Mediaboss Marketing

British athlete James Cracknell was recently caught citing North Korea and Cuba as examples of how to get a handle on obesitywhich both regimes have done by starving their people.

Cracknell posted a half-hearted apology, and I dont want to be too hard on him, because in all likelihood he is simply not very bright and just needs to refrain from speaking in public ever again. This is unfortunate for him, since he has ambitions of running for Parliament.

The problem is that Cracknell has clearly been educated and lives in an environment where the reasons for starvation in Communist regimes are considered to be vague and complex and maybe can just be chalked down to behavior modification. Cracking jokes about the Holocaust is a line not to be crossed, but insensitive offhand references to brutal communist dictatorships? No big deal.

This sort of thing is not new. As Elizabeth Nolan Brown points out, by way of The Federalists Bre Payton, there was once a craze about the Cuban diet, telling us how healthy it is to be starved by your government. (Id like to link you to the original article, rather than just a screen-shot of it, but it has not-so-mysteriously disappeared from the Web.)

If you want to find another country that is really doing something about obesity, you can look to Venezuela, which is providing a wonderful model for involuntary weight loss.

But a lot of people dont seem to want to look at Venezuela, because that would be uncomfortable. A few years back, a lot of them were praising Venezuela as a model of socialism, the same way they praise Cuba. Heres just a small sample: David Sirota in Salon proclaimed Venezuelas economic miracle thanks to Hugo Chavezs full-throated advocacy of socialism and fundamental critique of neoliberal [i.e., free market] economics. Left-leaning celebrities traipsed to Caracas to pay their respects. Bernie Sanders declared just a few years ago that the American dream is more apt to be realized inVenezuela than here. He concluded by asking, Whos the banana republic now?

Were seeing the answer to that. Today, Venezuelans are starving and the remainders of the Chavez regime are sending gangs of armed thugs into the streets to attack anyone who protests. And all of the people who praised the Venezuelan regime as a paragon of socialism? They suddenly dont want to talk about it.

This is just the tip of an iceberg of insensitivity, ignorance, and denial aboutsocialisms ongoing and historical track record. The bodies keep piling up, but the ideology that produced those bodies always gets a free pass.You know what this is? Its the equivalent of Holocaust denial for the Left.

There has long been a ritual, which I sincerely hope will continue, in which young people are required to immerse themselves in the horrors of the Holocaust. There is no shortage of books and movies and documentaries and first-hand accountsreally harrowing stuff that keeps you up at night and gets seared into your brain so you cant forget it. And thats the point. Youre supposed to remember it and have it haunt your nightmares so that you will never allow it to happen again.

But our culture never did that for the horrors of socialism, which is how you get a majority of young people having a positive view of socialism.

What have they missed that they can believe that? Heres what theyve missed: the artificial famine in Ukraine, the Soviet Gulags, the forced deportation of Lithuanians, the persecution of Christians, Chinas Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, the killing fields of Cambodia, North Koreas horrific prison camps and famines, the systematic impoverishment of Cuba, and now Venezuelas collapse into starvation and mass-murder. All of this should be absolutely required background knowledge for any educated person.

I didnt provide links for the second half of those examples. If you dont know them, your assignment is to go look them up, because youre precisely the sort of person who needs to learn about them.

Now when I cite all of this history, theres always someone who insists that it isnt fair to pin all of these crimes on socialism because those examples werent really socialism. The only real socialism is the warm, fuzzy welfare-statism of a handful of innucuous Western European countries. This is a pretty obvious version of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and a good way of disavowing responsibility for the disastrous results of a system you praised just a few years earlier.

But these crimes follow inevitably from the basic idea behind socialism: the idea that the good of society as a collective is more important the rights or even the life of the individual. Thats the social in socialism, and by throwing out the rights and liberty of the individual, it serves as a rationalization for an endless amount of carnage. Who cares if this particular personor a few million peoplesuffer, so long as you can claim that mankind collectively benefits?

Consider the name of the roving thugs who are beating and killing dissidents in Venezuela right now: they call themselves collectivos. That says it all.

Socialism has been tested out more times and in more variations than probably any other social system, It has been implemented in every continent, every culture, every stage of economic development. It has always led to disaster, to the extent it has been implemented. If youre lucky, your country gets off with a mere economic crisis, as in Greece. At the worst, your country is in for decades of living hell.

This, too, should be seared into our brains so that we never forget and never repeat it again. Because it hasnt been, somebody is always trying to make us repeat it.

Follow Robert on Twitter.

Read the original:
For The Left, Socialism Denial Is Holocaust Denial - The Federalist - The Federalist

The year 2017 marks several anniversaries for socialists across the world.

It has been 150 years since Karl Marx published Das Kapital, a book that criticized capitalism and helped spark the socialist movement. It has been 100 years since the Russian Revolution, led by Vladimir Lenin. It has been 50 years since the death of Che Guevara, who led many guerrilla campaigns during the Cold War.

While there will be leftists who intend to honorthese anniversaries, it is also worth remembering what an absolute failure socialism has been.

The University of Wisconsinhas numerous socialist groups on campus making the case such a trashideology should be tried over and over again.

These groupsspout the typical rhetoric of ending a system they believe only rewards the few and exploits the many. Socialism, in their eyes, will end oppression of the workers and create equality.

The only problem with this argument is socialism creates oppression and poverty, while capitalism generates income mobility and prosperity.

Consider what has happened since the publication of Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations in 1776 and the rise of the Industrial Revolution. As economic analyst and American Enterprise Institute fellow James Pethokoukis has pointed out, since the 18thcentury, gross domestic product per person has skyrocketed. In real terms, the average income of Americans has increased from less than$5,000 to nearly $45,000.

Also, it isnt just Americans who have benefited from the power of free market capitalism. GDP per person in Europe has risen from less than$5,000 to more than$25,000. Throughoutthe rest of the world, there has been an increase from roughly the same starting point to more than$5,000. The implementation of capitalism in the west and the expansion of it across the globe is simply the greatest achievement in human history.

Capitalism has allowed for technological innovations that have vastly improved the quality of life.An August 2015 study published by Deloitte found technology has created more jobs than it has eliminated while simultaneously removing workers from repetitive and dangerous work.

Using employment data from England and Wales, the study found the number of people in the agriculture industry has decreased by 95 percent since 1871. The number of people who have jobs that provide care and nursing to others has increased from only 1.1 percent in 1871 to almost 25 percent by 2011. Jobs that use muscle power have been merely replaced by knowledge-intensive work.

Technology has lowered the costs of essential goods and services, expanding the disposable income of consumers and thus creating more demand. Do you have a smartphone or a laptop? Have you ever travelled via car or commercial airlines? Have you ever eaten or shopped at a restaurant or retail chain? If so, then you have benefitted from the free enterprise capitalism has provided.

Marx was always worried that capital would be concentrated among the very wealthy. In fact, a majority of Americans are able to obtain capital through stock market investments,according to Gallup. This comes from individual stocks, stock mutual funds, stocks in a 401(k) or through an IRA. The ownership of corporations is widely dispersed, meaning a great number of people benefit, not just a handful of millionaires and billionaires.

Not only has capitalism increased quality of life wherever is it adopted, but it encourages the establishment of democratic forms of government. The hypothesis of the link between economic freedom and political freedom was put forward by Nobel laureates Friedrich A. Hayek and Milton Friedman. When put to empirical examination, the hypothesis holds up very well.

In March 2010, the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization published a paper by economists Robert A. Lawson and J.R. Clark analyzing123 nations as far back as 1970. They found only a handful of cases where democracy and capitalism do not exist together. Furthermore, these cases have been declining over time. Other research has found similar results.

Wherever theres socialism, crisis often follows.

Just look to Venezuela, the latest example of the failure of an already disproven economic system.For years, socialism was maintained in the Latin American nation without reform under Hugo Chavezspresidency, but as Margaret Thatcher once warned,Eventually you run out of other peoples money.

The Venezuelan economy is now collapsing. Food supplies have dwindled, leading many people to rob supermarkets and food trucks. Soldiers and police have to guard loading depots from being overrun by starving Venezuelans.

One cannot blame the poor for resorting to thievery in this desperate situation, as government currency mismanagement has led to a massive devaluing of the bolivar, driving prices through the roof. People cant even fit enough money in their wallets anymore. The result is that nearly 75 percent of the population has lost an average of 19 pounds.

When faced with the choice between capitalism and socialism, the answer is always clear capitalism has proven to be the superior system. It has improved the lives of billions of people and given them opportunities socialism has not. There will always be dissenters, but no one can deny the tremendous accomplishments of capitalism.

John Graber ([emailprotected]) is a junior majoring in history and political science.

Follow this link:
While socialism breeds oppression, capitalism spurs democracy, economic prosperity - The Badger Herald

That isnt quite how the New York Times puts it, of course. In fact, the words socialist and socialism never appear in its otherwise unsparing account. But Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro illustrates the inevitable arc of socialism, from parasitism to gangster rule.

The uniformed men who shot Mr. Moreno were not government security forces, witnesses say. Rather, they were members of armed bands who have become key enforcers for President Nicols Maduro as he attempts to crush a growing protest movement against his rule.

The groups, called collectives or colectivos in Spanish, originated as pro-government community organizations.

Led by community organizers, presumably.

that have long been a part of the landscape of leftist Venezuelan politics. Civilians with police training, colectivo members are armed by the government, say experts who have studied them.

With Venezuelans starving and dying for lack of basic medicines, only armed gangs can keep the socialist government in power. Of course, the colectivos dont subscribe to the supposedly high ideals of socialism:

Colectivos control vast territory across Venezuela, financed in some cases by extortion, black-market food and parts of the drug trade as the government turns a blind eye in exchange for loyalty.

Of course, Chavez and Maduro were nothing but thieves, either.

Now they appear to be playing a key role in repressing dissent. *** As rising foreign debt and falling world oil prices have depleted the Venezuelan governments coffers, it has increasingly turned to colectivos as enforcers. From labor disputes with unions to student demonstrations on university campuses, colectivos are appearing almost anywhere the government sees citizens getting out of line, Venezuelans say.

Eladio Mata, a hospital union leader, says he was shot last year by colectivo members when negotiations deadlocked with the University Hospital of Caracas. *** In this country, its prohibited to dissent, Mr. Mata said.

Of course it is! That is what happens when you elect socialists. Just ask the students at Middlebury, Berkeley, Claremont, etc. They cant wait until they take power and steal enough money to hire colectivos of their own. That is what socialismall power to government, none to the individualcomes down to.

Mr. Rojas, who works with opposition politicians, said he had become used to the attacks, which have long been a fixture of his activism.

They attack your neighbors when they are in food lines and are identified as opposition members, they attack store owners by making them pay extortions, they attack bakers by taking away part of their production which they later sell on the black market, he said. They are not true collectives, or political actors they are criminals.

Just like Hugo Chavez and Nicols Maduro, and socialists the world over.

More:
Socialist Death Squads Rule Venezuela | Power Line - Power Line (blog)

BOOK REVIEW

by Arti Khosla

An Alternative Philosophy of Development: From Economism to Human Well-Being by B.P. Mathur; published by Routledge Taylor & Francis; 2017.

This is the latest book from B.P. Mathurs pen. A former civil servant, B.P. Mathur worked in several capacities with the government and had a ringside view of the administration, its strength and its failures. This extensive experience coupled with his idealism and knowledge of our spiritual heritage has inspired him to voice his concerns about several things not right about our economy, public policy and governance as such.

This book essentially outlines the authors disappointment with the current model of economic development in India that has not delivered. It is because, the author feels, the model of development we adopted is a blind imitation of Western ideas where emphasis is on persuit of wealth and individual profit. It encourages consumerism and wastefulness as also creates a vast chasm between the rich and poor. India went in for this model in 1991 when faced with a serious foreign exchange crisis. Liberalisation of the economy at the behest of the International Monetary Fund became necessary. Prior to that the country was following the Nehruvian model of socialism where state enterprises were considered as the commanding heights of the economy and though privatisation existed it played a secondary role. The reference-point for economic growth was the Soviet-style five-year plans.

In 1991 the country entered an era of free-market economy and GDP growth became a serious persuit. The economy grew at the rate of seven to eight per cent but this additional creation of wealth has not helped the poor. The benefit of growth has been cornered by 20 per cent of the people while 80 per cent are wallowing in poverty. India has today more millionaires and billionaries but at the same time a vast multitude cannot afford their two square meals a day. Thus the current model of development has resulted in more poverty, inequality, unemployment, environment degradation due to the culture of consumerism we copied from the West.

The author finds this model utterly unsuitable since it is based on the Western culture which is materialistic while Indian culture is essentially spiritual which values austerity, control over ones senses and promoting qualities of sympathy, empathy, comradeship and brotherhood. The author devotes a full chapter in Part 1V of his book on Indian culture with its salient features of tolerance, solidarity, family values etc. with which he is linking his alternative philosophy of development. In addition to the current model not being attuned to the indian ethos its failure is also due to poor governance.

In Part 1 of the book the author describes how we have failed to improve the quality of life of citizens of this country. Our education system at all levelsbe it primary, secondary or universityis totally in disarray. The health facilities for common people are in dismal conditions. We have failed to address rural distress. Agriculture has been neglected and has become an unrumenerative occupation. Low prices for their produce and rising debts have made thousands of farmers to end their lives due to desperation. Poor governance is of course responsible for this failure.

There is no denying the authors belief that good governance is a pre-requisite for development. The author details the requirements for good governance in chapter 14 under Part Three of the book. These are usual ones as recommended by successive committees and commissions on Administrative Reforms, namely, accountability, performance linked career development, decentralisation, eradicating corruption, depoliticisation of services etc.

While the present model of development with focus on GDP has been found irrelevant, the alternative model the author suggests should be one where progress is measured in terms of human capability, dignified employment for everyone, equitable distribution of income and wealth and ecological sustainability and social well being of the community. What that model should be. Gandhian economics? Or socialism? The author veers around to both these philosophies. Gandhian philosophy is relevant insofar as it stresses on individual dignity by providing gainful employment to each person and welfare of the poorest of the poor. Revisiting socialism (not of the Soviet variety) is considered desireable in creating an egalitarian society where life chances are not allocated by structural inequalities in social, economic and political constructions of societies. This mix of Gandhian economic model plus some ideas drawn from socialism as propounded by Karl Marx and others does not clearly indicate what in practice this model is going to be. The author himself does not seem to be very clear about how exactly we go about this alternative model.

The emphasis appears to be for the model of development which should resonate with Indian culture rather than blindly following as at present the one attuned to Western culture. The essential features of Indian culture are tolerance, accommodating others, oneness and solidarity of universe, family values, purusharth etc. Essentially it is steeped in spirituality. The authors grasp on all things spiritual is visible in this effort.

The author has quoted extensively from several economists, philosphers, scholars and nobel laureates to buttress his arguments. Similiarly he has supported his views on the dismal state of education, health, agriculture etc. by giving statistics and numbers. Some repetitions and contradictionsnot withstanding the book is worth the read by students of economics, policy makers and those generally interested in the affairs of the nation. The repetitions are inevi-table when one writes in a general flow rather than have a structured draft before him. One only wished that the print was not kept that small which is not easy on the eyes.

Aarti Khosla is a former Additional Secretary, Government of India. She is now a free-lance writer.

More:
A Mix of Gandhian Economics and Socialism - Mainstream

|

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