Mediaboss Marketing

Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders react as he speaks during a rally in Detroit, Mich., March 6, 2020.(Lucas Jackson/Reuters)

Opponents of socialism must make a case that is moral, not merely material.

Young Americans like socialism. Thats one finding of a new Axios/Momentive poll surveying American attitudes toward topics such as economic inequality, capitalism and socialism, and governments role in the economy.

Among Americans aged 18-24, the poll reports that only 42 percent of those surveyed regardless of political affiliation have a positive view of capitalism, while 54 percent have a negative view. Only two years ago, the same polling survey had 58 percent of the same demographic favoring capitalism, while 38 percent had a negative view.

These changes arent just confined to shifts among younger progressive-leaning Americans. In 2019, 81 percent of those who leaned Republican, aged 18-34, had a positive opinion of capitalism. Now, however, only 66 percent of this demographic maintain this view.

Precisely what these younger Americans have in mind by words such as socialism or capitalism isnt discussed in this poll. Few, I imagine, are thinking of a Stalinist command economy when they think of socialism. Their opinions more likely reflect concerns about inequality, a desire to see America become something like a European social democracy, or a sense that theres something wrong with 21st-century American capitalism.

I suspect, however, that sympathies for socialism also reflect a lack of understanding of what free markets are and, importantly, what they are not. In my experience, young Americans will often say that they think the economy is rigged in favor of the privileged and well-connected. Indeed, they are right to believe so.

What they dont grasp is that this problem has little to do with markets and everything to do with the cronyism which permeates Americas economy. Nor do they recognize that cronyism is enabled by widespread government intervention in the economy. The bigger the government, the more likely cronyism will prevail.

Nor is it enough to explain to younger Americans the ways in which capitalisms economic performance is infinitely superior to socialisms record or that of European social democracies, for that matter. Many young people also want to live in an economy which they regard as just. I can only agree.

This makes it ever more urgent for those who support free markets to double down on educating young Americans in the economic and moral case for capitalism. It means taking them through the writings of the very best free-market thinkers people such as Adam Smith, Wilhelm Rpke, F. A. Hayek, and Michael Novak who didnt hesitate to defend markets on economic and moral grounds.

But it also means answering their questions about the issues preoccupying them, whether it is concerns about what they see as unjust wealth and income inequalities, or fears that free trade weakens America vis-a-vis our enemies.

In early June, I had an opportunity to take precisely such a group of young Americans from different backgrounds and political viewpoints through a crash course in the morality and economics of markets under the auspices of The Heritage Foundation. All the participants had some knowledge of economics, but only limited exposure to classic free-market texts and thinkers.

In many cases, they accepted that markets were more efficient and effective in generating wealth than the alternatives. For the most part, however, they had never heard the philosophical arguments for markets laid out by people such as Smith, Rpke, Hayek, and Novak.

Among other things, understanding these arguments involves explaining that self-interest, as understood by Adam Smith, is not the same as greed, and showing that socialism could only work if governments were capable of knowing everything going on in the economy at any moment in time all the time. But perhaps the most decisive argument for markets that resonated with the students was what Ill call a morally realist understanding of human nature.

Say, for example, you view humans as beings with reason and free will, who alone among all the Earths species possess the gift of creativity, who are simultaneously individual and social, who are driven to a considerable degree by self-interest, who are capable of moral greatness but also prone to error, and who cant know everything. If you believe these things, you will surely arrive at very different economic conclusions than someone who doesnt, deep down, believe that humans are free, creative, capable of knowing and choosing the truth, but also self-interested and fallible.

Therein lies the recipe for explaining to younger Americans why markets work and socialism fails. Socialism is grounded upon a conception of human beings which is, in a word, false. It denies human individuality, liberty, and fallibility, and thus ends up oppressing people. By contrast, capitalism pays attention to realities about human nature which never change.

That is the message which I have discovered resonates with young Americans and inoculates them against socialisms lies. Its also a message that is as much moral as it is economic.

Socialists learned a long time ago that if you can win the moral argument, you tend to win hearts and minds, especially among idealistic young people. Free-marketers need to recognize that winning the economic argument against socialism simply isnt enough. They must also confront socialisms lies about human nature with the full truth about who human beings are. Because in the end, it really is the fullness of the truth that sets us free.

More:
Young Americans Increasingly Prefer Socialism. Heres How to Change Their Minds - National Review

Sen. Marsha BlackburnMarsha BlackburnBlackburn: 'Taylor Swift would be the first victim' of socialism, Marxism The Hill's Morning Report: Afghanistan's future now up to Afghans, Biden says Senate Republicans urge CDC to lift public transportation mask mandate MORE (R-Tenn.) said during an interview published this week that Taylor SwiftTaylor Alison SwiftBlackburn: 'Taylor Swift would be the first victim' of socialism, Marxism California police officer plays Taylor Swift to prevent protesters' video from being posted to YouTube The Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by Facebook - Social media flooded with 'ring of fire' eclipse photos MORE, who came out against her ahead of the 2018 midterms, and other performers would be the first victim of a socialist or Marxist government.

When Im talking to my friends who are musicians and entertainers, I say, If if we have a socialistic government, if we have Marxism, you are going to be the first ones who will be caught off because the state would have to approve your music, Blackburn told Breitbart News.

And, you know, Taylor Swift, came after me and my 2018 campaign, but Taylor Swift would be the first victim of that because when you look at Marxist, socialist societies, they do not allow women to dress, or sing, or be on stage, or to entertain, she continued, adding that such governments don't allow protection of private intellectual property rights.

It was unclear to which societies the Tennessee Republican was referring.

I know the left is all out now and trying to change country music and make it woke, she added.

In 2018, Swift, a Tennessee native who noted at the time that she had "been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions," came out against Blackburn and other Republicans ahead of that year's elections.

As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me, Swift wrote on Instagram.

In her "Miss Americana" Netflix documentary in 2020, Swift was again critical of the senator's policies,calling her"Trump in a wig."

The Hill has reached out to Universal Music Group, which owns the record label Swift is currently signed with, Republic Records, for comment.

See the article here:
Blackburn: 'Taylor Swift would be the first victim' of socialism, Marxism | TheHill - The Hill

These days, Republican leaders are labeling most ideas or policies that Democrats advocate as socialist. This is a decades-old attack but it is losing its punch according to a new Axios/Momentive poll. In 2019, 58% of Americans ages 18-34 viewed capitalism favorably. Now it is 49%. Back then, 39% of all adults reacted positively to the word socialism. That has grown to 41%. This increase is driven by African Americans and women.

Interestingly, 66% of all Americans say the federal government should pursue policies that try to reduce the gap between the wealthy and the less well-off (up a bit from 62% in 2019). Most provocatively, 56% of Republicans ages 18-34 want to reduce the wealth gap now when only 40% of them favored such policies in 2019.

Felix Salmon of Axios says: The pandemic has caused millions of Americans including many younger Republicans to re-evaluate their political and economic worldview. Thats likely because of two factors: a renewed focus on deep societal inequalities and the tangible upsides of unprecedented levels of government intervention.

Billionaires have increased their wealth by $1 trillion during the pandemic. Meanwhile, rents and student debt have soared. Many jobs became much more precarious and dangerous. As a result, more people are attracted to alternative ways of running society.

Salmon concludes: Politicians looking to attack opponents to their left can no longer use the word socialist as an all-purpose pejorative. Increasingly, its worn as a badge of pride.

Historian Maurice Isserman observes that the U.S. House of Representatives has more self-described socialists than at any time in history. Theres Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York District 14), Rashida Tlaib (Michigan District 13), Cori Bush (Missouri District 1), and Jamaal Bowman (New York District 16). They are members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and ran as Democrats.

Of course, theres Bernie Sanders in the Senate, who is an independent but caucuses with the Democrats and is a crucial member of the Partys national leadership. He isnt a member of DSA.

DSA is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with over 92,000 members and chapters in all 50 states. In the 2020 elections, at least 36 DSA members were elected.

Recently, there was an unexpected surprise in New Yorks second-largest city. DSA member India Walton won the Democratic primary to become mayor of Buffalo. She is a 38-year-old single mother who is a registered nurse and union organizer. She has never run for office before. She beat Byron Brown, a four-term incumbent who is close to Gov. Andrew Cuomo. There was no Republican in the race.

After she won, a TV anchor asked Walton what a Democratic Socialist is. She explained: That means that we put people first. That means that we prioritize the working class, the marginalized, the often unseen, unheard people over profits, corporations and developers.

Brown has vowed to run as a write-in candidate. In a hysterical McCarthyite message, he said there is tremendous fear among voters who are afraid about the future for their children and their families. He said, They do not want a radical socialist occupying the mayors office in Buffalo City Hall. You know, we know the difference between socialism and democracy. We are going to fight for democracy in the city of Buffalo.

After Browns write-in announcement, the chair of the Erie County Democratic Party issued an unambiguous statement about India Walton, to strongly affirm once again that we are with her, now and through the general election in the fall. It added: Last Tuesday, India proved she has the message and the means to move and inspire the people of Buffalo. It was a historic moment in Western New York politics. The voters heard her message and embraced her vision for the citys future, and we look forward to working with her and her team to cross that final finish line on Nov. 2.

New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg found Walton to be quite politically savvy. Walton said her early adopters were white progressives like the Working Families Party and DSA.

But the surge in violent crime has hurt progressive politics.

She told Goldberg, The challenge of the left is that we use our jargony activist language and dont take time to fully explain what we mean to those who may not be as woke as we are. Polls show that both black and white voters dont care for the defund the police slogan.

Instead of defund, Walton said, we say were going to reallocate funds. Were going to fully fund community centers. Were going to make the investments that naturally reduce crime, such as investments in education, infrastructure, living-wage jobs. Nothing stops crime better than a person whos gainfully employed.

She has an exciting platform which includes a tenant bill of rights, a public bank to finance investment in city priorities and a comprehensive land use policy that sets aside 50% of city-owned vacant parcels for public good.

We need to break from traditional politics and dream.

This opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.

Here is the original post:
India Walton and the promise of democratic socialism - Boulder Weekly

If a history professor asserted that black holes dont exist, would anyone pay any attention to him? What about an English professor who advocates Lamarckian evolutionary theory over Darwin? How about a sociologist who believes in alchemy?

What if these folks didnt just have weird beliefs, what if they taught these ideas in their classes? What if they wrote articles and books and gave public speeches extoling them?

The answer is obvious. They would be dismissed as kooks.

And much more. On a typical university campus, the physics department would probably demand that the history professor stop spouting fake physics or be fired. The biology department would react the same way to the espousal of fake biology.

In fact, on most campuses almost every academic discipline would try to protect its turf a well as the scientific integrity of its discipline.

With one exception: economics.

Over my long experience with the academic world, I have often marveled at the fact that people who had never had a course in economics, had never read a book on the subject, who wouldnt know what to do with a supply and a demand curve if they saw themnonetheless feel free to speak with authority on economic topics.

If you search the economics departments of our nations colleges and universities you would be hard pressed to find a real socialist. Thats because economists know a lot aboutsocialism. They have been studying it and thinking about it for over a hundred years.

Outside economics departments, things are different. It has often been humorously estimated that there are more Marxists on the faculty of American universities than there are in Russia or China today.

How is that possible? I blame the economists.

Economists have not only documented the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union and China, they know why the Cuban, North Korean, and Venezuelan economies are basket cases. It isnt complicated. When people at the top design a plan in which everybody who is needed to carry it out has an economic self-interest in not doing so, the plan never succeeds.Good economics is often plain common sense.

Serious scholars have also documented the human costs of concentrating economic and political power. Socialist hellholes have produced imprisonment, torture, starvation and mass murder on a scale never before imagined in human history. In the 20th century, almost170 million peoplewere killed by their own governments. These people were not killed in wars. They were the victims of genocidal murder.

The vast majority were murdered by socialist governments. The Russian communists were the worst (62 million) followed by the Chinese communists (35 million) and then the Nazi national socialists (20 million).

Although socialists claim that workers are exploited under capitalism, no greedy capitalist has ever begun to match what socialists have done.

Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chvezlived like kings and accumulated vast fortuneswhile their own people often faced starvation. Kim Jong-un and the current rulers in Cuba and Venezuela are following in their footsteps

Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung was the greatest mass murderer in world history, causing at least45 million peopleto be worked, starved or beaten to death. When he died, he was worth an estimated$1 billion.

The worlds second greatest mass murderer, Josef Stalin,killed 20 million, many by forced starvation. Some regard him as one ofthe wealthiest people of all time.

Fidel Castros former bodyguardJuan Reinaldo Snchezsays that the communist leader lived like a king and ran the country the country like a cross between medieval overlord and Louis XV. While ordinary Cubans stood in breadlines, Castro had his own private yacht and his own private island. In Havana, he lived in an immense estate with a rooftop bowling alley, a basketball court and fully equipped medical center.

The puzzle is: Why arent these facts better known? The answer seems to be: In the classes where students should be learning them, the teachers arent doing their jobs.

While students are getting a daily dose of socialist propaganda from economic know-nothings in the other social science departments, what have the economists been saying about the subject in their classes? Nothing. Well, almost nothing.

Pick up just about any introductory economics textbook and you will find very little about socialism. And what you do find will never be front and center. It will be stuck at the back of the book in case the instructor has time to cover it at the end of the semester.

The reason for this is understandable. Most economics teachers consider socialism to be so completely dysfunctional, they see no reason to spend any time on it.

Here is what the economics departments are missing. Given the economic nonsense that is being spewed out all over the rest of the campus, the first things students need to study in introductory economics is socialism. In fact, I believe the entire first semester should be devoted to socialism.

What starts on the campuses doesnt take long to spread. Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood celebrities dont think they need to know anything about economics in order to have strong opinions on the subject.

When is the last time you heard Streisand quote Paul Samuelson or Milton Friedman or any economist? With increasing frequency, in a very large part of the national public policy conversation, professional economists are considered completely irrelevant.

To use a military analogy, the economists have left the battlefield, leaving the students behind to fend for themselves. The nation is paying a heavy price for that less-than-honorable retreat.

This article was also published inTownhall

See more here:
Where Have All The Economists Gone? (Socialism) OpEd - Eurasia Review

Charles C. Milliken| The Daily Telegram

Last time, I listed five characteristics which all socialist systems share, if they are to be truly socialist. There are, obviously, systems which share one or more of these characteristics, but all must be present to represent Socialism with a capital S.In summary, they were 1. Communitarian, 2. Based on class distinctions, with oppressed being liberated from their oppressors, 3. Universally compulsory, 4. Leveling, and, 5. Hierarchical.

Contemporary advocates of Socialism are faced with the intractable fact that every Socialist attempt in the past few centuries has been a dismal, impoverishingand deadly failure. From the French Revolution (before the term was invented), through Russia, China, Germany, North Korea and every People'sRepublic littering the ash heap of human suffering, right down to Venezuela today, Socialism has never delivered on its utopian dream of a selfless society where everyone happily works to the best of their ability, and in turn are supplied with their needs.This notion, a Christian heresy of bringing an imaginary heaven down to a real earth, undoubtedly springs from Christian monastic practice. For nearly two millennia monks and nuns have labored selflessly in their convents and monasteries living the socialist dream, although they would hardly put it like that. Sowhy and I have personally been asked this question couldnt all of society function the same way?

Here is where the dreamworld of Socialist utopia hits the real world of human nature. Although religious orders have been around for a very long time, they are a pale shadow of what they once were. For all their success in living a selfless life, this life was always based on orthodox faith in Christ and in His Church, not on some theory of class struggle. The 16th century saw the destruction of Catholic universalism, the 19th the destruction of the rest of Christianity, at least in the West. We now live in the rubble of that beautiful edifice for all its flaws and have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Religious vocations are a vanishingly small number.

Utopian communities were tried in the U.S. in the 19th century. All failed. Hippie communes tried the same lifestyle in the 60s, with the addition of drugs and free sex, but also all failed.

In the face of this miserable track record, why do todays advocates for Socialism think it will work this time? The reason Ive heard the most is Socialism has failed because of poor leadership. They say, in essence and sometimes in fact, If I had been running Russia instead of Lenin or Stalin,all would have been well. They do not deny that Socialism requires leadership, it's just that, for whatever reason, circumstances have just tossed up bad leaders, without acknowledging that Socialism absolutely requires bad leaders. The lovely world of the monastery is compulsory on its members, but a member is free to joinand free to leave. In short, people self-select. Nothing like that is possible in a Socialist polity membership is compulsory and all must obey. Obedience requires discipline. Monks and nuns self discipline. General members of any society mostly dont, and therefore coercion is required of varying severity.

The Bolsheviks in Russia tried a workaround by asserting that severe discipline was only temporaryand the New Soviet Man would emerge, who would selflessly and unstintingly work for the common good. Meanwhile Revolutionary Justice would weed out the intractable. Despite millions thus being eliminated, the whole thing lasted 75 yearsand then collapsed with a whimper. Human nature is a very intractable thing, and running an entire society on the basis of volunteerism simply does not, and cannot, work. Incentives, alas, matter. Variable paychecks are much more efficient incentives than firing squads.

The concept of equity, of everyone getting about the same income, is much beloved by our vice president, at least based on her campaign ads. The average wage in the U.S. is about $60,000. Some would be ecstatic. Would you?

Charles Milliken is a professor emeritus after 22 years of teaching economics and related subjects at Siena Heights University. He can be reached at milliken.charles@gmail.com.

Read the original post:
The inevitable failure of socialism - The Daily Telegram