Ed Miliband - what socialism means to him
During the live TV leaders Q A, Ed Miliband was asked about socialism. Watch his answer which explains why Britain only succeeds when working people succeed.
By: Unionstogether
Follow this link:
Ed Miliband - what socialism means to him - Video
Andrew Rosindell On The FAILURE Of Socialism
Andrew Rosindell On The FAILURE Of Socialism Give A Like/Fav If You Enjoyed The Video. Patreon http://www.patreon.com/user?u=395717 Follow Me On Google+: ...
By: Ukippers
Continue reading here:
Andrew Rosindell On The FAILURE Of Socialism - Video
Pyongyang, April 9 (KCNA) -- The March issue of the Peruvian paper Accion Nacionalista carried an article titled "DPRK-the only socialist country in the world" written by the director of the paper, illustrated with a portrait of smiling President Kim Il Sung on the occasion of his birth anniversary.
The article said:
The DPRK is an independent socialist country.
To look back on history, everything collapsed and socialism faced a setback due to the crises in the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European socialist countries.
Then how has the DPRK kept standing?
In the DPRK President Kim Il Sung, the great leader of revolution, prominent thinker and theoretician, staunch fighter and founder of the Juche idea, founded the Workers' Party of Korea, established the Korean-style socialist system and maintained independence in political and economic affairs on the highest level.
Thanks to his line, socialism in the DPRK didn't collapse and it will stand more firmly in the future.
The paper also carried a photo of the military parade held at Kim Il Sung Square.
Excerpt from:
Peruvian Paper Praises Korean-Style Socialism
James Bovard 10:02 a.m. EDT April 10, 2015
In this March 14, 2015 file photo, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks at a training workshop for the New Hampshire state Republican Party in the auditorium at Concord High School in Concord, N.H. Walker is facing criticism for seeming to change his stance on certain issues to court political favor ahead of the GOP presidential primaries.(Photo: Jim Cole, AP)
Governor Scott Walker has soared to the front of Republican presidential candidates thanks largely to his reputation for fighting wasteful government spending in Wisconsin. Republican faithful across the nation envision Walker as the great hope to finally end Washington budget shenanigans. But a tangled, tawdry stadium subsidy deal Walker is championing raises questions about whether the Wisconsin governor is ready to play in the Big League.
Gov. Walker last month asked the Wisconsin legislature to provide $220 million in funding for a new stadium for the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. Walker claims that his proposal relies on a "common-sense, fiscally conservative approach" that is carefully structured to avoid gouging Wisconsinites: "There's absolute security for the taxpayers. No new taxes, no drawing on existing revenues, no exposure to the future."
But the stadium subsidy, which Walker labels "Pay Your Way," relies on an accounting gimmick pretending to earmark the future tax payments of NBA players to cover the costs of the tax-free bonds to finance the stadium. Republican Wisconsin Rep. Chris Kapenga said, "The governor's proposal would divert these increased tax dollars, which are included in future revenue projections... to the owners of the Bucks to help fund the Milwaukee arena." Nor is there any reason to presume that government outlays will not soar in the following years. As the Manhattan Institute's Steven Malanga warns about stadium subsidies: "If you build it for them, they will fleece you."
USA TODAY
Is Gov. Scott Walker ready for prime time? Our view
Walker claims that bankrolling a new arena "will preserve and potentially expand jobs and economic growth related to the facility." (The Bucks owners have threatened to pull out of Milwaukee unless they get receive the stadium equivalent of a king's ransom.) But a government injection of capital into a basketball venue will not magically revive Milwaukee's prosperity. Economist Dennis Coates, in a study for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, warns that the presence of professional sports teams "may actually reduce local incomes... Wages and employment in the retail and services sectors have dropped [in many local economies] because of professional sports." Howard Gleckman of the liberal Urban Institute also concludes that "there is no evidence that professional sports stadiums do anything to increase economic development."
Walker's stadium pitch is strongly opposed by the liberal group One Wisconsin Now and by the Wisconsin Conservative Digest, whose editor, Bob Dohnal scoffs: "All these claims about development and improving the economy are all just baloney."
Stadium socialism is crony capitalism at its worst. A Bloomberg News analysis concluded that subsidies for sports structures have cost taxpayers $4 billion in recent decades. Professional sports team owners tend to be the among the richest 1% of the richest 1%.
Read more from the original source:
Scott Walker's stadium socialism: Column
Its rare that I disagree with David Boaz over at Cato, my more usual attitude is the doffed cap and tugged forelock of the peasantry meeting the gentry. However, Im afraid that Boaz is actually wrong here about Venezuela and what is causing the laughable (for us outside the country, not so laughable for those inside it) shortage of toilet paper. This isnt the result of socialism, this is the result of anti-marketism. This is an important distinction that we have to make: however much those to the left of us (and given where Boaz and I are on the spectrum, thats most of humanity) confuse these two things capitalism is not the same thing as a market based economy nor is socialism the opposite of one. Theyre descriptions of things that are operating on different axes.
Heres what Boaz actually says:
Venezuela Reaches the Final Stage of Socialism: No Toilet Paper
Shortages, queues, black markets, and official theft. And blaming the CIA. Yes, Venezuela has truly achieved socialism.
But what I never understood is this: Why toilet paper? How hard is it to make toilet paper? I can understand a socialist economy having trouble producing decent cars or computers. But toilet paper?
Well, yes, I was in the Soviet Union at the same time of Boazs first visit and yes, it was something difficult to find. As it happens I was at an exhibition of Czech 1980s living standards a few weeks ago where a friend took this picture:
(Picture credit, Miroslav Balej) That block on the right hand side, about the size of a bar of soap, is in fact 200 sheets of the standard toilet paper of the time and place. So, maybe we can claim it is socialism that causes this?
Except, in the case of Venezuela at least, this isnt what has gone wrong. Sure, some of the bits of socialism that have been imposed have had the usual predictable effects but the toilet paper thing isnt one of them.
Just to clarify our terms here, socialism and capitalism are two competing descriptions of who owns the productive assets. In capitalism its the capitalists, in socialism some social grouping. It can be the state, most certainly, in state socialism as the Soviets had it. It could be the workers themselves in an organisation, as in a workers co op (say, Mondragon in Spain). It might be the customers (say, Building and Friendly Societies in my native UK) and it could even be the management (just about every law firm ever). But our differentiation here is of who owns the capital.
Theres no particular reason to think that capitalism is the best answer for all areas of the economy and there are good reasons to think that socialism isnt a good answer to all areas of the economy (most especially large, capital hungry, enterprises). We can usually just leave this to experimentation to find out. Youd be surprised how much of the economy is actually socialist in this sense: Goldman Sachs, until it listed on the stock market a few years ago, would have fit into this definition of socialism. It was a partnership, owned by the management.
Excerpt from:
Venezuela's Not Suffering From Socialism But From Anti-Marketism