Mediaboss Marketing

Dear Reader, we make this and other articles available for free online to serve those unable to afford or access the print edition of Monthly Review. If you read the magazine online and can afford a print subscription, we hope you will consider purchasing one. Please visit the MR store for subscription options. Thank you very much. Eds.

Presidium of the Second Northern Oblast Congress of Soviets, 1 August 1918. Seated: Uritskii, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev, and Lashevich. Standing: Kharitonov, Lisovskii, Korsak, Voskov, Gusev, Ravich, Bakaev, and Kuzmin. St. Petersburg Institute of History, Russian Academy of Sciences. (The Bolsheviks in Power, p. 325)

This article will be made available online on August 7.

Russell was both a liberal and a socialist, a combination perfectly comprehensible in his time, but almost unthinkable today. As a liberal, he opposed concentrations of power in all its military, governmental, and religious manifestations. But as a socialist, he equally opposed the concentrations of power stemming from the private ownership of the means of production, which therefore had to be put under social control.|more

See the original post:
Bertrand Russell and the Socialism That Wasn't - Monthly Review

Conservatives routinely attack millennial leftists for getting their political knowledge from twitter or the Daily Show rather than actually reading a book.

This perception is validated with the reviews of Harrison Lievesleys book Why Socialism Works, posted on Amazon. Obvious lefties have praised the work in gushing terms.

One called it a gripping account of this complex ideology and awarded it 5 stars. Another reader praised the research involved:

A perfect introduction to the crux of the matter without any messing around. In depth research backs up the argument presented. Top notch.

Another reviewer by the name of Conor Burn complimented the readability of the work by saying, Im sure this will go down as one of the greatest texts ever written on the subject. I found myself furiously consuming the words on each page, totally engrossed in the text. It seemed I couldnt turn the pages fast enough!

But the problem is that the book is not a warm and researched endorsement of collectivism; on the contrary, it is a one sentence parody of it. The book, clocking in at 169 pages, has only the two-word attack against socialism listed on every page of It doesnt.

The reader celebration of this obviously unread book affirms the shallowness of fist-clenching leftists who, rather than cracking open a book, take their politics from slogans over research.

The reviewers on Amazon have taken the common charge lodged at book reviewers of, at best, only reading meager portions of the booktheyre usually accused of skimming the first and last chaptersto a new low.

The reviewers of Why Socialism Works have not even skimmed the book. Had they read beyond the cover, they would have attacked Lievesley for being unable to muster a reasoned argument, evidenced by his two-word sound bite, replicated 169 separate times against socialism in his book.

It is difficult to find a similar instance of extremists being so easily duped. The closest is probably the fraudulent tome, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which detailed a dubious worldwide conspiracy of Jews bent on taking over the world. The book was deemed factual enough for Henry Ford, a noted anti-Semite, to financially back the printing of 500,000 copies in the United States during the 1920s. Moreover, the Nazis used it as an elementary school book.

However fraudulent, disgusting, and racist its charges, Protocols was an actual book, rather than a two-word dismissal. And those who peddled the libelous screed had actually read it.

The same cannot be said for the reviewers of Why Socialism Works. For them, the very word socialism is education enough. Of course, the reviewers could be jokinga parody response to a parody book. But given the lack of sense of humor on the Left (evidenced by the all too-serious and homicidal-minded Rosie ODonnell), the more probable conclusion is that they did not even bother to read the book.

View original post here:
Why Socialism Works? - The Liberty Conservative

Millennials voted in surprising numbers during the U.K. general election turning their frustration with tax and spend policies into impact at the polls. A pied piper captured the attention of a generation that feels betrayed by promises made to older citizens, but for which theyll have to pay. America should pay attention. That could and is happening here too.

One exit poll shows that 56 percent of 18-34 year olds turned out to vote, up 12 points from turnout in 2015. According to Sky Data, an overwhelming majority (63 percent) of millennials voted for Labour and 27 percent for Conservatives. The prevailing view of millennials being politically apathetic clouded the clear signs i.e. the spike in registered young voters that youth turnout would be high.

Millennials have surpassed Baby Boomers are the largest living generation and the largest voting bloc if they vote. While they self-identify as Independents, they are embracing socialist philosophy and anti-establishment dogma that will continue to cause heartburn for traditional parties. There are three reasons to think that what happened in Great Britain is happening here in the U.S.

First, millennials are enchanted with socialism in a way that older generations dont understand. A 2015 Reason-Rupe survey found that over half (58 percent) of Americans under 30 have a more favorable view of socialism than capitalism. Nearly 70 percent of 18 29 year olds were willing to vote for a socialist according to Gallup. Socialism is in vogue, but its a gentler version that offers a big public safety net that provides basic needs for people (to include higher education) just without political repression and human rights abuses. Its Sweden or Denmark rather than the Soviet Union.

Pied pipers Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are taking that open invitation to lure away young people with promises of inclusiveness and equal outcomes. Never mind that those outcomes are mediocre and limit the potential of individuals.

Second, when we look at Corbyn and Sanders we see that youthfulness, charisma, and diversity are no longer prerequisites for revolutionary leadership among millennials. The Barack Obamas have been traded for white, well-off septuagenarians as gender, race, and charisma have taken a back-seat to style. Plain-talk wins over platitudes as two out of three global millennials like straight talk in their leaders according to Deloitte. While young people in developed countries are generally opposed to their political leaders taking controversial or divisive positions (64 percent), in the UK nearly half of millennials (48 percent) welcome it in politicians. This makes us wonder whether the Obama of 2008 would still motivate millennials?

Third and most critically, general wealth redistribution and a lack of economic mobility have created the dissatisfaction with what millennials perceive as a system robbing them of a better future than their predecessors. There is growing pessimism among millennials in developed countries about their futures. Deloitte also found that just a third (36 percent) of those in mature markets predict they will be financially better off than their parents and 31 percent think theyll be happier.

British young people mobilized last week in response to student debt, a housing crisis, a lack of secure jobs, falling wages, and social security. Older U.K. millennials have an average wealth of 27,000 each compared to 53,000 for those born in the 1970s had by the same age. British Baby Boomers at age 30 were 50 percent more likely to own their home than a millennial at the same age.

Add to that youth resentment over Brexit. Seventy-five percent of 18-24 year olds voted for the UK to remain in the EU compared to 56 percent of 25-49 year olds, 44 percent of 50-64 year olds, and just 39 percent over those over 65. UK youth are angry about the fiscal plans that will take 1.7 billion from millennials but given 1.2 billion to Baby Boomers in the next four years in pensions. So angry they took to the polls.

Meanwhile, U.S. millennials shrug their shoulders about the consequences of $20 trillion national debt driven by unfunded liabilities at the federal level. Only six percent expect to receive Social Security benefits, but 100 percent of workers watch one-eighth of their salaries disappear in the federal coffers.

Sanders and Corbyn recognized the angst of this generation and offered freebies including college tuition to appease this generation. Unfortunately like promising government-funded retirement security to seniors this will only grow costly and unsustainable without tackling the issue of affordability.

It would be nave for Americans to shake our heads and think that could never happen here. Young Americans are restless with their condition and have an appetite for change. If we do nothing about our nations long-term fiscal problems, many more millennials will hearken to the tune of these pied pipers and disappear into the dark caves of socialism.

We also need to get serious about correcting the record. Capitalism holds the record as the greatest anti-poverty program in history. When socialism bleeds into government overreach, it drains countries of prosperity and gumption. If we dont, and if Millennials overcome political apathy, the political landscape will change over the next decades into something we might not recognize.

Patrice Lee Onwuka is a senior policy analyst at the Independent Womens Forum.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more:
Why UK millennials voting for socialism could happen here, too ... - The Hill (blog)

A comprehensive retrospective of Aristarkh Lentulov, one of the most important figures in the Russian avant-garde movement, opened at the Bakhrushin State Central Theater Museum a week ago. Devoted to the artists 135th anniversary, it encompasses works from all periods of his life, from the turn of the century to the 1940s.

The exhibition presents 250 artworks from 20 museums around Russia and 11 private collections, including the artists great grandson Fyodor Lentulov. Its the first exhibition of Lentulovs work of this scale in 30 years, and it was organized in record time: just four months and two weeks.

The title of the exhibition, MysteryBouffe, refers to the play by Russian avantgarde poet Vladimir Mayakovsky. The author himself called it the revolutionary road and set the tone for much of post-1917 art. Although Lentulov did not design the stage sets (they were developed by Suprematist avatar Kazimir Malevich), the idea of a mystery-bouffe or comic opera reflects his ideas about art. Mayakovsky used to say that what he did with literature, Lentulov did with art.

Born into a poor priests family in a small town 100 kilometers from the central Russian city of Penza, Lentulov studied art in Kiev and St. Petersburg before moving to Moscow in 1909. He was one of the founders of the Jack of Diamonds, a group of Moscow avant-garde artists that included turn-ofthe-century greats like Malevich, Robert Falk, Mikhail Larionov and Natalia Goncharova.

Although one of the major figures in Russian avant-garde movement, Lentulov found inspiration in lubok (Russian popular prints), store signs, icons and ancient Russian architecture. Lentulov also had access to the Western art collections of pre-revolutionary entrepreneurs Sergei Shchukin and Ivan Morozov, so you can see some allusions to Van Gogh, Gauguin and early Matisse.

We wanted to show how he changed various styles: Behind every painting exhibited here theres a whole group of similar works that we are just not able to show, says Svetlana Dzhafarova, the exhibits curator. Lentulovs paintings show the influence of styles including Cubism, Primitivism, Fauvism, Expressionism and Futurism. He was a painter who liked to play with light.

Hes most interested in how nature changes due to different light, different positions of the sun. Later he started painting theater floodlights for the same reason. Its his justification for the transformation of reality that we see on his paintings, says Dzhafarova.

Since it is being held at a theater museum, the exhibition draws parallels between Lentulovs paintings and his works for theater stage sets and costume designs. This allows us to see the close connections between the two artforms in the first few decades of the 20th century.

He had a certain theatricality in all of his works, even those that had nothing to do with theater, says Dzhafarova. Russian theater in the early 20th century was different from that in Europe, because Russian theaters started inviting high-profile professional painters to produce backdrops, rather than ordinary set designers.

About 70 costume and stage decoration sketches for 10 theater productions are exhibited, including Hoffmanns Fairytales, Stepan Razin and the model of the set for Lermontovs Demon, for which Lentulov received the Diplme de Medaille dOr at the Paris International Exhibition of Modern Decorative and Industrial Arts in 1925.

With time, Lentulov started using decorative elements in his paintings, too, gluing on bits of fabric and pieces of embroidery, or using bronze, silver and even gold paints. This is especially true for his female portraits. One of his favorite subjects was his wife, Maria Petrovna, whom he painted in different outfits and at different ages. Several of these portraits are at the exhibition, including Maria as Venetian socialite Luisa Casati, as well as a Cubist double self-portrait in which he poses with his wife both en face and in profile.

Lentulov liked to paint monasteries. At the exhibition you can see a series of paintings depicting the New Jerusalem monastery complex and the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius in Sergiev Posad, as well as a monastery in Nizhny Novgorod and the Strastnoi monastery in central Moscow, torn down in the 1930s.

During the Soviet era, Lentulov turned to Social Realism. Dzhafarova explains this by his tendency to follow the latest trends in art: Its not like it only happened in Russia. Avant-garde vanished in Europe, too and not because it was destroyed by the government.

His paintings from this period include canvases depicting the building of the metro, new constructivist architecture and factories.

Lentulov was inspired by industry, adds Dzhafarova. You cant paint something like this artificiallyhe was a very organic artist.

Here is the original post:
Socialism in Color: Aristarkh Lentulov at the Bakhrushin - The Moscow Times

Socialism and free market coexist

In his recent letter, Democrats are teaching the kids, about the divisions we are currently experiencing in the U.S., Bob Baird imparts misinformation and confusion. He states that today, the battle is over whether America continues to exist as a constitutional republic or if we move into socialism. There is no compromise or middle ground between the two. To many, the word socialism means communism or statism. Modern socialism, in contrast to the classic version, is neither.

Modern socialism, at least in most countries such as Denmark or Canada, coexists with a relatively free-market economy. In such countries there is significant government intervention in the economy, but business interests are valued and promoted.

This larger role for government has indeed become a fact of life here in America, especially since the Great Depression. This is not the result of some liberal plot to abolish individual liberty and turn our constitutional republic into an autocratic or tyrannical state.

The measures that led some citizens to decry socialism Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, environmental regulations, etc. were enacted by popularly elected officials. These representatives were responding to the needs and demands of a public that had learned that unfettered capitalism would not lead to a society worthy of our ideals.

Americans value individual liberty, but we also value equality of opportunity and individual dignity. We, like most advanced countries, have chosen that very middle ground that Baird denies.

We will continue to debate and seek the optimum balance between governmental and individual responsibility as we continue to build a more perfect union.

If Baird wishes to ensure the health of our constitutional republic, he might address such real problems as partisan redistricting, the need for constant fundraising, the excessive influence of lobbyists, and extreme inequality.

Read the rest here:
COD, June 30, 2017: Socialism and free market coexist - Richmond.com