Mediaboss Marketing

|

Posted: Apr 20, 2017 12:52 PM

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Sir Winston Churchill

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. -British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it. President Ronald Reagan

I had my first introduction to the South American Country of Venezuela as a young Army Second Lieutenant at my Artillery officer basic course, class 2-84, in Ft. Sill Oklahoma. There I had as my artillery tactics instructor an exchange officer from the Venezuelan Army, Captain Gonzales. Now, I have to admit, having been born and raised in Georgia and educated at the University of Tennessee, I did struggle a tad at first with his heavy accent. After a week or so I had no problem and would come to admire this strapping professional officer who seemed to just know everything. He was an exceptional representative of a beautiful Nation. When we had down time, Captain Gonzales would share with us the true beauty of Venezuela. We would all ask ourselves, why didnt the U.S. Army have a duty assignment in this nation of resource richness and extravagant landscapes?

I have recently found myself asking how is Captain Gonzales doing?

If you have been paying attention to the news you will see the ugly face of socialism in Captain Gonzales native land. It is as if the aforementioned quotes are being played out right before our eyes, but should we be surprised? Recall how so many entertainment elites flocked to Venezuela when the tyrant and socialist dictator Hugo Chavez came to power. Folks like Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Harry Belafonte, and others celebrated and dreamed of this utopia. However, if these individuals had taken the time to read and study political philosophy they would have realized that socialism is rooted in five basic principles, tenets wealth redistribution, nationalizing of production, expansion of the welfare state, social egalitarianism, and secular humanism. In my estimation, these are principles not to be admired but feared.

Hugo Chavez promised to take from a certain class, lets call them producers, and reallocate to the masses. The problem with that is as Margaret Thatcher expressed, and those producers did as suspected, they fled. I lived in South Florida for a little over a decade after retiring from the Army in the City of Plantation. Not far away was another suburban city in Broward County called Weston. In the city of Weston, you will see the American flag and another flag very prominently flyingit is the Venezuelan flag. There are those who affectionately call Weston Florida, Westenzuela. It is there that the great economic producers and those who did not share the vision of socialist hell fled, and it is a beautiful city.

Venezuela is without a doubt one of the richest nations in the world because it is blessed with infinite oil resources. Yet, when Mr. Chavez came to power he nationalized those mean, horrible private oil companies. Now, those companies and resources have been poorly managed, and Venezuela is suffering what is possibly the highest rate of inflation in the world. Therefore, the promise of giving everyone the profits from a nationalized oil industry has failed, miserably. To see and read the reports of that Country which made Captain Gonzales so very proud now having citizens, no, subjects, eating from garbage cans, and stores not having basic necessities stocked is appalling.

But, where are the American entertainment elites and advocates of socialism now? Yes, crickets.

Hugo Chavez, and now President Nicolas Maduro (funny thing, Maduro used to be a bus driver) championed the principle of social egalitarianism. You know, everyone is equal so everyone should have an equal footing, meaning status. That reminds me of a simple quote, a free people are not equal and an equal people are not free. Socialism does not understand the idea of equality of opportunity, it advances that which is antithetical to individual liberty and sovereignty, the equality of outcomes. Additionally, the outcomes are then determined by people like a Chavez, Maduro, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, or Elizabeth Warren.

Maduro was a bus driver, and just imagine, Bernie Sanders did not truly earn a paycheck until he was almost into his 40s. That fella has done very well in government positions, having a beautiful lake home in Vermont, has he not? Socialism is ripe with hypocrisy as well.

Churchill had it right in that the ugly face of socialism is a gospel of envy. It creates a fever pitch atmosphere of hatred to a defined group, the 1 percenters. Then should we not all strive to be champions, the best, exceptional? No, the ugly face of socialism wants to keep us ignorant in order to foster that equal sharing of miserythe result of the equality of outcomes.

And what happens if the people eventually see the ugly face of socialism and reject it? Well first, it is necessary to disarm the people in order to have complete control over them. Adolf Hitlers rise to power, and remember Nazi stood for National Socialism, began with disarming the German people and unleashing the feared Brown Shirts (SA). In Venezuela today, Maduro is arming his own supporters, creating a militia, to gun down the unarmed protesters against his rule and consolidation of power. And where are the voices of the American entertainment elite, or Bernie Sanders? Perhaps there is a reason why the progressive socialist left in America is so adamant about gun control.

There is nothing trendy, cool, or desirable about socialism. And those who advocate it are, well, let me be blunt, lying, deceptive jackasses the symbol of the Democratic Party. The ugly face of socialism has destroyed the beauty of Venezuela, turning what could be termed a little piece of heaven on earth into hell.

Let us commit that the beauty that is America shall not fall to the ugliness of socialism. For if that happens, where do we go?

See the article here:
The Ugly Face of Socialism - Townhall

In our current political climate, Socialism has become a bit of a buzzword, largely due to the work of the Sanders campaign in de-stigmatizing the word within the American discourse. While this has been good for many leftist groups (leftist here defined as any groups that explicitly advocate for some form or another of socialism, i.e. not the Democrats), there has been a large amount of confusion about what socialism is, even among those who advocate for supposedly socialist programs and policies.

The bane of the left has been this confusion about the term. We have been called alt-left with a high level of frequency by ultraconservative groups, a term that is intended to equate us with the fascist and proto-fascist movements of the alt-right, which is a movement that we have nothing in common with.

So, for the sake of clarity, lets try and make exactly clear what socialists are, what we believe, and what the terms we are discussing mean. To begin, a few points of admission and clarity:

I am a communist. That is the position this piece is written from.

All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Socialism is an umbrella term for a wide range of political theories, whereas Communism is a particular one.

No, socialism isnt a system in which the government necessarily runs the economy.

No, socialism isnt a system in which the government regulates the economy, taxes the rich heavily, and has a high level of social investment.

No, communism isnt necessarily a dictatorship in which the government has unlimited power.

Many of these claims are difficult to accept for an American or western audience, as the spectre of the Cold War still haunts us and distorts our view of politics. However, it must be made clear that whether or not the USSR was even a good example of socialism is one of the most divisive questions of the left, and that we cannot let decades old discourse and rhetoric cloud our understanding of what is happening today.

Disclaimers aside, this brings us to our central question: what is socialism? Socialism is a theory pioneered by many philosophers and thinkers, notably Proudhon, Marx, and Bakunin (although, even this selection of early socialists is misleading, incomplete, and arbitrary) in the mid-to-late 19th century. These theorists encompass ideologies ranging from mutualism, anarchism, to communism.

The central component that links these ideologies as socialist is their basic conception of how the workforce and industry should be organized. To be explicit and brief, this organization is defined in opposition to capitalism, with the two systems being defined as thus:

Capitalism: a system in which some people own businesses, factories, and the means by which goods and services are produced (the means of production), and then buy labor from those who cannot afford to privately own these properties. That is, you have those who own the labour of others, and those who sell their labour and what it produces to others.

Socialism: A system in which workers collectively own the means of production and own all that they produce.

The interpretation of what socialism looks like is a massive contention on the left. Some, such as the mutualists, defend the existence of a free market, with all individual businesses being collectively and equally owned by those who work at them. Some, such as the Anarcho-Communists, believe that capitalism cannot be abolished without abolishing the state. And some, such as the communists, believe that the conditions that cause capitalism cannot be abolished without seizing the power of the state.

But what binds them is a search for a classless society in which the workers directly control government and industry. It is not defined by dictatorship- although there are those who advocate dictatorship- it is defined by working class control.

So, when socialists talk of policy, we dont talk of greater government control- we have a capitalist government that we do not wish to hand any more power to. What we speak of is the working class. We speak of workers rights. We speak of workplace agitation. We speak of power to the working class!

As the Industrial Workers of the World, the radical union that earned us much of our workers rights in the early 20th century, says in their preamble, The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. What we seek is an end to socio-economic relations that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

This is why we do not feel comfortable working within the structures of the Democratic party, and see the Democrats as the enemy every bit as much as the Republicans- both are capitalist organizations with capitalist donors, capitalist aims, capitalist structures, and capitalist leaders. Nancy Pelosi even admitted as much at a public forum when confronted with growing youth support for socialism. In her own words. We are capitalists. Thats just how it is. However, this is why socialism has never been the mythical academic ideology it has been portrayed as. We do not sit in ivory towers trying to decide the fate of society. We are your coworkers. We are your friends. We are sometimes your family. One thing that I promise, however, is that we are not your boss.

Go here to see the original:
Decoding Buzzwords: What Is Socialism? - LemonWire

PARIS

France will head to the polls tomorrow to vote in the first of two rounds of its presidential election. Barring the unlikely event of any candidate winning more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff on May 7 will determine the winner. One of the most remarkable aspects of this race is the stunning implosion of the French Socialist Party.

You might be tempted to ask: Does this mean French socialism is in its final throes? Well, not exactly.

Based on current polls, Socialist Party candidate Benoit Hamon is struggling to crack the single digits, currently sitting at around 8 percent, according to Opinionways PresiTrack poll. All this really means is that current Socialist President Francois Hollande destroyed the brand.

Hollandes favorability rating is about 19 percent, according to a YouGov poll taken at the end of February. A pragmatist, Hollande might have scored better had he not been surrounded by actual Socialists for the past five years.

French citizens, however, seem tempted by the idea of electing another pragmatist from the Hollande camp, but one who isnt obligated to surround himself with Socialists.

According to an Opinionway survey earlier this month, 50 percent of Hollandes voters now support independent presidential front-runner Emmanuel Macron, a former Hollande minister who was with the Socialist Party for three years. But Macron is a former investment banker whose program includes an entire section dedicated to making the lives of entrepreneurs easier. Rather than ideology, hes focused on renewal and the desire to bring outsiders into public life.

So this means that socialism is dead in France, right? Not so fast. French leftists have gravitated to Jean-Luc Melenchon, an independent candidate who wants a fiscal revolution that involves taxing at 100 percent any earnings over the maximum revenue of 400,000 euros annually. Hes also expressed interest in involving Frances overseas territories in ALBA (formally the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America), founded by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who ran a country that represents the epitome of socialist end times. A recent Opinionway poll showed Melenchon sitting at 18 percent, behind Macron and the National Fronts Marine Le Pen, tied at 22 percent, and center-right candidate Francois Fillon at 21 percent.

Socialism as a French brand is tanking in name only. Almost all of the presidential candidates have integrated socialist policies into their platform. The least socialist option in this race is Fillon, who has a double disadvantage: Hes the establishment candidate at a time when global electoral momentum is trending against the establishment, and hes facing accusations of the kind of nepotism widely practiced among the French establishment.

Violent is a term Ive often heard used by Fillons critics to describe the conservative aspects of his program. National Front Vice President Florian Philippot, who walks and talks like a socialist all over French media on behalf of Le Pen, called Fillons attempt at a non-socialist program one of unprecedented violence.

Reducing the number of civil servants? Violent. Wanting to give people the option of private health insurance instead of paying a fortune for a crumbling system with poor reimbursements? Violent. Cutting government spending through austerity? Well, if youre going to do that, then you might as well just go around punching voters in the face.

One way socialism has been able to justify its continued presence in this race is by using former French President and General Charles de Gaulle, who consistently ranks as the countrys favorite historical figure, as its shield. To those running for high office in France, de Gaulle has become what Ronald Reagan is to American candidates: an anachronistic specter evoked in a lazy attempt to justify questionable policies to the unconvinced. You dont like my position? Youre an idiot! Its Gaullist!

Ive only heard Gaullism used to defend socialist policies, however which is funny, because de Gaulle was hardly a socialist. In fact, the Socialist Standard (the monthly magazine of the Socialist Party of Great Britain) wrote of de Gaulle in its July 1958 issue: Socialists are opposed to what de Gaulle stands for on principle, because he stands for French capitalism, and Socialists do not support any capitalist faction anywhere or at any time.

Much has also been made in this race of the role of supranational European Union governance, a socialist straitjacket imposed on the French economy. Nearly all of the candidates agree that its a problem, whether they want to leave the EU or just reform it. Whats rarely mentioned is that even if European governance disappeared tomorrow, France would still be stuck contending with its own socialist economic infrastructure.

Sundays first round of voting will largely determine the extent to which the French electorate can see through the persistent socialist lie that has long worked against their interests.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and former Fox News host based in Paris. Contact her through her website: http://www.rachelmarsden.com.

2017, Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Continue reading here:
Rachel Marsden column: Socialist Party implodes in French presidential race, but socialism still omnipresent - Richmond.com

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Venezuela cannot wake up from its socialist nightmare.

The Venezuelan opposition just staged a massive protest against the government, which the government repressed with military force, leading to at least three deaths, The New York Times reports. Detained opposition activists say the authorities tortured them, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, across the country, people are starving.

Venezuela, a beautiful, oil-rich country, once one of the wealthiest nations in the Southern Hemisphere, is only sinking further into economic devastation and chaotic, corrupt authoritarianism. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro increasingly looks like a "Bolivarian" version of Vladimir Putin, holding power through corrupt patronage, fear, and the smothering of alternative voices and power centers. The protests were triggered by further moves by the executive to consolidate power. Maduro has banned a main opposition leader, Henrique Capriles, from holding political office.

Meanwhile, the economy keeps rotting. Venezuela has topped Bloomberg's Economic Misery Index, a benchmark whose title is self-explanatory, for three years running. The economy shrank by 18 percent last year, with unemployment at 25 percent, and inflation slated to be 750 percent this year and 2,000 percent the next, according to the International Monetary Fund (Venezuelan government statistics are, of course, made up, so third-party figures are more reliable).

But it's other statistics that show the real extent of the misery, and make one's stomach truly churn. Over the past year, 74 percent of Venezuelans lost an average of nearly 20 pounds each, reports The Economist. The military controls the country's food supply, and the result is widespread malnourishment and, of course, corruption. Venezuela's hospitals have more in common with those in Aleppo than with those of an oil-rich, emerging economy. As the Guardian reported last year, children are suffering from malnourishment for the first time in the country's modern history; there are outbreaks of scabies, a disease easily prevented with basic hygienic practices; hospitals are running out of even basic drugs. Caracas is the murder capital of the world. Corruption has infected the country wholesale even as it has created a new class of kleptocratic oligarchs linked to the security services.

Put all of this together, and it's not just that the economy is doing terribly. The whole of Venezuelan society is breaking down at a fundamental level. We are witnessing the collapse of a once-proud, beautiful country with a rich culture and countless assets. It is truly heartbreaking.

This was wholly preventable. And I blame socialism.

Venezuela's previous president, Hugo Chavez, set the stage for the country's destruction by spending Venezuela's oil money on social programs designed to boost his popularity even as he set about wrecking the country's assets, expropriating most valuable private companies, sometimes to turn them into bureaucracies and sometimes to give them to friends, implementing price and retail controls that ensured people wouldn't have access to basic necessities and capital controls that caused inflation to rise, shutting down alternative voices in the media, Putin- and Erdogan-style, and winking at top-to-bottom corruption.

When global oil prices declined, the house of cards fell.

Of course, rich-world socialists will quibble over semantics and say that Chavez's policies of nationalization, price controls, capital controls, and authoritarianism are not socialism. This is debatable. What isn't is that the collapse was wholly self-inflicted, and it was obvious from the start to anyone who was paying attention and was grounded in reality that this would be the outcome; you didn't have to be a conservative to know this would end badly (although, in fact, conservatives saw it first and were louder about it). And now it's Venezuelans, especially the poorest and more marginal among them, who are paying the price for this madness.

Let us now hope that they, and the rest of the world, will remember for a long time.

Continue reading here:
Venezuela's socialist hell - The Week Magazine

Campaigning for economic and social justice, they are winning municipal races in states like Illinois and Georgia.

Dylan Parker, a 28-year-old diesel mechanic and DSA member who was recently elected to the city council of Rock Island, Illinois. (Neighbors for Dylan Parker)

Democratic socialists have advised presidents and cabinet members; they have been elected as members of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, and as as state legislators, judges, sheriffs and school board members. But their primary service has been at the municipal level, as mayors and city council membersleading not just big cities such as Milwaukee but mid-sized cities like Reading, Pennsylvania, and small towns like Girard, Kansas.

So it is worth noting that, at a moment when democratic socialism is experiencing a surge of interest and enthusiasm nationwide, some of the first electoral victories are coming in small and medium-sized cities. The 2016 presidential campaign mounted by Bernie Sanderswho first came to prominence in the early 1980s as the democratic socialist mayor of Burlington, Vermontopened up the constrained American discourse and got millions of Americans thinking anew about an ideology that was deeply rooted in American history. Sanders struck a chord, especially with young working class activists, when he declared: Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy. Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt.

Since the 2016 race finished, Democratic Socialists of Americathe group forged over many decades by Michael Harrington, Barbara Ehrenreich, Dolores Huerta, Frances Fox Piven, Gloria Steinem, Cornel West and others to give voice to American democratic socialist visionhas experienced rapid growth in states across the country. And now DSA members are campaigning for and winning local races in states like Georgia and Illinois.

Democratic Socialists of Americas Maria Svart hails a shot across the bow for politics as usual nationwide.

More than a dozen DSA members now serve in local posts across the country, and their numbers are growing.

Early this month, Quad Cities Democratic Socialists of America member Dylan Parker was elected to the city council in Rock Island, Illinois. A 28-year-old diesel mechanic who was a Sanders delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Parker came home and mounted a city council campaign in the city of 39,000. He focused on open government, citizen engagement and economic justice issues and he got specific. Steering attention to the role that an equitable approach to economic development could play in strengthening the whole community, he talked about providing universal high speed broadband internet access for residences and businesses and about expanding Rock Islands publicly-owned hydroelectric power plant. The campaign resonated with voters. Parker won 68 percent of the vote on April 4.

Two weeks later, in South Fulton, Georgia, another DSA member, khalid kamau, won an equally striking victory. A #BlackLivesMatter and #FightFor15 organizer who was also one of the many young Sanders delegates to last years Democratic National Convention, kamau (who lower cases his name in the Yoruba African tradition that emphasizes the community over the individual), outlined an economic and social justice vision that proposed to make the newly incorporated community of South Fulton the largest Progressive city in the South. On April 18, we won 67 percent on the vote.

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

Declaring that another world is possible, DSA celebrated kamaus victory, with DSA national director Maria Svart describing kamaus win as a tremendous victory for his community and a shot across the bow for politics as usual nationwide.

America elected thousands of local officials, and it is easy to neglect election results from small towns and small cities. But American democratic socialists have always recognized that big things can begin far from the economic and political power centers of New York and Washington. When a democratic socialist named Bernie Sanders was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, 36 years ago last month, that victory was viewed as an anomaly. In fact, the ripples from that 1981 municipal election in Burlington is still shaking up American politics.

Read the original post:
The Next Generation of Democratic Socialists Has Started Winning ... - The Nation.