse the same hand-wringing about when to hold another indyref, how wicked the Unionists are etc.

The evidence strongly suggests that the public, while still winnable for the independence case, isnt sharing those concerns and is seeking a politics which answers the big questions in their lives such as housing, jobs, wages and health.

Of course, work has been done on how many aspects of these issues would be tackled under independence, but they need to escape from the discussion seminars and think tanks into the public space inhabited by the ordinary citizens.

Independence must again become the concerns of far greater numbers than todays stalwarts.

This urgent need was spotlighted by the results in the recent election where, led by the Tories, the Unionist block was given a free run by the SNP who parked yet again the independence issue while voters were showered by LibDem, Labour and Tory anti-independence propaganda leading to tactical voting.

Indeed, the brutal truth is that this toxic combination of SNP feebleness and Unionist boldness on independence has returned enough Tory MPs to keep Theresa May in power in Westminster.

But for the independence movement there is another potentially more pressing issue to deal with, in the shape of the impact of Jeremy Corbyn and his radical politics. No serious socialist can do other than welcome the impact of Corbyn, who is an honest and principled socialist and has played a key role in shifting public debate and placing socialist ideas on the policy agenda and challenging the market knows best mainstream.

It is hardly surprising in this context, then, that numbers of 2014 Yes supporters, hungry for social justice and change yet conflicted about Labours past, plumped for them as an endorsement of the Corbyn agenda.

Unsurprising but wrong. Voting Labour in Scotland had little to do with backing Corbyns socialist politics but everything to do with endorsing Dugdales strident no surrender line against even allowing Scots a vote on the issue.

This view is confirmed both by the relatively small growth in Scottish Labours vote share and by Corbyns allies in the Campaign for Socialism who warned that future Labour advance needs a left turn.

The choice for socialists seeking change is simple. Corbyn puts his faith in winning socialist change through winning a Westminster socialist majority and embarking on a British Road to Socialism. No such road exists in the world of reality.

The entire undemocratic indeed archaic Westminster set-up, with its unelected Lords, powers of the Crown in Parliament and its semi-democratic first-past-the-post voting system is a bulwark against change, not a road to it.

By contrast an independent Scotland, won by a mass Yes movement based on a democratic parliament, can generate momentum for real socialist change putting the needs of people and planet before the profits of an elite few.

For Yes supporters the British Road to Socialism, even with Corbyn at the wheel, will prove a diversion. We need to keep our eyes on the prize of independence as the key to change.

This article was originally published in the Scottish Socialist voice.

Visit link:
Ken Ferguson: Forget Corbyn, there is no British Road to Socialism only independence can deliver real change - The National