Mediaboss Marketing

China's Great Hall of the People adorned with Chinese flags and emblem.

Socialism is a political and economic ideology employed by certain governments around the world. Often seen as the opposite of capitalism, socialism prescribes the belief of equal wealth distribution and government control of the economy. The dominance of socialism in global politics peaked in the mid-20th century, during the height of the Cold War. Socialist countries are classified into two categories: countries which belief in Marxism-Leninism ideologies and those which do not. Currently, there exist only four countries around the globe that are recognized as Marxist-Leninist socialist. These countries are China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam.

The Peoples Republic of China is the oldest existing socialist country in the world, with socialism being practiced since 1949. The Communist Party of China, the countrys ruling and largest party, is driven by socialist ideals. The party was founded in 1921 and is among the oldest in Asia. The partys ideology can be defined as a blend between Chinese communism and Marxism-Leninism. The leader of the Communist Party of China is also the socialist nations head of state. China still shares strong relations with other socialist countries and communist parties in former socialist countries.

Laos is another socialist country in Asia. The Laos Peoples Revolutionary Party sanctions socialism in the country. Founded in 1955, the Laos Peoples Revolutionary Party is the countrys ruling and largest party, holding 128 of the total 132 seats in parliament as of 2016. The party is a descendant from the older Communist Party of Vietnam, which inspired the growth of socialist political movements in Asia in the early 20th century. The party inherited many of the Communist Partys socialist policies including the Marxism-Leninism ideology.

Cuba is the only country in the western hemisphere that practices socialist ideologies. The country embraced socialism in July 1966 and was spearheaded by the countrys longest-ruling leader, Fidel Castro. The Communist Party of Cuba, the countrys ruling party, is responsible for advancing socialist policies in Cuba. The party was established in October 1965, six years after the deposing of Fulgencio Batista, as a merger of the Popular Socialist Party, Revolutionary Directory, and the 26th of July Movement, with Fidel Castro as its Central Committees First Secretary. The country practices a strict version of the Marxism-Leninism socialism. Cuba has a history of participating in revolutionary movements in other nations, including Angola, which later became a socialist country.

Angola is one of the few countries in Sub-Saharan Africa considered to be socialist. The country's constitution is explicit in its definition of the government structure, stating that Angola is a socialist state. However, the government is yet to implement these provisions of the constitution that would make Angola a socialist state in practice. Nonetheless, the country seems to be gradually embracing democratic systems of governance and even has characteristics which define capitalism. Some scholars, however, believe that socialism in the country ended in August 1992. Benin is another country whose constitution defines it as a socialist but has embraced a different political ideology. Other examples include Poland, Hungary, Mozambique, and Albania.

Read the original post:
Countries That Are Considered Socialist - WorldAtlas

This is an opinion column.

Americans love iPhones and rock Nikes. Gmail accounts streamline inboxes like never before. Facebook and Twitter have heavily supplanted conversations in the real world. Even with an occasionally burnt taste, we cant get enough Starbucks. Unfortunately, many conservatives have discovered their social and political values dont line up with those companies. Then a Republican politician shows up. Im from the government, he says, and Im here to help.

Dont fall for it. Its socialism wearing a conservative mask.

For quite some time, Republican politicians have hidden their command and control tendencies behind the idea of populism. The term essentially identifies a philosophy where people have a material say in the political and economic systems that impact them. That concept is as American as apple pie. When the people decide that theyre going to socialize control over American businesses, the populists are, in fact, socialists.

Conservatives conveniently tag Democrats as socialists because the most progressive among them would be perfectly willing to control most aspects of Americas corporations. The primary focus is almost always on wages for executives versus labor. The social values of Americas largest corporations already align fairly well with Democrats, so they mostly leave those alone.

Regrettably, Republicans have adopted what amounts to a values-based socialism where the government seeks to control the corporate ethics and decision-making capabilities of business while largely leaving the economics alone.

Sometimes they arent so bashful. In 2017, for example, Tucker Carlson called for Google to be regulated like a public utility. The argument stuck. Earlier this year, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a lawsuit against Google attempting to make Carlsons argument a reality. Some Republicans in Montgomery are tossing around the idea of banning private companies from requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. For too many Republicans across the country, protecting a free marketplace has become secondary to satisfying instant political desires.

Democrats want economic control. Republicans are increasingly interested in controlling the rest. Both are strains of the same socialist virus: government manipulation of Americas economic engine for political gains.

Its easy to miss when its coming from preferred politicians. Every senator, congressman, governor and presidential hopeful believes he or she is the government champion of the average American. That description could also apply to every socialist and communist leader throughout history. Politicians fancy themselves to be Robin Hood while behaving like the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John.

Americas founders wisely realized that the American government must balance the political desires of citizens against longer-term priorities and interests of political minorities. The United States doesnt and shouldnt have a Constitution where the passions of the moment solely dictate our governance.

Imagine that Facebook creates a filter that essentially mutes all conservative posts. Keywords like free market, Reagan, and individual responsibility are flagged and blocked. Most conservatives would understandably be outraged, but we shouldnt run to the government to fix a private decision we hate. I should have as much say over Facebooks content policies as I do the kinds of coffee offered at Starbucks. My choice is to enjoy the products or not.

Dont give me the argument that the government benefits business in certain ways, so the government can then demand whatever it wants. If thats the case, the mere act of incorporating a business entity could be a blank check for government control. Should we end the corporate handouts that skew the marketplace? Absolutely. Do those government goodies and tax breaks justify socialist-style controls? No.

When the folks complaining about social media bias communicate their outrage via the platforms they criticize, the complaints ring a bit hollow. Most of us arent looking up what charities our preferred products support in deciding whether were going to buy the product. When it comes to the politically disaffected abandoning companies in droves, its seldom enough to move the needle. Twitter is perfectly fine losing a relatively small population of fiery right-wing politicos to Parler.

Republicans absolutely want technologies, services, and goods made by companies with far more progressive values. Regrettably, weve become increasingly willing to use the government to secure the former without the latter. Its as wrong as the socialist who wants economic control of businesses while preserving a free expression of their social values and norms. Economic and civil liberties are the bedrock of American democracy, both deserve our protection even if doing so isnt politically popular.

Smith is a recovering political attorney with three boys, two dogs, and an extremely patient wife. He engages media, business, and policy through the Triptych Foundation and Triptych Media. Please direct outrage or agreement to csmith@al.com or @DCameronSmith on Twitter.

Continued here:
Cameron Smith: Conservatives must address the rise of Republican socialism - AL.com

Text Size:A- A+

Air Indias privatisation is finally underway, albeit, belatedly. Consequently, this has led to conversations around the planned economy, and in turn blamed the Socialist economy for Indias woes. These debates presume that India was forced into planning; this assumption undermines the countrys economic history, and disregards the role that Indian businesses played in shaping economic policy leading up to Independence.

In 1944, during the height of the Bengal famine, and with the seeming inevitability of Independence, J.R.D. Tata and seven other industrialists and executives G.D. Birla, Purushottam Das Thakurdas, Ardeshir Shroff, Kasturbhai Lalbhai, Ardeshir Dalal, John Matthai, and Lal Shri Ram came together to write a manifesto on the future of the Indian economy post-Independence. This was known as the Bombay Plan, or more formally called A Plan of Economic Development for India. The authors of the plan helped set up the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), supported the Indian National Congress (INC) during the Freedom struggle and even sat on the viceroys executive council during WWII.

Also read: From challenge to a challenger Why Air Indias new journey has a lot flying on it

The Bombay Plan aimed to express the authors views on the post-Independence economy. It had the following components: a transition from agricultural domination to industrialisation; the allocation of resources through centralised planning, and the division of industries into basic industries, dominated by the State, and consumer industries, left to the private sector. From its outset, the plan acknowledged the primacy of the State in organising the economy and providing basic necessities to citizens. Historians such as Medha Kudaisya call the plan a revolutionary idea in State planning since it adopted a middle way for the private sector to coexist in a planned economy. On the other hand, Vivek Chibber in Locked in Place, argues that the plan was a way for businesses to entrench their own vested interests. (Vivek Chibber, Locked in Place: State-Building and Late Industrialization in India (Princeton, N.J.; Princeton University Press, 2006), 86.)

The principle objective of the plan was to bring about a doubling of the present per capita income within a period of fifteen years from the time the plan comes into operation, and increase production of power and capital goods. It then went on to define a reasonable living standard, cost of housing, clothing and food to individuals, housing requirements, and the provision of essential infrastructure like sewage treatment, water and electricity. It planned to achieve these aims in three leaps spread over five years, analogous to the Five-Year Plans. The table below reflects these priorities.

The planners argued for a mixed-economy model, where the government would take control of basic industries, and the private sector would take charge of consumer industries. Basic industries included transportation, chemicals, power generation, and steel production. More significantly, they argued that nationalisation of basic industries could reduce income disparities and that the government had to prioritise basic industries over consumption to reduce poverty. The planners conclude this section by saying, for the success of our economic plan that the basic industries, on which ultimately the whole economic development of the country depends, should be developed as rapidly as possible, emphasising that the government needed to take a leading role in the economy to ensure their provision. This shows that the the business community conceded the centrality of the State in building Indias economy.

The plan was well received, with endorsements from FICCI, RBI Governor C.D. Deshmukh, and the viceroy, who in response to the plan document had established a Department of Planning and Development in 1944 (Tryst with Prosperity). Newspaper editorials in India and abroad supported the plan. The Glasgow Herald commended the planners for thinking about issues such as public health, population control and education that Indian political leaders [could not] be induced to think about, however urgent. The New York Times reported that the main political factions in India do not seem to be coming forward with any such practical approaches, reiterating the view that Indias political elite had not considered policy solutions to Indias problems. However, the plan document was criticised as well for being inaccurate and a vehicle for the elite to entrench their interests over the interests of the poor by K.T. Shah, general secretary of the 1937-38 NPC and Gulzarilal Nanda, future Planning Minister (1951-63)and other economists. Its calculations relied on statistics from 1932, making its assumptions highly outdated and it underestimated the costs of implementing its aims.

Also read: The spirit of my great-grandfather, a shareholder of Air India, is now resurrected

The document was significant since it reframed debates on State planning from arguing if the State should dominate the economy, to analysing the extent to which the State should be involved in the economy. Its influence on Indian economic planning is clearly seen in the immediate aftermath of WWII, and in the First and Second Five-Year Plans that prioritised agricultural development and industrial growth, respectively. It also paved the way for India to adopt a third way in structuring its political economy by providing an opportunity to the country to combine aspects of Western capitalism, Soviet planning, and Western Socialism, allowing India to chart its own independent course. To many, the plan was a way for businesses to signal to the INC leadership that it was willing to accept the supremacy of the State in the economy, while acknowledging the role of the private sector in supporting consumption activity.

Insisting that Nehruvian Socialism was the cause for Indias economic ills without acknowledging the political and economic contexts of post-Independence India reflects an incomplete understanding of Indias formative years after independence. The Bombay Plan is an essential document to understanding the events that led to the creation of Indias planned economy, and reiterates the view that planning was not imposed on the country, but was widely debated across the private and public sphere in the years leading up to Independence.

Vibhav Mariwala studied History and Anthropology at Stanford University. Views are personal.

(Edited by Anurag Chaubey)

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

Original post:
Dont blame Nehrus Socialism for Air India fate. Read the 1944 Bombay Plan first - ThePrint

Cathy Rojas, the socialists candidate for New York City mayor, drew a crowd on Oct. 20 as she stood outside the studio where New York Citys mayoral debates were being held and answered the questions presented to mainstream candidates inside the studio right there on the street.

Why wasnt Rojas in the studio standing in front of the cameras beside Democratic Party candidate Eric Adams and Republican Party candidate Curtis Silwa? Rojas was barred from participating in the debate on WNBC-TV because she hadnt raised hundreds of thousands and dollars for her campaign.

Electoral debates in the city of New York are a game of pay-to-play. If a campaign cannot raise hundreds of thousands in funds within a short amount of time they are barred from the conversation, and New Yorkers lose out on hearing about policies they need and deserve. Billionaires and millionaires put forward their candidates, while candidates that represent working-class interests, like Cathy Rojas are effectively silenced.

But that did not stop Rojas, nor her group, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, nor her many unpaid volunteers. Protesters from the Rojas campaign gathered outside the hall. While some picketed, others distributed literature, drawing an audience.

Right there in the street, in a bold and lively manner, Rojas answered the debate questions in real time as they were presented to the big business candidates, as the questions were texted to her from campaign supporters inside. She detailed her socialist platform, which explains realistic ways that this citys resources can be used to meet the needs of New Yorkers by providing jobs and small business relief, defunding the police, upgrading and protecting NYCHA, fighting for full rights for immigrants, creating truly affordable housing.

Rojas and other speakers asked what the establishment media was afraid of? If socialism was as bad as they claimed, why wouldnt give Rojas a forum to expose this? Rojas detailed the real reasons she was excluded, reasons that not only disrespected her, but working people as a whole.

Im working full-time while campaigning with a team of dedicated volunteers, She said. Because we didnt raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, Im barred from the debates. In a society where money equals power and the media is necessary to get messages out to the most people, a person like me, a worker, isnt taken seriously unless the ultra-rich support my message. This is outrageous. The working class also deserves to have their side represented in the debates! If the media truly cared about what the nurses, custodians, and line cooks cared about, they would like our side on that debate stage.

Passerbys stopped to listen and to video Rojas, some staying for the entire program.

Read more here:
Socialist barred from NYC major debate asks: 'What are they afraid... - Liberation

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Excerpt from:
Letter to the editor: GOP is well; socialism is not - Huntington Herald Dispatch