Mediaboss Marketing

Michael Nigro/ZUMA Press/NewscomAre millennials increasingly anti-capitalist? That's the question Chicago public radio station WBEZ posed recently to me and The Nation's Sarah Leonard. (You can listen to the whole thing here.)

"The explosive popularity of Bernie Sanders in the U.S. and Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K. among younger voters revealed millennials' desire for a new economic system," states the promo for the segment on WBEZ program Worldview. "It's no wonder, as millennials are likely to be economically worse off than their parents or grandparents, especially those who became job-seeking adults after the Great Recession of 2008."

That all makes for a tidy narrative, but it's one built on the flimsiest of evidence. The main data offered during the Worldview segment was a 2016 Harvard poll, in which 51 percent of 18- to 29-year-old respondents had an unfavorable view of capitalism. But as I pointed out at the time (and on the show), the same poll showed that an even greater number of young people59 percenthad an unfavorable view of socialism.

And while 42 percent of the millennials that Harvard surveyed had a positive view of capitalism, just 33 percent had a positive view of socialism.

In an array of other surveys from the past few years, millennial support for socialist and capitalist policies varies widely based on how poll questions are asked. For instance, socialism is much more popular than a government-managed economy, and a free-market economy is more popular than capitalism. And in policy-based polls, millennial economic preferences run the gamut. Yes, many support student-loan forgiveness programs and government-managed health care, but they also express strong support for entrepreneurship, dream of owning their own small businesses, and reject hypothetical government expansions when they come with personal tax hikes. In other words...they look a lot like Americans across the age spectrum.

Polls only tell part of the story, of course, but the part they do tell is not one of an increasingly socialist youth populace. That's probably important to keep in mind as the media coalesces on the Socialist Moment plot-line. Sure, the leftist podcast Chapo Trap House has a lot of fans, and more Twitter avatars now sport red roses (long a socialist symbol). But the subset of American young people poised to notice either of those things is infinitesimally smaller than those who aren't. These are the kinds of affectations and antiheroes that the media latch onto and elevate becauselike the Pepe the Frogtweeting alt-right accounts during the electionthey're very salient in online media and activism worlds. But it's a mistake to take that salience as indicative of actual numbers or influence.

So what about Bernie? Yes, young Americans vastly preferred the socialist-lite Vermont senator to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or any of the GOP-primary candidates. But their alternatives were Clinton, Trump, and the likes of Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. They are the most establishment of The Establishment, with the exception of Trumpwho, like Sanders, benefited from people's desperation to ditch this dynastic, cronyist electoral loop we seemed caught in. That Sanders secured so much millennial support doesn't necessarily equate to a full socialist embrace by these young folks, just that he was the best of exceedingly bad options.

To their credit, more committed and long-term leftists have managed to swing some of Bernie's millennial momentum into post-election momentum for leftist policies more broadly. And young people are certainlynow and at least throughout recent historymore receptive to redistributive economic policies and strict labor regulation. Perhaps the left can capture some of these tepid socialism supporters at the right moment to convert them for good, and this same discussion will look a lot different in a few years.

But I doubt it. Sandersand Trumpseem to me the 2016 heirs of the Hope and Change phenomenon, which propelled not just Barack Obama to 2008 victory but the rise of the Ron Paul movement. At its essence is the idea the system is fundamentally broken and only bold changes can begin to fix it. And the particulars of these bold changes seem to matter less than how convincing their messenger and the movement around them.

I was amazed talking to young people last year how many had been Paul and/or Obama fans in previous election cycles yet were now professing support for Sanders or Trump. The vast political gulfs between these candidates (especially on economic issues) didn't resonate as much as the areas and ways in which they promised reform.

Older folks and the extremely party-loyal tend to take this as youthful flakiness, a side-effect of unserious passions, hastily-conceived beliefs, or a juvenile contrarian streak. But perhaps a lot of younger Americansnot yet sold on the idea that it's one's civic duty to choose the lesser of two evils at election time, nor narcotized by years of show-pony partisanship into believing in vast differences between Democrats and Republicansare reacting rationally to the options presented to them. The good news for libertarians (and socialists) is that millennials are definitely dissatisfied with the centrist Republican-Democrat status quo. But as the 2016 election made clear, there's room for this dissatisfaction to go in all sorts of different and unexpected directions.

See original here:
Millennial Socialist Moment Mostly Media Hype - Reason (blog)

Catholic World News

July 24, 2017

The fourth-ranking member of Chinas Communist party said that it is important for the leadership of the Chinese Catholic Church to be firmly in the hands of those who love the nation and the religion.

Yu Zhengsheng made his remarks in a July 19 address in Beijing to the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, the body by which the government seeks to control the Church.

Interpretations of the teachings and dogmas should match the needs of Chinas development and the great traditional culture, he added, and proactively fit into the Chinese characteristics of a socialist society.

References:

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

There are no comments yet for this item.

Visit link:
Leading Communist official says Chinese Catholicism should 'fit into' socialism - Catholic Culture

Aggressive capitalism is kicking the crap out of us, so we should see if we can start a public conversation about the need for an alternative political and social system.

It's shocking that capitalist businesses have become so dominant. They literally rule the world. In Canada, the low-profile Canadian Council of Chief Executives is all powerful when it comes to influencing government.

We can see the corporate greed all around us. Four out of 10 Canadians many of them earning around $11 an hour can't pay their bills but Canadian corporations are sitting on at least $630-billion in cash they're refusing to invest in the economy.

Unfortunately, even when many people know about the damage caused by capitalism, they're either not knowledgeable enough or too afraid to discuss alternative political ideas such as socialism.

Powerful people fearful of the threat of social upheaval have demonised the words socialism and communism, and this scares the hell out of many people.

Mainstream media are owned by corporations that seldom, if ever, report on alternative political systems.

People are fed up

Despite the lies and badgering that comes from corporations and the wealthy, people in several countries are fed up with traditional politics. They're fighting back against corporations and governments that are joined at the hip.

Those who supported the Brexit vote for Britain to leave the European Union and the millions who voted for Donald Trump are, among other things, anti-establishment. They feel they have been ignored and left behind.

It seems that many Canadians share the same views. Seventy-one per cent of people taking part in a large poll in June said they believed the same populism evident in the U.S. is on the rise in this country. Many of those interviewed were working class or poor.

Ekos pollster Frank Graves found that 70 per cent of those polled believe that almost all the economic growth over the past 20 years has ended up in the hands of the top one per cent.

Our political system works mainly for the handful of people who control the parties. Only 11 per cent of Canadians have been members of a political party in recent years. When it comes time to elect new leaders, the candidate who sells the most cheap memberships often wins.

Potential socialist vote

I believe there is such dissatisfaction with mainstream political parties that, if we adopted proportional representation and people felt their vote counted for something, thousands of Canadians would vote for a well-led socialist party.

I am not an authority on alternative political systems, but if a party wanted to give power back to Canadians it might:

So, is there a strong socialist party that is capable of advancing the cause?

Sadly, the answer is "No."

I've compiled a list of the socialist and communist groups I'm aware of in English-speaking Canada. (I'm not discussing socialism in Quebec as it is a big topic on its own. The province has had a number of fairly successful socialist parties over the years.)

NDP is not socialist

First, just to clarify, the NDP is not a socialist party. The NDP says it's a social democratic party, but it moved so far to the middle in the 2015 election that the Liberals were able to win the election with a few progressive promises.

There are three small groups trying to push the NDP to the left: The NDP Socialist Caucus, and Momentum, which says it is the NDP's left alternative to austerity, and Courage: A coalition of the independent left that says it wants to "put democracy back into the NDP".

Other groups include the Socialist Party of Canada, Socialist.ca (International Socialists), Socialist Alternative.ca, New Socialist and the Communist Party of Canada .

Once a bastion of socialism and communism, there still are many strong socialist adherents in labour, and a few small but effective groups across the country, such as Solidarity Halifax.

It's disappointing that not one of the few English-language groups has been successful in attracting more than a few dozen followers. They seem incapable of attracting new members.

It's particularly upsetting groups are doing poorly when there are opportunities out there that haven't existed for years.

Do weak groups damage socialism?

Some critics say the groups are more of a hindrance than a help when it comes to representing socialism to the community.

I'd like to see a couple of groups prove the critics wrong. If they really care about what they're doing, they should buy a new organizing manual and develop a new strategy.

Most important, they need to get out and speak to people in the language of everyday people not the jargon of socialism.

It would be great to see independent socialists now on the sidelines move into one or two of the groups and give them new life or if necessary take them over. Or, of course people can also start a new group.

Some folks could get together and create a place for discussion perhaps a closed Facebook page where ideas could be shared. The Bullet, an excellent Internet blog, is there to unite socialists.

While socialists don't have a chance in hell of getting their ideas into mainstream media, they should make a stronger effort to get onto alternative media sites.

In closing, I hope that my criticisms and pressure from other people reading this will put a fire under the butts of the socialist groups and encourage those hanging back to get involved.

Also on HuffPost:

Go here to read the rest:
We Need A Better Political System To Curb Aggressive Capitalism - Huffington Post Canada

Winston Churchill made the telling observation that socialism can provide equality, but it is the equality of misery; while capitalism offers the inequality of prosperity and plenty. History has reinforced this belief many times. Now we are living through this nightmare yet again in a place that the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called a socialist paradise.

Venezuela is the opposite of a paradise today. It is going through a dark and dangerous period, with an unprecedented level of desperation. The socialists have taken an economy that was among the most successful in South America and reduced it to an unrecognizable facsimile of itself. Admittedly, class distinctions are gone, just as food and medicine have disappeared from store shelves.

Severe food shortages have caused 75 percent of Venezuelans to lose an average of 19 pounds in weight and 82 percent of households are living in poverty, according to a study by three of the nations universities. Scarcity has led to violence and violence on the streets has been accompanied by a government crackdown.

Millions of Venezuelans have signaled their disapproval of President Nicolas Maduro, Chavezs successor, and thousands have taken to the streets in anti-Maduro demonstrations over more than three months. The opposition to Maduro announced Saturday it will hold a two-day national strike this week, following a 24-hour general strike last week that was joined by millions.

However, despite overwhelming disapproval, Maduro is intent on consolidating his power by holding a special election scheduled for July 30 to elect a new constituent assembly that would rewrite the nations constitution presumably to give Maduro dictatorial authority.

Opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, recently released from prison and under house arrest, has been engaged in mobilizing voter opposition to Maduros power grab. Whether a protest movement can gain momentum remains to be seen. But tensions have soared with runaway inflation that doubles the price of food each week.

Most Venezuelans are persuaded that Maduros plan to convene a constituent assembly is undemocratic, notwithstanding the governments position that it is the basis for freedom.

Recognizing the obvious, President Trump said in a statement last week that the strong and courageous actions (of the Venezuelan people) continue to be ignored by a bad leader who dreams of becoming a dictator. President Trump added: The United States will not stand by as Venezuela crumbles. If the Maduro regime imposes its Constituent Assembly on July 30, the United States will take strong and swift economic actions. However, economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. on Venezuela in 2015 have had little practical effect.

Imposing new sanctions against Venezuela will play into Maduros hands, since he will claim a U.S. economic war against his people and blow the whistle against the specter of interventionism. Responding to the threat of U.S. sanctions, Maduros government said in a statement: The government of the United States is used to humiliating other nations in its international relations and called on the world to understand the magnitude of the brutal threat contained in this (President Trumps) imperial statement.

Alas, that is precisely the anti-American language often used in Latin America and for which there is a rich history. The caudillo (dictator) idea has not died; it has been transmogrified into leaders who campaign on democratic reform and govern as authoritarians.

When Venezuela operated on a partially free market arrangement, its oil reserves generated great wealth, admittedly distributed inequitably. In the 1970s Venezuela was going through an economic take-off stage. A friend, who managed the National Oil Company, would wax lyrical about the economic opportunities then emerging. In some ways, this was like Argentina before the ruling Peron family, when wealth made that nation the sixth-richest in the world.

Venezuela was on the same path prior to Chavez. But the leaders dedication to socialism and his masters in Havana and Moscow led him to nationalize key industries, reward his friends, drive wealthy citizens from the country and engage in coercive measures against the opposition. Secret police jailed dissidents without trial, a practice that continues to this very day. In fact, it is estimated that more than 90 people have been killed and more than 3,000 arrested since the recent street demonstrations against Maduro began.

It is ironic that as the ugly face of Venezuelan socialism is evident, Americans in increasing numbers believe socialism can address what ails our own economy. Sen. Bernie Sanders rose to prominence in the last presidential election by arguing that socialism can provide free health care and free education.

What Sanders didnt point out is how expensive free services are. Nor did he suggest that if you want to see socialism at work you should visit Venezuela. Yes, here is an undeviating case of imposed equality and the horror of human misery.

As Winston Churchill so aptly put it in 1948: Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.

Dr. Herb London is president of the London Center for Policy Research and is co-author with Jed Babbin of "The BDS War Against Israel."

Read the rest here:
In Venezuela today the nightmare of imposed equality and the horror of human misery is on full display - Fox News

By Dan Bowser

Recent Gazette articles have expressed different opinions on entitlements such as welfare, but what dothey call Social Security and Medicare.

One article supporting our current system claims Social Security is revenue neutral, but admits it willbecome depleted in 2034 after which it will be able to pay out 79 percent of benefits. The same articlecriticized George W. Bush for attempting to privatize Social Security. Lying politicians from both partiesused scare tactics on uninformed seniors to promote the idea President Bush is taking away their SocialSecurity.

An article titled Social Security is not an entitlement gave factual information on the benefits ofprivatized Social Security. It compared actual benefits of $18,000 to $19,000 a year to a potential of$45,000 to $50,000 per year. Many retirees living on Social Security without other sources of income liveat a poverty level. Privatized benefits could more than double their potential income.

Another writer claimed there are just as many cons as there are pros to privatizing Social Security. Thepros are obvious. I have ask some seniors what are the cons. Most said in a volatile market I would notknow how to invest my money and I may end up with nothing. I am not a financial expert, but in thissituation only the most secure options should be available such as US Treasury Bonds, low risk annuitiesor mutual funds. A continuous audit should be in place to ensure the company handling these funds dovnot create another Ponzi scheme like we now have with government handling 15 percent of our gross income.

I have heard many people make the foolish statement that you will get more out than you put in. Wouldthese same people put their lifes savings under a mattress expecting no return?

Government run health care is an issue politicians on both sides of the aisle use to snowball voters. AllDemocrats want to salvage this failed Obamacare program and would probably favor a single payersocialist system. Several Republicans oppose the new replacement plan as it will reduce Medicaid benefits. According to the Heritage Foundation the plan does not cut Medicaid it just reduces the futuregrowth.

Lets look at the history of welfare. The war on poverty began in 1964. In the 50-year period from 1964until 2014 $22 trillion has been spent to reduce poverty. Adjusted for inflation this is threetimes the cost of all U.S. military wars. Those in poverty in 1964 were 14 percent of our population and itremained 14 percent in 2014. Today government spends 16 times more, adjusting for inflation, on anti-povertyprograms than it did when the war on poverty began.

Why is the war on poverty not working? The poor have a much better life than they did 50 years ago.

They have many more amenities and financial benefits today to help entice them to stay dependent.

Many politicians want to keep them in that state so they can count on their vote. Any scare that apolitician may cut Medicaid sends Democrats on the attack. I think of an old saying (do you give a persona fish every day or do you teach them to fish). In a recent article a Democrat appears to think it is moreChrist like to give the fish every day.

One article mentioned the word Socialism. If you research the life cycle of a Democracy you will learnthat Democracies turn into socialist societies when politicians give the people financial benefits from thegovernment treasury in order to get elected. If this continues, bankruptcy is inevitable. Some say we arethe richest country in the world and we should supply health care and freebees. No other country hasbeen $20 trillion in debt indicating we are the poorest country. Our citizens are wealthy, so are theysaying the government can take our money. In a socialist society your money does belong to thegovernment.

Dan Bowser

Gastonia

Follow this link:
My Turn: The growth of socialism - Gaston Gazette