Mediaboss Marketing

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

On Friday the United Kingdom could have Marxist leaders for the first time in our history. It is an unlikely prospect, but inherent to our democracy is the uncertainty that choice represents. Some may think this remarkable after the great partnership of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and winning the Cold War.

Polling shows strong support for Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party among young voters. Corbyn (pictured) would choose as his finance minister John McDonnell, who has made his Marxist sympathies clear. Of course the Berlin Wall came down 27 years ago. For those born after it, or who were too young to remember it, the solidarity that Corbyn expressed for a totalitarian Communist regime might seem an obscure historical point.

Instead, some voters are attracted to all the free stuff being promised in Labours manifesto fee child care, free college tuition, more welfare money, more NHS spending and so on. All the state controls to magically provide lower rents, lower prices and higher pay.

There has been a surreal discussion about the level of costings that Labour has offered. For instance, they have proposed increased Corporation Tax. Yet all the evidence is that increasing the Corporation Tax rate would result in reduced Corporation Tax revenue.

That is the reality of the modern, global economy. Unfortunately, it is not a reality that the media or the Conservatives have pushed the electorate to confront. The claim that tax hikes can automatically raise more money has not been greatly scrutinised.

There is an even more fundamental point about Labours entire economic programme. Corbynomics would impoverish the nation. We have seen around the world how hardline socialist measures have been followed by economic collapse. Corbyns election chief Andrew Murray has praised North Korea. That is a country where forced labour and starvation of political weapons of the regime.

There is Venezuela, the model that Corbyn wishes to follow, where socialism has led to food shortages and civil unrest. Zimbabwe shows what happens under widespread nationalisation and hyperinflation. Fidel Castro impoverished and enslaved Cuba. Yet Corbyn called Castro a champion of social justice.

How long would it take for Britain to be ruined under Corbyn? It is not as if the British public finances are in a terribly strong state as it is. The annual deficit has been falling, but more slowly than scheduled. Meanwhile, the National Debt escalates ever more dangerously. Remember this has happened under a Conservative Government which has aimed for prudence, despite the noisy demands for a more indulgent approach.

Imagine if the next government took its feet off the brakes. A binge of state spending and borrowing would threaten bankruptcy. We could face the Greek scenario of cash machines refusing to pay out money and public sector staff being delayed in being paid their salaries.

Still, at least Corbyn has won the praise of Senator Bernie Sanders. I have been very impressed by the campaign that he has been running and I wish him the very best, said Sanders recently. This is hardly surprising but is certainly not reassuring. The two men are alike. Both spout rhetoric about helping the poor. Yet across the globe we can see the appalling poverty caused by the socialist policies they demand.

Originally posted here:
Socialism Always Results in Economic Collapse and the UK Could be Next - Heat Street

In Berlin, the great Galerie Berinson presents a representative cross-section of Lithuanian photography from the 60s and 70s by showing 71 masterpieces in black and white from twelve Lithuanian photographers. The works are photographic reports from a social, political and artistic epoch everyday life under and beyond socialism.

Amongst the selection of works are shown photographs by three of the most influential photographers from Eastern Europe:Vitas Luckus(1943-1987),Aleksandras Macijauskas(*1938), andAntanas Sutkus(*1939) who is honored with the Dr. Erich-Salomon-Award from the German society for Photography (DGPh). Lithuanias history of photography is shaped by both, the influences from Western Europe and the Soviet cultural context. Between 1945 and 1991 a narrative- descriptive reporting photography developed known as the Lithuanian photography school in the history of photography.

Here, the photographers concentrate on a personal and realistic depiction of everyday life.The fundamental loci of life are central ones homeland, the market place, the countryside. Their works withdrew from the largely anonymous and ideologically influenced photography scene of the Soviet Union and became a kind of subtle social criticism that focused on profane and simple subjects.

The Lithuanian school of photography May 19 July 29, 2017 Galerie Berinson Schlterstrae 28 10629 Berlin Germany

http://www.berinson.de/

View post:
The Lithuanian school of photography, everyday life under and ... - The Eye of Photography

ERIC WEINSTEIN: I get asked a lot about the state of capitalism and I think that for those members of society of a certain age we think of capitalism as being locked in an ideological battle with socialism perhaps or even communism.

But we never really saw that capitalism might be defeated by its own child technology. And I think that what we find is that even the most diehard free market economists usually save place for what they call market failure.

That is, markets really only work when the value of something and the price of that object or service coincide. So the key question is: what causes value and price to get out of alignment? And, in fact, every government on earth has a form of levying taxes of some form, because at some level there are certain things that need to be paid for that cannot, in fact, be priced where they must be valued.

So, for example, raising a standing army is tough because if somebody chooses not to pay for it its very difficult to exclude them from the protection of that army. So that in generalwhat we find is that these market failures are found in every economy, but they are also hopefully a small portion of the economic activity so that we can deal with them as a special edge case.

Now the problem with this is that technology appears to do something about figuring out the size of that small slice and making it rather large. So, for example, if I record a piece of music, once upon a time if you wanted a high quality version of that music you had to go to the folks who actually pressed the record albums.

But now I can record music with arbitrary fidelity and share it as a small file. And my having a copy of that file doesnt preclude anyone else from copying the file and using it themselves. Theres no question that the number of times I use that file doesnt really degrade the file because its, in fact, digital. So in that situation musicians were among the first to feel the earth crumble beneath their feet and they had to find new business models because, in fact, they found that they had gone from producing a private good where price and value coincided to producing a public good.

And the idea of taxing people to pay for both an army and their diet of jazz and rock n roll probably didnt make a lot of sense.So the danger is that more and more things are being turned into small files, and that means that the portion of the pie that is private goods is likely to shrink. This is one of several different forces.

Another one that I talked about in an essay called Anthropic Capitalism is that software has some very peculiar features.Traditionally technology has moved us from low value occupations into higher value occupations. So while we always decry the loss of jobs we usually create new jobs which are more fulfilling and less taxing.

And therefore those who have cried wolf when theyve seen technology laying waste to the previous occupations, those people have usually just been wrong. The problem with software is that software spends most of its time in loops. Almost all code can be broken into two kinds of code. Code that runs once and never repeats and code that loops over and over and over. Unfortunately what jobs are is usually some form of a loop where somebody goes to work and does some version of whatever it is theyve been trained to do every day. Now the danger of that is that what we didnt realize is that our technical training for occupations maneuvers the entire population into the crosshairs of software. Its not just a question in this case of being moved from lower value repetitive behaviors into higher ones.

But the problem is is that all repetitive behaviors are in the crosshairs of software. So its not that theres nowhere to go; we still have the Rube Goldberg sections of code, where something will happen only once. You know: a company will be founded, never to be repeated. A poem will be composed that will never need to be recomposed.

But the problem here is that most people dont see themselves as opportunists in this positive sense, right. They dont see themselves as capable of doing these one off acts of inspiration, which will probably always be fairly highly rewarded. They see themselves as needing a repetitive behavior on which they can build their families, their hopes and their dreams. And in general that may be coming to a close. Even if thats always been false in the past I think that theres excellent reason to think that the era may have changed.

When we lost the ability to beat computers at chess we immediately thought of Go as being a deeper game. But that bought us a very small respite from the power of the computer.

And I dont even know of anyone searching for new games more human-friendly than Go to maintain our edge. So I think its really important to understand that where we are is that we may need a hybrid model in the future which is paradoxically more capitalistic than our capitalism of today and perhaps even more socialistic than our communism of yesteryear, because so many souls will require respect and hope and freedom and choice who may not be able to defend themselves in the market as our machines and our software gets better and better.

And this is one of the reasons why something like universal basic income comes out of a place fiercely capitalistic like Silicon Valley, because despite the fact that many view the technologists as mercenary megalomaniacs, in fact, these are the folks who are closest to seeing the destruction that their work may visit upon the population.

And I dont know I think of any 9, 10 or 11-figure individual at the moment that Im familiar with who isnt worrying about what were going to do to take care of those who may not be able to meet their expectations with training and jobs as in previous models.

Whether its truck and car-driving is one of the largest employers of working age men threatened by self-driving vehicles or any of the other examples. For example: computers that are capable of writing sports stories from the scores alone.

So in all of these cases I think the technology is actually forcing those who are most familiar with it to become most compassionate. And whether or not we are going to leaven our capitalism with some communism or start from some sort of socialist ideal and realize that if we dont find a way to grow our pie very aggressively with the tiny number of individuals who are capable of taking over operations of great complexity, I think that we are going to have some kind of a hybrid system.

I wish I could tell you what it was going to look like but the fact is nobody knows. Universal basic income is very interesting but is clearly a first step and I would say really a first draft of a part of a theory that we just dont have yet.

Its hard to say whether Im optimistic about the future. Im very confused as to why our government is still populated with so many soft let me try it again. Honestly Im rather confused about whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. One of the things that I find most perplexing is that our government is still populated by people who come from sort of softer disciplines if you will. Whether thats law, whether these people come from poli-sci, very few people in government come from a hard core technical background. There are very few senators who could solve a partial differential equation or representatives who could program a computer.

And I think that this is really a terrible inversion of what should be happening. As the world becomes more technically demanding its important that the children of engineers, mathematicians and scientists grow up with the children of politicians or executives.

And what weve seen is weve seen this terrible economic stratification where the technical professions were turned into support roles for this different leadership class.

Now during the 50s, for example, we would have university presidents who might come from a physics background such as we had at the University of Pennsylvania. The atomic bomb came out of World War II, as did radar. We came to understand the incredible power of computers like ENIAC and during that period of time there was a tremendous vogue for thinking of a technical intellectual elite that could, in fact, lead us into a more hopeful and technological scientific tomorrow.

Somewhere along the line that got lost and Im very concerned that we have the technical talent to build an optimistic future, but that what for whatever reason were so terrified now of those technical folks that we keep attempting to subordinate them, to keep them on a leash, to make sure that they are not the ones in the know with power, with decision-making abilities.

And I think that if you look at a society like Chinas, Chinas certainly not falling for this trap and they are proceeding along a very different path.

So I think whether or not we understand where we are and we make the correct decisions for the optimistic future depends as to whether we have the right leadership class. Do we view our technical people as support staff for the true decision-makers or do we realize that, in fact, these are the people who should have been making the decisions all along?

I think if you think about, for example, the Challenger disaster it was the management class that didnt understand the real risks. The engineers knew just how much risk was being taken. And I think that, in fact, if we could just invert that relationship wed have a much better chance at an optimistic outcome.

Read the rest here:
Why Capitalism Needs Socialism to Survive | Big Think - Big Think

(Kay Nietfeld/dpa via AP)

Socialism is a profitable business for those who sell it to the masses just look millionaires and billionaires like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Bernie Sanders.

The Vermont Senator crisscrossed the country speaking to millions of millennials that have been shafted by student loan debt, a bad economy, and over regulation that has crippled their ability at achieving the American dream. While speaking to their ills and preaching about how more socialism will solve all their problems, Sanders netted more than a million dollars for himself, reportedSeven Days Vermont.

His salary was drawn primarily from book sales, Sanders earned a $795,000 advance for Our Revolution and $63,750 for his upcoming childrens book Bernie Sanders Guide to a Political Revolution. He also made $9,256 as royalties for previous books and spoken word albums hes recorded.

Adding that to his $174,000 a year income as a U.S. Senator puts him at $1,052,000. Hes become the thing he hates one of the wretched millionaires and billionaires.

Things are not all rosy for the socialist Senator, he still owes a mortgage on two of his three homes, and his retirement account is only between$192,000 and $815,000.

Its really impossible to blame the Senator, a lot of people market themselves as something theyre not in order to make money. Sanders is no different, marketing a product that spoke to peoples needs, desires, and fears and laughing all the way to bank.

At least he proved one thing, socialism does work if you want to make money.

Originally posted here:
Bernie Sanders made $1 million in 2016 selling socialism to college kids - Red Alert Politics