Mediaboss Marketing

By Fernando Ravsberg

Photo: Raquel Perez Diaz

HAVANA TIMES The Cuban Parliament has finally approved the groundwork for the reforms process put forward by President Raul Castro and his government. However, it has done so with some reserves, the most sensitive subject seems to revolve around private businesses and a consequent accumulation of wealth.

Legalizing private property over modes of production has raised clear suspicions among some legislators. They fear that wealth will start becoming concentrated and that this will lead the country to experience a social inequality similar to that in the rest of Latin America.

However, economists ensure them that without the accumulation of capital, private businesses wont be able to develop to such an extent. Business people need to reinvest, they need funds to put up with losses, they need tax breaks from the start and personal financial incentives.

So then we reach a point where social differences will inevitably deepen. The national economy can no longer be regulated by the socialist laws of From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution, not even in theory.

Although, its only the shreds of this economic principle that remain in reality and its been like this for a long time. Ever since salaries lost their real value in the 90s, the prevailing axiom in the economy seems to be From each according to his/her astuteness, to each according to their cunning.

2. The self-employed will never be able to become businesspeople while they are banned from accumulating capital. Photo: Raquel Perez Diaz

Meritocracy has also lost popular support, according to which those who piled up revolutionary duties could live better than the rest of Cubans. The problem here is that it became hereditary and today their children are enjoying these privileges, even though they have no track record of contribution of their own.

Inequality isnt the result of updating the system, it has been growing since the 90s because of many different factors such as family remittances, dollarization, opening the national economy to foreign investment, tourism or children of the elite reaching adulthood.

The reforms seek to legalize the country that currently exists, in some way or another. Self-employment, the underground small and medium sized business person or those alleged Cuban managers of foreign companies who are in actual fact the real company owners.

With these changes, the national economy will start to integrate this underground world, which has been operating on the side for many years. This grounding in reality will allow a better distribution of wealth because the government will be able to charge taxes to those people who have never paid them.

There is a lot of suspicion in Parliament, in the PCC and in society on the whole with the approval of private property over modes of production.

Of course, now there are new dilemmas, like what always happens whenever you leave stagnation behind and begin to move forward. Some economists claim that if you dont allow the self-employed to accumulate a bit of wealth, they will never be able to become business people.

Without accumulation of capital, the only people who can become owners of small and medium-sized companies are those who receive money from abroad or those who managed to accumulate it during socialism, a significant part of whom are corrupt and/or criminals.

In one way or another, this concentration of wealth will lead to deepening social differences between Cubans and in a poor country this can even lead to a few people taking the largest slices of cake for themselves, leaving others without even a taste.

However, the truth is that there is still a lot to establish: How many employees can a medium-sized company employ? What are the limits on the accumulation of capital? What government mechanisms will redistribute wealth? How will the government ensure that there are equal opportunities for all Cubans in this kind of society?

The terms private enterprise or wealth accumulation can scare a few people a lot and encourage others too much, but until details are revealed, we are only dealing with abstractions. And it will be these details that then define the countrys future socio-economic model.

See the rest here:
Cuba: Socialism, Private Property and Wealth - Havana Times

FT Alphaville (registration)

Socialism with trolly characteristics | FT Alphaville FT Alphaville (registration) You could say you owned that watch, or that refrigerator, or that house, or those shares in that mutual fund, but you wouldn't actually have a claim to any of it. and more »

Read more from the original source:
Socialism with trolly characteristics | FT Alphaville - FT Alphaville (registration)

Jeremy Corbyns socialist policies of state control, high spending, class warfare and punitive taxation have been tried in many countries. We know how these policies turn out and it is always the same: badly.

As a starting point, he appointed a Stalinist as a key advisor, ignored warnings about Trot infiltration of the Labour Party and called for the complete rehabilitation of Leon Trotsky himself.

We should all know what hardline Communism produces: the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea or, at best, Cuba or East Germany. Yet Mr. Corbyn thinks that the same policies that produced repeated catastrophes before will produce a socialist nirvana in the UK. While the Bourbons learnt nothing and forgot nothing, the UK Hard Left seems to have learned nothing at all. Consider some of Mr. Corbyns comrades abroad and the damage they have wrought.

Exhibit Number One is Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. Twenty years ago Venezuela was one of the richest countries in the world. Now it is one of the poorest. Food is scarce, people are starving and inflation is approaching a thousand per cent. Venezuelan agriculture and industry have been all but destroyed and the countrys oil wealth has been wasted. But to quote Corbyn shortly after Chavez died in 2013: Chavez showed us that there is a different and a better way of doing things ... Its called socialism, its called social justice and its something that Venezuela has made a big step towards.

Sorry, Jeremy, but a system that starves the population it serves is not one that promotes social justice and the only big step made by Venezuela recently is towards breakdown, mass starvation and a looming revolution.

Exhibit Number Two is Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. At independence in 1980, the Tanzanian President, Julius Nyerere told Mugabe You have inherited a jewel; look after it. Instead Mugabe squandered it and shamelessly too. Run by a self-described socialist, Mugabes regime is a kleptomaniac plutocracy that has mismanaged the country to the point of ruin, produced a hyperinflation of almost 80 billion percent a month by 2008 and destroyed what was left of Zimbabwean civil society. One can add to that enormous human rights abuses and a collapse in public health as the government botched attempts to contain AIDS and other epidemics. Yet the Zimbabwean First Family have accumulated enormous wealth under their dictatorship and Mrs. Mugabe is a notorious shopaholic who is reputed to spend millions on each of her shopping trips.

Example Three is former President Cristina Fernndez de Kirchner in Argentina. Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world in the early 20th century. Decades of economic mismanagement have since reduced it to a third world basket case. Ms. Kirchners own policies were a disastrous interventionist cocktail that left the Argentinian economy in yet another major crisis as she left office. She was however one of the first world leaders to congratulate Mr. Corbyn on his election as Labour leader. She described his election as a triumph of hope and a victory for those putting politics at the service of people and the economy at the service of the well-being of all citizens. She is now facing charges of corruption in office.

What do these examples all have in common? They show how to take a prosperous country blessed with abundant resources and reduce it to destitutionand all in the name of the people. In each case, there is also a massive increase in inequality between the very top and the mass of the population below, the key to which is breathtaking corruption made possible by state control. This is how socialism works in practice.

Nor should we forget that hardcore socialism has been tried in the UK too. We had flying pickets, energy cuts and candlelit diners as the Hard Left in the trade union movement took on the ailing Heath government in 1974. The government then calledand losta who runs Britain election and Labour came to office with a Socialist agenda.

The results? Out-of-control unions, a bloated inefficient public sector and an economic crisis requiring an IMF bailout. This crisis was followed by the winter of discontent, unburied bodies and trash piling up in the streets.

Really. We have seen this movie before. Vote for Corbyns Labour and our past will soon become our future.

***

Kevin Dowd is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and is the co-editor of the Independent bookMoney and the Nation State.

Read the original here:
Jeremy Corbyn's Hardcore Socialism Would Render Britain Destitute - The Beacon (blog)

The International Examiner

Opinion: Understand what socialism means for some Asian immigrants The International Examiner It's something we see often here in Seattlecandidates and parties embracing socialism, particularly while riding the very valid and important movements in resistance to Trump. But as socialist themes become popular tropes and codes for ultra-liberal ...

Go here to see the original:
Opinion: Understand what socialism means for some Asian immigrants - The International Examiner

Communism is one of our top all-time lookups, and user comments suggest thats because it is often used in opaque ways. In some sources, communism is equated with socialism; in others, it is contrasted with democracy and capitalism. Part of this confusion stems from the fact that the word communism has been applied to varying political systems over time. When it was first used in English prose, communism referred to an economic and political theory that advocated the abolition of private property and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people, and it was often used interchangeably with the word socialism by 19th-century writers. The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers used communism to refer to the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marxs theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society, societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production, and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marxs theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controls a societys economy and social activities with the goal of realizing Marxs theories.

Communism is often contrasted with capitalism and democracy, though these can be false equivalencies depending on the usage. Capitalism refers to an economic theory in which a societys means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where prices, distribution of goods, and products are determined by a free market. It can be contrasted with the economic theories of communism, though the word communism is used of both political and economic theories. Democracy refers to a system of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised through a system of direct or indirect representation which is decided through periodic free elections. Democracy is contrasted with communism primarily because the 20th-century communism of the U.S.S.R. was characterized by an authoritarian government, whereas the democracy of the 20th-century U.S. was characterized by a representative government.

View post:
Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster