Mediaboss Marketing

PSYCHOMOTOR minister, Josiah Hungwe, cannot distinguish between socialism and social work.

This was the view of guests at a function organised by the National Social Security Authority (NSSA) in Bulawayo last Friday where the minister constantly referred to social work as socialism.

Ironically, Hungwe was introduced as a veteran educationist during the NSSA Rehabilitation Centre open day.

Invited to speak at the event, he said, Basa ramuri kuita iri reSocialism rinoda vanhu vane moyo wekuzvipra. (The socialism work that you are doing here requires that you be committed and have the welfare of people at heart.

Throughout his remarks, Hungwe continued to refer to social work as socialism, leaving his audience confused while some could be heard whispering to each other trying to decipher what the minister was failing to put across.

In the end, many people concluded that Hungwe in fact meant social work and not socialism as activities at the centre are far divorced from socialism.

Hungwe, who is also the Secretary for labour and Social Welfare in the Zanu PF politburo, also praised President Robert Mugabe for espousing socialism principles.

Socialism is a political and economic theory while social work is a professional discipline.

Socialisms view is that society as a whole should own and control the means of production and distribution while social work is concerned with the welfare of people at community and family level.

Many people view Hungwe as cluelessabout the role of his ministry while plenty others believe his ministry is not necessary.

Meanwhile, Social welfare minister, Priscah Mupfumira, revealed at the event that NSSA is set to increase pension pay-outs by end of September this year.

Mupfumira said NSSA is currently engaged in an actuarial evaluation in order to determine the increases, adding that the pay-outs will be increased to a minimum of a hundred dollars.

Pensioners are currently receiving an average of $40 per month. During her tour of the rehabilitation centre, inmates pleaded with her to increase the pension.

Link:
Is socialism social work? Minister clueless - New Zimbabwe.com - New Zimbabwe.com

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

When Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont, entered the Democratic primaries last year, a lot of people wondered. What is democratic socialism?

The classic definition of socialism is a system of government in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned, controlled or regulated by the government. Socialism is distinguished from capitalism where the means of production and distribution are owned by private (non-governmental) parties, either individuals or organizations (such as companies).

The most radical form of socialism is communism, where all property is owned and distributed by the government. Less radical forms of socialism are seen in the governments of Western Europe, where private property is recognized but government has the responsibility of acquiring (through taxes) enough wealth to provide for physical well-being of all its citizens, however that may be interpreted at any given time.

As the demands of the population grow, so does the amount of tax revenue needed to provide for these demands. At some point, especially when unemployment is high, the taxes on the companies producing the countrys wealth get so great that those companies cannot keep up, and the entire system fails. If not stopped, people will start to go hungry, and riots follow as is happening in Venezuela right now. American examples of this situation are Detroit and Puerto Rico, which have taxed themselves into bankruptcy.

If we remember that taxes depend on profits, it is easy to understand that there is always tension between government and industry over control of profits. This tension takes place on two levels. The first is the practical requirements of governments need to fund citizen services versus industrys need to fund its operations and expansion to keep up with increasing population. Both have altruistic justifications as well as practical needs. Government takes care of the poor with welfare programs; and industry takes care of everybody else with employment and the material means to enjoy life.

But there is also an underlying, less obvious tension between government and industry, a tension which transcends the matter of who signs the paycheck. This is the struggle for power. Socialism is synonymous with big government. Big government means control. Control means the ability to impose ones ideas and preferences on others. Government control means the capacity to suppress the freedom of people by requiring people to do unreasonable things, such as giving up meat or cigarettes or Coca Cola.

It is this aspect of a socialist government which is most objectionable to many people, especially Americans. The entire legacy of American culture is built around personal freedom. It is in the American DNA. We cede to government only the minimum authority over us that is required to live together in peace. But no more.

Americans realize that people do not have to have a lot of money in order to enjoy life if they have a big office, a chauffeured limousine, a staff to do their bidding, a gym, a private dining room, access to media at will, and all the other perquisites of power enjoyed by our government officials. These people have power over the rest of us, and, especially in the bureaucracy, they can live in a bubble which only vaguely resembles the ordinary lives the rest of us lead. These are the people who invent the rules by which the rest of us are supposed to live. And the rest of us want those rules to be as few and as reasonable as possible. The bigger the government, the more intrusive the rules, and the less we like it. The recent election might be called the revenge of the masses.

A view of our American system reveals a mixture of both ideologies, socialism and capitalism. At its core, however, the difference between these systems is their views of the role of government. The socialist believes it is the role of government to distribute the nations wealth as broadly and equally as possible. This means taking from the rich and giving to the poor. A noble goal indeed. But it is a strategy based on a view of society which is static: the rich are always rich and the poor are always poor.

This is why class conflict is essential to the socialist view of society. Class conflict is based on most of human history, in which there were always the masters and the servants. The masters were rich because of their station in life they were born into the ruling class, and the servants were born into the underclass. In different cultures and different times, there was some social mobility often due to wars, but an Untouchable in India would never have a chance to become a Maharaja.

Against this background, the servants only chance to improve their lives was to take over the government. This is essentially what happened in the Western world through a series of revolutions from 1776 (USA) to 1917 (Russia). The people who came to power in Europe saw the plight of the poor as a bottomless pit and the wealth of the rulers as unlimited pot of gold. Guided to a large extent by the ideas of Karl Marx, they designed governments accordingly.

Not so in the United States of America. This was a land controlled by people who had escaped both the walls and the comforts of the Old World and had survived in an environment which rewarded courage, skill and endurance, rather than birth and privilege. Their bias was against rather than favorable to government. They saw government as a greedy king out to take away their liberty. They therefore fashioned a government which was limited in every way by competing forces: the federal government by the states, the president by the legislature, each House of Congress was limited by the other, everybody by the courts and so on down the line to the local dogcatcher.

The purpose behind this design was to keep government officials from ascending to the powers of that old king. They understood intuitively the saying of John Lord Acton a century later: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What they have left us isthe American version of a capitalist society. It isdynamic, constantly changing. The poor may not always be poor; the rich may notalways be rich. In fact, most Americans (58.5 percent) will spend at least one year belowthe poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75 according to Yale UniversitysJacob S. Hacker (The Great Risk Shift, New York, 2006). The wealth of the society isexpected to grow constantly through the creation of new opportunities, new products andservices, new jobs, new skills, and new technologies, leading to new and expandingwealth.

For Americans, the fundamental error of socialism is that it does not account for the creation of that wealth in the first place. Government cannot confiscate what isnt there. Socialists foresee the proverbial pie of underclass income being cut into more and more pieces; Americans keep creating a bigger pie.

The United States of America has brought together economic capitalism and political democracy in a dynamic tension which we call democratic capitalism, and which has produced the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Its greater attribute is that it provides hope hope that the poor may be able toescape the bonds of poverty as so many Americans have done in the past. This hope isthe shining light on the hill which still attractsthe envy of millions.

It has taken Americans most of our history as a nation to achieve the balance bywhich capitalism is accountable to democracy, and there are still many problems tobe solved. Nevertheless, Americans are always optimistic. The challenge toAmericans is not to change an evil system; it is in living up to the ideals which arerequired for that system to succeed.

The motivation for individual Americans to persevere in pursuit of their personalgoals is provided by the real and potential ownership of private property. No othermotivator not coercion, not slavery, not charity, not communal property noteven religion has ever been found which can impel vast numbers of individuals in asociety to be hard working and creative. Providing a good life for oneself and onesfamily is a motivator above all others. Our history has proven that personal freedom is a necessary prerequisite for the success of this system. An oppressive government even if well-intentioned sucks out the initiative required to make an ever better life for all of us.

Personal freedom without economic freedom is no freedom at all. Capitalism, in arefined and mature linkage with democracy, provides the economic power whichmakes freedom possible.

Read more here:
Democratic socialism, capitalism, personal freedom - Washington Times

Venezuela, a country that not too long ago was the most prosperous nation in Latin America, is facing daily chaos as the authoritarian government regime of Nicolas Maduro attempts to quell an uprising from its people, who are becoming ever more impoverished and famished.

Whats to blame for the sudden downturn in a country that just 15 years ago showed so much promise?

Most claim the countrys warm embrace of socialism is the cause. But there are others, like Dakotah Lilly a member of Students and Youth for a New America, an openly socialist student group who place the blame on American capitalism.

On his show Monday, Fox News host Tucker Carlson discussed the political unrest in Venezuela, which he called a predictable outcome of socialism, with Lilly, who unabashedly defended the Venezuelan regime.

Carlson began the debate by asking Lilly if he sees a pattern in the history of socialist countries, which Carlson said always end up in poverty. Lilly, however, was quick to deny Carlsons conclusion.

In fact, Lilly flatly denied that Venezuela is facing a crisis at all. Instead, he cited terrorism has the cause of the countrys current violence.

Well, Tucker, what I think is extremely important is we need to acknowledge that what Venezuela is currently facing right now is terrorism at the hands of the opposition, Lilly said, explaining that the opposition is those opposed to the oppressive and authoritarian Maduro regime.

These arent choir boys. These are violent extremists hellbent on taking away the progress Venezuela has made over the past few years, Lilly said.

Noting that firearm ownership is illegal in Venezuela, Carlson wondered, to Lillys point, how government opposition could be responsible for the violence besieging the country. Lilly claimed that most of the deaths resulting from the violence have been of leftists people who support the socialist regime but Carlson wasnt buying it.

Dakotah, I dont want to rock your world, but I think reliable statistics are probably pretty hard to come by under the Maduro government, Carlson said.

Instead, Carlson wanted to address a larger point. Explaining that Venezuelas government has been socialist for more than 10 years and the country has become poorer every year despite having the worlds largest oil reserves, the Fox host wanted to know if those facts caused Lilly to pause and consider whether or not socialism actually works.

Its just that its a total disaster, like they dont have toilet paper in parts of the country, Carlson said. The people are starving in what was pretty recently a rich country, a country making progress toward first-world status and now its a disaster with one of the highest crime rates in the world.

The [Hugo] Chavez and Maduro people did that, why not just say that out loud. Why make excuses for them? he asked.

Lilly, however, was unabashed in his devout belief that Venezuelans love socialism. The young American, who according to his Facebook page just graduated college in 2016, claimed that very few, if any Venezuelans want to go back to an economic system of unbridled capitalism codeword for an American-style economy.

Indeed, for nearly the last 10 years, ever since the international economic downturn in 2008, Venezuelas economy has tanked. Thats party because the socialist economy heavily relied on the state-controlled petroleum companies, which took a hard hit when the price of oil barrels went through the floor.

Once the economy began slowing, the government was unable to provide its people with the food, water and basic medical access that socialism promised. In recent years, the problems have magnified as the countrys currency, the Venezuelan Bolivar, rises to massive inflation rates and farms in the rural parts of the country dry up and cease producing produce and livestock, all because the government took control of corporations that farmers relied on, like fertilizer companies, in order to boost the governments cash flow.

In the end, Venezuelans, whether rural or urban, have simply had enough. The tension between the government and its people, who are dying of starvation at alarming rates, has only recently boiled over and the images of clashes between them have been plastered on television screams worldwide.

Still, Lilly was undeterred and went on to defend Venezuelans Supreme Court, which recently took control of the countrys democratically elected Congress for opposing Maduro. At that point, Carlson just had enough of Lillys arguments.

Look, I dont want to be mean to you, youre so young and I just feel bad for people, I guess, in college who just believe anything, Carlson finally said. But it just seems like of all the things we debate, whether or not Venezuela is a success does seem to have moved into the beyond debate category. Its like a total disaster.

Excerpt from:
Watch: Tucker Carlson schools young socialist who says capitalism is to blame for Venezuelan crisis - TheBlaze.com

By Randy Harrison

Socialism is appealing because it seems compassionate. It seems altruistic and geared to the better part of our humanity. Its the political equivalent to the Robin Hood myth. Capitalism seems self serving and laced with greed. So, why wouldnt anyone chose socialism?

Heres why. It fails every time. Meanwhile, capitalism keeps winning.

It is incomprehensible that anyone today would defend socialism as an economic and political system. The results are utterly predictable, and Venezuela is now the latest example.

Venezuela is a major economy. It has the largest proven oil reserves in the world more than the U.S. It is capable of growing enough food to feed itself and export even more. Ford and General Motors have a long history of manufacturing there. The population is well-educated, and the major cities are bright and shiny.

Not anymore. The country has now collapsed. Shelves are empty, and people are starving. The money is in hyperinflation. Oil is barely flowing. Ford and General Motors are gone. Why? Because Venezuela embraced socialism communism, really in 1999. Now, people riot daily and the Associated Press reports that more than 1,000 have died by government action.

Things are likely to become worse before better, and they are bad now. Unfortunately, we in the U.S. are hardly in a place to shake our heads. For 50 years, we have slowly slid toward socialism. The trend is inexplicable in light of historical examples. In the past decade, that slide has become an avalanche. Obamacare is only the most obvious example.

Socialism seeks to centralize power for the sake of control, but centralized control is fundamentally un-American. The U.S. Constitution is designed to limit our central government. America is a federal system by design, meaning that power is purposely decentralized. Yet, more and more power goes to Washington, along with our money a socialist tendency. Why our state governments acquiesce to this is a mystery.

Federalism should be one of those ideas that is embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. It is what makes us American, but it seems to be forgotten by both now. We dont even use the word.

With ample historical examples of the failure of socialism and the clear success of American federalism, does the current path of our politics make any sense? No, and, while the average Joe on the street may not be able to articulate the wrong-headedness, he feels it at a gut level. It is intuitive, and at some point, no amount of flim-flam will convince him otherwise. That point was reached in 2016.

It is this intuitive sense of wrong-headedness in our political leaders that gave rise to the tea party and to Donald Trump. Ive read 20 articles at least speculating about why Hillary lost and Trump won.

To me, the answer is that on a gut level people just know we need to change our direction in America. Really change it. Trump was the choice for change as Obama was in 2008.

It is likewise my opinion that a growing population of black people understand this trend and will result in a realignment of the black vote. Black people no longer constitute a single voting block. At some point, they will align with the political party that reduces their taxes and provides greater economic and educational opportunity for their families. This is exactly the same choice that any ethnic group faces.

Which party wins those votes is up for grabs. That is the lesson to take from the most recent election and the political party that applies the lesson will win. We do not want to be Venezuela.

Randy Harrison is a retired pastor who lives in Fortville; he can be reached at federalistno57@aol.com. Send comments to dr-editiorial@greenfieldreporter.com.

Follow this link:
Socialism failing, while capitalism is winning - Greenfield Daily Reporter

Heres the legacy of Venezuelas experiment with socialism: daily riots and protests that have resulted in at least 40 deaths in recent weeks at the hands of government security forces. Inflation estimated at 720 percent. Shortages of basic foods and medicines. An average weight loss among Venezuelans of 19 pounds, which had nothing to do with the South Beach diet. Newborn babies deposited in dresser drawers because hospitals have no beds. Zoo animals hunted down and butchered for food by the ravenous population.

Finally, this week, and only at the urging of the United States, the United Nations is considering the desperate situation in what was once South Americas most prosperous country, before socialism sank its fangs in, sucking the economy dry.

President Nicholas Maduro, a political stooge who assumed power after the death of the charismatic but egomaniacal Hugo Chavez, was forced earlier this year to ask the U.N. for emergency aid, an admission of his inability to keep his people fed and secure. And to show what a powerful institution it is, the U.N. took away Venezuelas vote in the General Assembly because it could not pay its dues. Maduro must have been quaking with fear. When the Organization of American States criticized Maduros response to the unrest, he took decisive action he pulled Venezuela out of the OAS.

Maduros response has been like that of the Emperor with no clothes. He blames his opponents for inciting violence. This from the man who for now anyway control the armed forces. The demonstrators have taken to hurling glass jars filled with feces, coined poopatov cocktails, at the troops. Not exactly a strategic balance of force.

A human rights monitoring group, Foro Penal, alleges that, perhaps in retaliation, political detainees in the western part of the country are forced to eat spaghetti with a sauce made of human waste.

The near-daily riots have turned deadly in recent weeks, as Maduros forces, propped up by Cuban security, resort to live ammunition against their fellow citizens. As my colleague at the Wall Street Journal Anatoly Kurmanaev reported this week from Caracas, the police are weary of killing their neighbors. Their support for Maduro the only reason he is still in power diminishes with each deadly demonstration.

A lot of Venezuelans have become radicalized because theyre desperate, Kurmanaev told me. Theres no going back to how things were two months ago. Something is going to change. This is the final chapter of Venezuelan history, one way or another. Either Maduro will cement his rule by dictatorship, or therell be some kind of transitional government. It cant continue like this.

For many aggrieved Venezuelans, that choice is an easy one.

John Moody is Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News. A former Rome bureau chief for Time magazine, he is the author of four books including "Pope John Paul II : Biography."

Read this article:
Venezuela: The incredible legacy of an experiment with socialism - Fox News