Mediaboss Marketing

When students in China returned to classrooms in September, they were provided with a new series of textbooks outlining Chinas president Xi Jinping, or Grandpa Xis, political philosophy.

Each textbook on Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the New Era, as Xis political philosophy is officially called, is tailored to students at primary, secondary and tertiary levels.

Xi Jinping Thought was enshrined into the Chinese Communist Partys Constitution in 2017. Although the main stated aims are to remain committed to reform and build a moderately prosperous society, the realities of this political philosophy has been a tightening of party discipline and curtailing of social freedom.

While prior textbooks were focused on the Communist Party, the new versions centre on Chinas paramount leader. In this way, they reflect the growing personality cult of Xi Jinping, eerily reminiscent of the days of Chinas founding father Mao Zedong.

According to Chinas National Textbook Committee, the textbooks reflect the will of the Communist Party of China and the nation and directly impact the direction and quality of talent cultivation.

In particular, the committee stated, Primary schools should foster love and right understanding for the Party, country and socialism in students.

The core socialist values highlighted in the textbooks include prosperity, patriotism and friendship.

Targeted at children, the moniker of Grandpa Xi is part of the ongoing strategy towards creating a personality cult in China. Authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union also used the grandfather figure (Grandpa Lenin) as part of propaganda aimed at children. This enhanced Lenins personality cult across the Soviet nations.

Political scientist Pao-min Chang defines the personality cult as, The artificial elevation of the status and authority of one man [] through the deliberate creation, projection and propagation of a godlike image.

Like Lenin, a personality cult around Mao Zedong emerged during Chinas Cultural Revolution (19661976). Although later leaders Deng Xiaoping, the architect of Chinas economic reform and Wen Jiabao, who was Premier between 2003 and 2013, are popularly known as Grandpa Deng and Grandpa Wen, they did not overtly push for this image.

Xi returns to Mao in his efforts to build a personality cult around himself. Since coming to power, he has cultivated the image of being a man of the people in a bid to make his authoritarianism more palpable to the masses.

The new primary school textbooks emphasise Xis wisdom, friendliness and care for the children. Early signs of this strategy can be seen in the government propaganda video, Grandpa Xi is Our Big Friend, which circulated online in 2015.

The video was recorded at Yanan Yucai Primary School in Shaanxi. The location is significant because the school was founded by Mao Zedong in 1937.

In the video, Xi Jinping is not presented as a distant authority figure. Instead, Grandpa Xi is a caring big friend. The children sing that his warm smile is brighter than the sun. Images of children waving sunflowers and lyrics that describe Xis visit as better than the warmth of a spring day serve to accentuate his friendly disposition.

Most importantly, the children sing about the need to study diligently to achieve the Chinese Dream. This dream is Xi Jinpings vision for China to become a prosperous society.

The children wear red scarves and red stars in the video. These symbols represent the national flag. The colour red alludes to the blood of revolutionary martyrs. They remind children of their connection to the nation and the Party.

Xi wears a red scarf in the video. In one scene, he places a red scarf over the shoulders of a child. This accessory and gesture are depicted in the 2021 primary school textbooks as well. The act of placing a scarf on a child signifies children taking on the mantle of happily fulfilling Grandpa Xis vision.

The textbook for lower primary students contain photos of Xi planting trees with children and meeting them at school.

The books include statements such as, Grandpa Xi Jinping is very busy with work, but no matter how busy he is, he still joins our activities and cares about our growth.

Xi shares his memories of being emotional when joining the Young Pioneers of China (the Communist Partys youth organisation) in 1960. He then invites readers to describe their own feelings about becoming a part of the Young Pioneers, thus encouraging young people to join.

The textbooks use illustrations with speech bubbles to make the ideological content more interesting. Some illustrations are of students sitting around a table teaching each other Grandpa Xis expectations to become a person of good moral character and who is diligent and thrifty.

The books also emphasise acquiring knowledge about science and technology, as well as being creative and innovative.

The children must cultivate these markers of good citizenship to become what the books refer to as qualified builders and successors of socialism. This rhetoric of children as the hope of the nation has been in use since the late nineteenth century.

The emphasis on being qualified suggests children must live up to the expectations set out by Xi. The textbooks imply this is only possible because of Grandpa Xis continued care for them.

This image of Grandpa Xi as a big friend is a gentler form of propaganda than that seen during Maos Cultural Revolution. Propaganda aimed at children during the Cultural Revolution positioned the Party as the surrogate parent. It also highlighted childrens violence as they fought for the socialist cause. Young Red Guards sang patriotic songs and read the Little Red Book. These rituals fostered Maos cult of personality.

It remains to be seen whether the new school curriculum is a harbinger of the future deification of Xi Jinping.

Shih-Wen Sue Chen is a Senior Lecturer in Writing and Literature at the Deakin University. Sin Wen Lau is a Senior Lecturer in China Studies at the University of Otago.

This article first appeared on The Conversation.

Here is the original post:
Chinas new school textbooks reflect the rise of Grandpa Xis personality cult - Scroll.in

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