Mediaboss Marketing

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Recently a letter on this page called the Affordable Care Act socialism because it transfers wealth, in the form of insurance subsidies, from rich to poor.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

The Citizen-Times 6:22 a.m. ET Feb. 24, 2017

Recently a letter on this page called the Affordable Care Act socialism because it transfers wealth, in the form of insurance subsidies, from rich to poor. Even worse, many ACA critics whine, is that Obamacare puts the government in charge of health care. And its a job killer. And too expensive. None of thats true, but hey it was passed without a single GOP vote. Because Congressional Republicans agreed to oppose Obamas every move. Let the country go to hell, but no son of a black Kenyan would succeed.

But lets return to socialism. I pay more property taxes than renters. Roads are built with taxes. The poor use public roads as much or more as I do. Thats socialism.

Is giving enormous government subsidies to rich oil companies socialism? How about billions to huge agribusiness companies? Still more billions to mining concerns by selling them public land for a pittance? What about huge tax breaks to billionaire hedge fund managers? Or using governments eminent domain power to transfer valuable real estate to developers, including the one in the White House?

Or does transferring wealth from poor to rich not count as socialism?

Marvin J Wolf, Asheville

Read or Share this story: http://avlne.ws/2lCoDDj

0:55

0) { %>

0) { %>

Original post:
Letter: Definition of 'socialism' is misunderstood - Asheville Citizen-Times

Claude Wilson | Published 10 hours ago

Socialism one of the greatest Bogeymen in the minds of the American Republic throughout the last century. From newspaper cartoons at the turn of the 20th century, hyping up fears of bearded, bomb-throwing foreign anarchists, to Sen. Joseph McCarthys spearheading a witch hunt in search of Soviet spies and fellow travelers in Washington and Hollywood, to modern depictions of neoliberal former President Barack Obama as some sort of fanatical communist whos going to put your life in the hands of a sinister death panel.

Socialism tends to be depicted as a monstrous other intent on destroying the American way of life. What you may not expect, however, is that socialism very much exists within our community, and you might have participated in its success, and even benefited from it, without ever realizing. With three locations and 200employees, Weaver Street Market is socialism in action.

Weaver Street is a worker cooperative, standing in stark contrast to the traditional capitalist business model. While most stores are owned by a small number of private individuals, whom we might call capitalists, worker cooperatives are owned collectively by the workers themselves, functioning as a form of market socialism: workers collectively own and sell locally-sourced and fair-trade produce, baked goods, and more in a market setting.

Weaver Street Market itself is not just owned by its workers, but also by its customers. Weaver Street is owned collectively by 200 workers and 18,000 consumer households and managed by a board of directors made up of workers and consumers. Customers gain access to store discounts, while workers receive a share of the stores profits and involvement in the stores decision-making committees, while both are given the ability to vote on and run for the cooperatives board of directors. Essentially, Weaver Street is an economic democracy.

The advantages of a worker cooperative are numerous when compared to a traditional business model, especially for its workers. For one, it helps fight against the vast disparities in income inequality. In the United States, the average CEO makes three hundred times as much as the average worker.

Workers cooperatives are instead directed by democratically elected councils who receive the same pay as usual, meaning that the workers are better compensated for their work and have more of a say in the direction of their business, which has a number of advantages for local economies. Workers in a cooperative arent going to vote to send their own jobs overseas, after all.

This model of decision-making doesnt hurt business longevity either, as worker cooperatives are twice as likely to survive their first year as traditional businesses.

Weaver Street isnt an isolated example of a successful worker cooperative. For example, the Mondragon Corporation, a federation of worker cooperatives involved in banking, manufacturing, retail and education, is the 10th largest company in all of Spain, employing over 74,000 people.

Suma is a food wholesaler in the United Kingdom that made a 40 million pound revenue in 2015 and it is only the 49th largest cooperative in the UK. In the Mexican state of Chiapas, the libertarian socialist Zapatistas have managed to organize hundreds of coffee producers into a solidarity network that has vastly improved quality of life in the otherwise poverty-stricken territory, all without government involvement.

Worker cooperatives are a viable, moral alternative to traditional corporations and businesses. Workers are entitled to the full fruits of their labor, and they deserve a say in the way their workplace functions. Whatever your work, be it manufacturingor retail, white or blue collar, if you can, you should reject selling your labor to others, and instead form or join a cooperative you have nothing to lose but your chains.

Read more in Opinion,

Share on social media?

Link:
Column: A socialist on Weaver Street - The Daily Tar Heel

Jay Ambrose, Columnist 8:16 a.m. CT Feb. 24, 2017

One day, President Donald Trump is at a prayer meeting talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger being lousy on TV, and on another, he is naming the brilliant Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as his national security advisor. I will hereby be an unsolicited national hope advisor. Do the second kind of thing much more and wholly eradicate the first kind of thing, Mr. President, and save us from a grave public enemy.

That would be the kind of socialistically inspired future represented by Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate. She wanted more freebies but less freedom, more spending, more regulations, a marketplace coerced into failures, identity-group divisiveness, contemptuous elitist supremacy and judicial power usurping democracy along with constitutionalism.

President Barack Obama was also a champ at all of this, and while the public mostly liked him, many did not like what was doing. Thus, after his eight years in office, Democrats had lost a net of 62 seats in the House, nine seats in the Senate, 12 governorships, more than 900 state legislature seats and the presidency, according to a Fox News report. Republicans took charge, and there is now an extraordinary opportunity to reverse a big-government trend threatening to encapsulate us for eons.

The thing is, we may be cheated out of that chance if Trump does not give up on his stupidities and instead provides his enemies the wherewithal to stymie the best in him and turn the country back over to their contrary dreams. If he loves America, therefore, he should please, please quit obnoxious tweeting for starters. It is absurd and makes him look like a misbehaving child with a misused toy.

Then he should quit holding zany press conferences in which he overstates everything, insults everyone and further institutes enmity. He should in fact avoid adlibbing as much as possible. He is a non-linear, now-you-see-it, now-you-dont speaker who treats us to unconnected, unexplained phrases that can mean just about anything and are advantageously interpreted by critics as saying he favors hell over heaven.

Still more advice. He should quit substituting glances at a TV set for actual study. He should quit having reckless phone calls with heads of state. He should quit putting together policy plots with minimal trustworthy advice. He should quit the small-mindedness that puts claims of crowd size above real issues.

Yes, it is absolutely the case that his critics are often far worse than he is. Sen. Elizabeth Warren? Sen. Chuck Schumer? There is nothing polite to say. The reputable press is not so reputable when its commentators, for instance, issue baseless growls about anti-Semitism.

It is also despicable that protestors carry signs referring to Trump as anti-gay when there is absolutely nothing to back them up. It is simple-minded and worse for anyone to insist Trumps criticism of someone who is black is ipso facto racism, and yet we have seen it. In terms of evidence at this point, the Russian collusion theory is right up there with the birther theory. Vandalizing college students should be required to clean up after themselves before packing their bags and going home, and the leakers in the intelligence community should be worried about criminal prosecution.

There is lots of good in Trump, as seen in his executive orders on pipelines and absolutely smothering regulations, his choice for the Supreme Court, most of his Cabinet picks and, as mentioned earlier, his choice of McMaster as a top advisor.

He may very well do something about a crime rise the left uncaringly dismisses as nothing much. Watch for an improved world order. Some of his tax ideas are excellent, if not the one on imports, and we should replace Obamacare with something better, although prudence is needed. The wonders already happening in the economy are signs of how he actually could do splendid things.

But if Trump does not cut out the bad, there are those waiting in the bushes with a ruinous future in mind.

Jay Ambrose is an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service. Readers may email him at speaktojay@aol.com.

Read or Share this story: http://wtrne.ws/2lCXOPx

Go here to read the rest:
How Trump could lead us to socialism yet - Times Record News

Friday, February 24, 2017

Bernie Sanders has some of the best press in the countrynot just for a politician. Every time hes mentioned, the he would have beaten Trump line that has become so commonplace in after-election analysis immediately follows. Everyone and their mother seems to hold this line of thinking; its almost blasphemous to even mention Sanders wouldnt have beaten Trump.

So Im going to commit blasphemy: Trump wouldve easily beaten Bernie.

Its really not that crazy of a theory. Just because someone is a purportedly honest, sweet old man doesnt mean he wins automatically. He has his issues.

The clearest and most important reason for why Bernie wouldnt win can be summed up in one word: socialism. And yes, Bernie advocated for democratic socialism, which just means that people vote for socialism; its still socialism. Just because there is no forcible takeover doesnt mean its not socialism.

(Now, a discussion on the over-praising of socialism is for a different column on a different day.)

Its about how people would perceive democratic socialism. You can forget about the democratic part of democratic socialism pretty quickly. No one would remember that after the Republican marketing strategy.

The Republicans never treated Bernie as a threat in the primary season. No matter people believed that he was actually going to win the primary, he never would have. Even without the superdelegates, Sanders still lost by about 500 delegates. There was no reason for Republicans to really attack him; they focused all the money on hurting the big dog, Hillary Clinton.

If there had actually been a focused ad campaign on Bernie, it wouldnt have ended well. Everything would revolve around socialism:Do you want a socialist in the White House?

Even if people hated Trump, they still wouldnt vote for Bernie because of the socialist label. He would lose 60 percent of the country right out of the gate. And the same is true with Democrats. Sure, he wouldve initially had support, but once things got hard, they wouldve run for safer ground.

Even the Midwest working vote wouldve run for the hills. Their bread and butter is industry, and they dont want the government taking that over.

Instead of Ohio Gov. John Kasich getting some votes, it wouldve been Hillary getting those votes from Democrats.

Bernie is also really bad on foreign policy. The fact is Democrats lose on foreign policy nine times out of 10. Its not that Republicans plans are necessarily better, but Republicans know how to frame those issues in a different way. Bernie does notat all. He has his talking points, and they usually revolve around the economy and how to fix it.

Hes great at talking about the economy for hours. But foreign is not his strong suit; ask him to talk about foreign terrorism and hell tie it back to the 1 percent and the greed of capitalism. Thats not necessarily a bad thing. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham was great at tying everything back to ISIS in the Republican primary debates, and it worked for him (to an extent).

But that is not good for an actual presidential debate. There are whole sections (and sometimes entire debates) dedicated fully to foreign policy. If Bernie would have tied it back to the economy, at some point, the moderator wouldve gotten tired of it and called him out.

Thats fine in the primaries, but once you get to the real debates, you better have some real answers.

Lastly, Bernie cant talk to real people. Hes good at talking those who already agree with himnamely, young, white votersbut not anyone else, especially small business owners.

Take this example from his CNN Town Hall. A small business owner questioned him on Obama-era regulatory policy. Bernies response engaged him in a fight with the owner whos actually on the ground dealing with the policies Bernie was disputing. To Bernie supporters, this was a great spat; support more regulatory policy and hit the 1 percent. To everyone else, this looked like a politician telling a struggling business owner hes not struggling.

Then there was his response to a salon owner at his debate with Ted Cruz. Whether you agree with him or not that the woman should go out of business, thats not how anyone, especially someone running for office, should respond to someone.

So Bernie Sanders is the cute, truthful old man who birds are in love with. None of this means hed have actually defeated Trump. He breaks down easily, and hes not as easy to support as people make it seem. Continue with the narrative if necessary, but at least be honest: theres no way he wouldve won.

Assistant opinion editor Jorden Smith is a political science and creative writing junior and can be reached at [emailprotected]

Tags: 2016 Presidential election, Bernie Sanders

See the original post:
Socialist Sanders could never defeat Trump - The Cougar - The Daily Cougar

Socialism: Want to lose weight fast? Don't worry about the latest fad diet. Just move to Venezuela. There, the new Socialist Diet has caused the population to lose millions of pounds in 12 months. Unwillingly, of course.

A new study of Venezuela's stunning decline under Hugo Chavez's socialist model, still followed faithfully by his lap dog successor, Nicolas Maduro, reports that the average Venezuelan lost 19 pounds in the last year. Today, the 2016 Living Conditions Survey finds, 32.5% of Venezuelans eat only once or twice a day, up from 11.3% just one year ago. And 93.3% of all people don't earn enough to buy sufficient food.

American Thinker blogger Ronald C. Tinnell called it "The Venezuelan Miracle Weight Loss Program."

We call it a shocking indictment of socialism, and should be a siren call to people around the world: Bring socialism to your country, and you bring misery. It's the one thing that socialism produces an abundance of.

It's a sad fact that Venezuela was once one of the wealthiest countries in South America, and even now has the second-largest oil reserves in the world. It should be a rich nation, filled with prosperous people worried about gaining too much weight, not losing it to hunger.

But as formerly middle-class Venezuelans scavenge for food some even stooping to dumpster diving and eating formerly beloved pets just to stay alive socialists allied with Maduro have changed nothing. Maduro followed Chavez's lead, spending all the money that the state-oil company earned on "social" programs, all the while attacking small businesses and companies and effectively nationalizing the supermarkets.

Meanwhile, inflation at close to 500% a year is the highest of any country on earth. Looking at the problems with declining food stocks and roaring inflation, Maduro decided to put the military in charge of the country's food distribution network. The result was predictable: Massive food shortages and rampant corruption, as armed military line their pockets by selling food on the black market.

"Mismanagement of the economy has created a humanitarian disaster beyond comprehension," wrote Ed Feulner and Ana Quintana in a piece that appeared on the RealClearPolitics website.

The country's infrastructure is collapsing from a lack of investment, while rule of law has been rejected for the rule of one tyrant. Children aren't spared; they're dying by the hundreds from curable diseases, a lack of medicine, electricity outages and no incubators for newborns. The resurgence of once vanquished contagious diseases is killing off the weak and the infirm. "Cases of diphtheria and malaria are re-emerging, and the number of Zika infections is estimated to be 'nearly 700,000', according to a Venezuelan health organization," wrote Feulner and Quintana.

Even worse is the chaos on the streets. Caracas' murder rate of 120 per each 100,000 inhabitants is the highest in the world. That's higher than in Damascus, Kabul or Tripoli.

It doesn't have to be this way. As recently as 21 years ago the Heritage Foundation gave Venezuela a 59.8 ranking on its Index of Freedom. Today it's at 27.0, just behind Cuba but barely ahead of last place North Korea. As with all nations that destroy freedom, socialist Venezuela has also destroyed whatever semblance of wealth it had.

If Venezuela seems remote and of little concern, consider this headline: "Democratic Socialists Make Headway In U.S. After Trump's Win." Yes, we know. The Democratic Socialists of America style themselves as kinder, gentler socialists. Think Sweden, they say, not Venezuela.

But the truth is, whoever practices it or whatever those who follow it call themselves, socialism is an economic system based on mass greed and class envy that has failed time and time again. There are no successful socialist nations, anywhere. Those that find this model appealing despite its obvious failures are the desperate, the poorly educated, the uninformed and those lacking entirely in basic common sense.

It is an economic philosophy of entitlement and grievance, one that always ends in poverty, wanton destruction, the breakdown of civilization and even death as the Venezuelans, who willingly handed control of their country over to the socialists, are now finding out.

RELATED:

Venezuela: Why Can't The Left Take Voters' 'No' For An Answer?

Venezuela Is Socialist, Senator Sanders. Any Questions?

Yes, There Is A Cure For Poverty It's Called Freedom

Originally posted here:
Venezuelans Now On A Forced Starvation Diet Thanks, Socialism ... - Investor's Business Daily