Capitalism vs Communism

[Very_Boring_Name]

Poll question: Capitalism vs Communism

[bemildred]

1. You need a NOTA option. nt

[joshcryer]

2. Depends.

Totalitarian communism or fascist capitalism?

Libertarian communism or social democratic regulated capitalism?

[defendandprotect]

123. Here's an old Russian joke re capitalism and communism .....

Question:

What's the difference between capitalism and communism?

Answer:

Under capitalism man explolits man --

Under communism it is just the reverse --



:evilgrin:

[geardaddy]

145. Did this guy tell it?

[scarletwoman]

3. Very_Boring_Poll.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

18. +1

[Octafish]

4. Democracy

Let's put more alternatives out there, like Democratic Socialism, the kind Bernie Sanders represents, where people are ahead of profits.

[zappaman]

12. +1 n/t

[Electric Monk]

5. If the question is "Which has more letters?" then the answer is Capitalism

[SidDithers]

60. +1...

ambiguous poll questions make for meaningless polls.

Sid

[Cerridwen]

6. I predict...

you'll not get the input you think you will.

Welcome to the left. Pull up a chair and learn.

[RepublicanElephant]

7. bernie sanders' style democratic socialism. nt

[Nye Bevan]

8. Hmmmm. Sweden or Switzerland versus North Korea or Cuba?

Tough call.

[readmoreoften]

9. Considering that most communists don't consider North Korea communist, I think you have no nuanced

idea of what you're talking about. You probably consider China communist too. Perverse Stalinist state capitalist economies have nothing to do with a working-class controlled economy.

[joshcryer]

13. Yeah, it's easy enough to say "there's never been a working-class controlled economy."

Despite that every so called implementation of such hasn't actually been such but has been voraciously defended by socialists as such until that time which they decide it isn't. Yeah, mind bending sentence there. :P

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. And would you prefer a black tunic or a gray one with your communism? LOLOL n/t

[NYC_SKP]

11. Either one done well is better than the other one done poorly, but both pretty much suck...

...capitalism isn't being done well in this country so communism sounds yummy by comparison.

But, really, communism isn't done very well anywhere.

At the end of the day, cronyism and concentrated power comes in and fucks up both systems.

So the poll is pretty invalid in it's design.

Sorry to say.

:patriot:

[joshcryer]

15. +1, re: cronyism. We need to get off of this global cronyist corruption and start anew.

Build a society where cronyism is extremely difficult if not a losing strategy.

[dkf]

20. Is there any government where it doesn't exist?

Maybe that is impossible?

[joshcryer]

22. Indeed, it must start without government.

Thus the utopian anarchist ideal anyhow. I think it is possible and I can argue it effectively, I believe, but it usually gets laughed at by some.

[dkf]

24. Actually doesn't it start with ethics?

[joshcryer]

25. Yeah, David Graeber has an interesting view on that.

Considering Marxism a "theoretical" or "analytical" strategy whereas anarchists approach it as ethical practice. You may read more about it http://www.prickly-paradigm.com/sites/default/files/Graeber_PPP_14_0.pdf">here (PDF).

It helps that because anarchists view the state as incompatible with socialism to begin with that there would theoretically exist no monopoly of unethical behavior as is so often the case with cronyist states.

[BOG PERSON]

51. that would be very compatible with modern liberalism

which is similarly fond of putting the process-cart before the outcome-horse.

[MicaelS]

139. Probably never happen...here's why...

So I'm hiring..and the two candidates are You, and my friend since childhood. Whom I introduced to the woman he married. Whose wedding I was a groomsman at. Whose kids I watched grow up.

[dkf]

14. Can a country go communist through a democratic process?

If so, isn't that simply a product of our elections?

[joshcryer]

16. First, depends on your definition. If you accept Petropavlovsk and Catalonia as examples...

...then it's obvious that yes, some form of socialist-communist society is democratically possible, and there exists an entire philosophical field in that vein that believes it can only work that way (anarchism or the libertarian socialisms).

It is dumbfounding to me how the "founding fathers" of the totalitarian communist variety were able to persist the myth for so long that the "people" needed "hand holding" to implement it undemocratically, indeed, with democracy being laughed out of the room by people like Trotsky himself (who is considered more the "visionary" for these policies currently).

[dkf]

19. Well if this crew is proposing some crazy totalitarian communist system then I think they are

Batshit crazy.

[joshcryer]

23. Yeah, I'm not fond of the undemocratic communists of which there are quite a lot.

And while I might be able to appreciate on some level the "fear" that democracy makes it harder to go communist / socialist, I am not deluded to think that any other approach is workable, it's not, it will always lead to totalitarianism. Democracy, direct democracy in particular, is the only viable option.

[TBF]

32. No less crazy than the way you capitalists are killing us -

and who says it must be "crazy totalitarian"?

[DireStrike]

30. Where did Trotsky bash democracy?

[socialist_n_TN]

40. Yeah I was wondering that too..........

Other than the general revolutionary Marxist theory that elections are part of the bourgeoisie capitalist system and not representative of any viewpoint OTHER than of the monied class. IOW, you have a choice to vote for capitalist candidate A or capitalist candidate B.

What's more democratic and responsive to the people's will? What we have now in this country or one where representatives are elected for every 500 or 1000 people in a workplace or factory and who can be recalled AT ANY TIME. What we have now or a system where issues are voted on BY this local council and can be changed as soon as it's shown not to be working. Of course these local reps elect regional reps who elect national reps all up the line, ALL OF WHO CAN BE RECALLED AT ANY TIME THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE'S WILL. So which one do you think will be more responsive?

Most people don't want to face the fact that to overthrow such an entrenched system like capitalism it will take restrictions on wealth. That's what the dictatorship of the proletariat is all about.

[DireStrike]

90. You think that's the sort of criticism he's talking about?

"Other than the general revolutionary Marxist theory that elections are part of the bourgeoisie capitalist system and not representative of any viewpoint OTHER than of the monied class. IOW, you have a choice to vote for capitalist candidate A or capitalist candidate B."

Yeah... Pointing out that there are problems with existing (nominally) democratic structures in now way disparages democracy. Trotsky discusses this in The Revolution Betrayed a bit... the existing conditions in Russia tended to reproduce bourgeois systems, notably the legal and political systems. As long as aspects of bourgeois law and culture remain, the state and political system must take on bourgeois characteristics to enforce them. It's the kind of thing that's so obvious it needs to be explained.

But that's a specific case, I wonder if there's something more general he means.

[socialist_n_TN]

99. Well the existing conditions in ANY capitalist system

are going to reproduce the bourgeois system UNTIL THAT SYSTEM IS BROKEN. By the proletariat. IOW, you can vote for capitalist candidate A or capitalist candidate B until the workers put their own representatives in office. And that's why Bolshevik-Leninists-Trotskyists aren't "reformist", they're revolutionary. And you don't make a revolution and then give power BACK to the capitalist you just wrested it from.

As to the poster we're responding to, I THINK I know what he's referring to just from some of his other posts, but I won't presume to speak for him. Other than to say that Josh appears to be an anarchist and neither Trotsky or Trotskyists get along real well with anarchists.

[socialist_n_TN]

100. BTW, I sent you a private message.......

Let me know what you think.

[joshcryer]

112. Yeah, I am an anarchist, and anarchists do not make the "bourgeois" distinction.

Two apparent aspects of bourgeois, those who own capital, and those who have a bourgeois culture (the "high life" if that translates well enough for you). From the anarchist standpoint I would argue that everyone, every single person on the planet deserves to be able to experience "the high life" as it were, and that such a culture is not incompatible with socialism.

I merely believe we need alternate technologies to create a totally high life culture on the planet as opposed to using the same capitalist technologies which the Trotskyites want to expropriate.

edit: to clarify, the anarchists see anyone who controls aspects of society as bourgeois, including the party or the state. Trots tend to argue that the party is pure and not in any way bourgeois.

[DireStrike]

140. I would differentiate "high life" and superiority.

Many aspects of the "high life" as it's known today involve being superior to others. This shouldn't exist in a perfect society.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying any particular comfort, only with enjoying it at the expense of others.

[joshcryer]

111. In the context of Trotsky 's rantings he was specifically condeming democratic revolutionaries...

...not the "bourgeois system." He was afraid that if some people implemented democracy it would damage the revolution as a whole, but this is a misplaced fear because if people democratically attained socialism or communism it would've had a reverberating effect throughout the entire soviet union. But they back then felt that a central party was more important, because they couldn't trust the individuals to attain it.

[joshcryer]

110. No, the dictatorship of the proletariat is about concentrating power.

We can restrict capitalist wealth without concentrating power, we merely make it irrelevant. It's the difference between expropriating the means of producing (taking the means of production from some capitalist owner and transferring it to some central "council" whose primary leaders don't change hands due to cronyism, and whom are merely the new owners) and emancipating the means of production (taking it from the owners and creating something new with it, either by completely dissolving its purpose in society, or distributing its technology throughout society as a whole).

[joshcryer]

108. Here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/06.htm

"They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!"

Every single implementation has lead to the Party Above the workers. Every single implementation. The Party must be abolished, every anarchist thinker knew that. Every time the Trotskyites say it's "temporary" and that "workers democracy will eventually be realized." We've had communisms for a half century on this planet and that has never happened.

[socialist_n_TN]

116. But you NEVER had the Trotskyist version

or for that matter the Leninist version which is what Trotsky advocated. At least not after Lenin died. The half century you spoke of was the deformed workers state as represented by the bureaucracy of Stalin. And yes, UNTIL the capitalist class is smashed and the wealth is expropriated and placed in the hands of the workers for GOOD the vanguard NEEDS to be able to have the means to do this.

As I said the other day in a similiar thread, you would overthrow the capitalists and then turn around and give the keys back to them by not having a centralized resistance when they, as they inevitably will, stir up a counterrevolution. Probably using anarchists to do it.

Hell, one of the attractions OF Trotskyism is that it's the Marxist model not taken.

[joshcryer]

118. Cuba was heavily influenced by Trotskyism and Chavez wants to implement the 5th international.

Cuba's revolution in particular is and continues to be heavily defended by Trotskyites, hell, even the anarchists drank the coolaid and believed that Cuba was a truly revolutionary practice. Cuba is not Stalinist, it may have had some Stalinist practices but those were unsustainable in a population of a few million (you need bodies to pull off Stalinsim), plus dissidents could just be exiled because unlike Russia Cuba had a place that would take in anyone who was able to or desiring to leave (10% of Cuba's population is exiled).

I do not consider capitalists a big threat, I don't think that we need to take "their" keys, indeed, I think we need to forge our own keys in the fire of their demise. The capitalists are not significant, when you learn to take away their entire ability to exert force. They own the oil, don't use oil. They own water, don't use their water (the planet is covered in water). They own the land, don't use the land. :hi:

(Think carefully about how that sounds possible!)

[BOG PERSON]

142. have you heard the good news about trotsky???

[Cal Carpenter]

37. You think our elections are democratic?

.

[BOG PERSON]

82. n/m

redundant

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Which is bigger- unicorn nipples or leprechaun balls?

Answer: Neither, because neither exists in the real, actual world.


Same applies to perfect idealized systems of 'free enterprise' versus 'collectivism'. The reality is always going to be some sort of a mixture of both.

[BOG PERSON]

49. that's where you're wrong, buddy

pure capitalism does exist. on the freedom ship. and pure communism also exists. in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, envy of the developing world.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. So.. can you smoke dope on the "Freedom Ship"?

Nah, didn't think so.

[AndyTiedye]

21. The Purported Economic System by Which an Oligarchy Rules…

…makes less of a difference than most people think.

The most functional governments seem to include elements of capitalism and socialism.
"Pure" versions of either tend to suck.

[Selatius]

26. It's difficult to transition to communism when your employer will try to murder you.

Worse yet, the employers of the working class may try to kill you before you got so far as to enter office and really threaten capitalist power.

You can implement socialism piece-by-piece, but the last step will likely mean some sort of war, because people with power and money historically do not surrender those things without resorting to violence.

If a new government came to power and posed a threat, serious or imagined, to seize several hundred billion dollars of assets away from the ruling or dominant class of businessmen, there will be a war. The US already fought such a war, the conclusion of which saw the ending of slavery in the US. The entire slave population would likely be worth several hundred billion in today's dollars.

[TBF]

31. Right, the PTB will not like to be challenged. Unfortunately we have no other choice. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

42. Yeah that's the thing. I told a Marxist discussion group

I was in, the same thing. Even IF you succeed in a revolution, prepare for a civil war. Because it's inevitable you're going to get one.

[readmoreoften]

55. +1. Your boss hates you. The CEO hates you more. Know that.

[joshcryer]

114. Wholly disagree, it is difficult to transition to communism when you use capitalist technology to...

...get there. The entire capitalist production and manufacturing system is simply incompatible with communism. It is designed from the onset to centralize production, it is designed from the onset to create interdependency (which then results in globalization with how entrenched the system has become; in the middle-late 1800s it was a whole lot easier to get off of the addiction).

[metalbot]

126. Would the reverse not be true as well?

Because it seems that in most communist countries, trying to transition to capitalism could get you killed too...

You can implement capitalism piece-by-piece, but the last step will likely mean some sort of war, because people with power and money (the Chinese Communist party) historically do not surrender those things without resorting to violence.

See? Works both ways...

[metalbot]

129. Isn't the reverse true as well?

Because it seems that in most communist countries, trying to transition to capitalism could get you killed too...

You can implement capitalism piece-by-piece, but the last step will likely mean some sort of war, because people with power and money (the Chinese Communist party) historically do not surrender those things without resorting to violence.

See? Works both ways...

[Selatius]

130. I dunno. The Soviet Union didn't exactly end with millions of dead on a battlefield.

And the Communist Party of China may call itself communist, but China is basically a capitalist country now. They make all the things we buy. There's no equivalence.

[BOG PERSON]

133. it's true that the transition to capitalism in russia killed a lot of people

[baldguy]

27. Define your terms.

[SidDithers]

28. I agree with this poll. Communism is much worse than Capitalism...nt

Sid

[socialist_n_TN]

43. Not any more. It looks pretty even to me.........

with Communism out in front by a nose.

[SidDithers]

44. Right. More people think communism is worse than capitalism...nt

Sid

[socialist_n_TN]

47. Which poll are you reading?

I see a very BASIC choice between competing economic systems, capitalism and communism. Right now it's pretty close to dead even.

[SidDithers]

54. All I see is "Capitalism vs Communism"...

The OP is clearly asking which is worse.

Sid

[socialist_n_TN]

61. I see your point......

:) Although I don't think that most people read it that way.

[SidDithers]

63. Yeah, I was trying to comment about the ambiguous question...

making the poll meaningless.

Not very well, apparently. :hi:

Sid

[blindpig]

64. That is not clear.

I think it is fair to assume that this was an approval poll and the participants took it to be so.

Your poor spill is duly noted.

[SidDithers]

65. Assume whatever you want. And...

Sid

[blindpig]

29. k&r

[kuthek]

33. Under communism

This poll wouldn't be allowed under communism. For that matter The Democratic Underground wouldn't be allowed under communism. Which leads me to wonder why so many pro communism votes were cast.

[Cal Carpenter]

36. LOL

Joe McCarthy, is that you?

[socialist_n_TN]

45. Under totalitarianism of any stripe this poll

MIGHT no be allowed. This country is MUCH closer to capitalist inspired fascism (like Hitler) than it is to Stalinism ("Communist" totalitarianism). The point is totalarianism is not the same as an economic system.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

144. People voted for communism because this is a flamebait push poll with a false dichotomy.

Me, I preferred not to vote.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Daddy or Chips?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHA4-5N5AzA

[marmar]

35. As if those are the only two options.......

Je presente Democratic Socialism

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

[blindpig]

38. In this age they are.

Every attempt at compromise, 'democratic socialism', ends in tears, consider 1914. Look at the parlimentary socialist parties of Europe, each has degenerated into bagmen for the bankers. Socialism can only succeed if the capitalists are separated from the means of production which is their source of power.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. Other

False dichotomy.

[blindpig]

48. Are you kidding?

There is no greater dichotomy.

[socialist_n_TN]

53. I agree. This IS the most striking choice..........

You can favor something in the middle all you want, but these are the fartherest poles on the graph.

[BOG PERSON]

58. actually, the farthest poles on the graph are libertarianism and authoritarianism

[Jack Rabbit]

67. Excuse me, but my friend, Socrates, is sitting on my ear whispering in to it

And he wants to know how there can be points in between the two poles and this be anything other than a false dichotomy.

Unless you can demonstrate to me that the capitalism/communism dichotomy is a toggle switch, then it is a false dichotomy. Let the old school Birchers and teabaggers argue from that point of view. We all know they have no perspective.

As this is posed, the OP seems to be presenting a choice between Ayn Rand and Mao Zedong. I would just as soon have a choice between being shot or hanged. Or am I wrong about that? Perhaps the OP needs to define his terms.

[blindpig]

69. Then you are confused, you must be an armadillo....

and we know what happens to critters in the middle of the road.

There is no middle ground that is viable.

[kick-ass-bob]

78. I'm sorry... what?

All there is is middle ground. Pure communism didn't work in the real world. Pure capitalism will be shown to not work in the real world. There HAS to be something in the middle.

That's why he said it's a false dichotomy.

[blindpig]

80. Enough of the qualifiers

It is Capitalism, plain & simple. All qualifiers serve to do is obscure the fact that it is capitalism that's the problem.

'Pure communism' has never been attained and cannot be attained in the presences of Capitalism. Communism is the answer to Capitalism and the successor to it. This is not to say that the efforts towards that goal have been in vain, they have been a great stride in human history.

[Jack Rabbit]

89. See post 85. Obviously, I am not a Marxist

That doesn't make me an objectivist. Nevertheless, the concept of the Soviet Man is every bit as ridiculous as Ms. Rand's Nietzschean capitalist. Both are rooted in a false view of human nature. For that reason, neither Marxism-Leninism nor the fantasy of self-regulating free markets are viable alternatives to the present.

Just a couple of questions for you, sir:

• Do you believe that the root nature of man can be altered by a social system? and
• Do you believe that Stalin or Mao accomplished anything worthwhile by collectivizing farming in a way that in each case caused mass starvation?

Thank you in advance.

[DireStrike]

91. I'll take those

1) Yes. It's obvious that Capitalism alters human nature. I think most sociologists (or whatever similar field you find any value in) would argue that at least some social identity is constructed. The only questions then are "How much?" and "Which parts?"

2) I dunno about Mao's practices. Stalin sure fucked up though. Anyway the "cause" of the problems with agricultural collectivization is arguable. Was it Stalin and the government, or the well-off farmers who destroyed their crops and livestock? I tend to blame the farmers. That kind of scorched earth tactic is a disgusting policy, and I rarely favor any side using it. On the other hand, the Soviet leadership should have taken into account that these things would probably happen. I don't know if there was a good way forward at that point in time.

[blindpig]

94. ok

#1 It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their
social existence that determines their consciousness.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

#2 Non-factual statement, try again.

[Jack Rabbit]

98. Response

#1 You have answered my question with a quote from a venerable source. I agree with it in part and disagree with it in part. I'll have more to say about that in an essay I plan to write after doing some research. I'll send you a PM when it's up.

#2 Non-factual statement, try again.

Just what part of that statement was not factual?

From Wikipedia, article Joseph Stalin:

Collectivization

Main article: Collectivization in the Soviet Union

Stalin's regime moved to force collectivization of agriculture. This was intended to increase agricultural output from large-scale mechanized farms, to bring the peasantry under more direct political control, and to make tax collection more efficient. Collectivization meant drastic social changes, on a scale not seen since the abolition of serfdom in 1861, and alienation from control of the land and its produce. Collectivization also meant a drastic drop in living standards for many peasants, and it faced violent reaction among the peasantry.

In the first years of collectivization it was estimated that industrial production would rise by 200% and agricultural production by 50%, but these estimates were not met. Stalin blamed this unanticipated failure on kulaks (rich peasants), who resisted collectivization. (However, kulaks proper made up only 4% of the peasant population; the "kulaks" that Stalin targeted included the slightly better-off peasants who took the brunt of violence from the OGPU and the Komsomol. These peasants were about 60% of the population). Those officially defined as "kulaks," "kulak helpers," and later "ex-kulaks" were to be shot, placed into Gulag labor camps, or deported to remote areas of the country, depending on the charge. Archival data indicates that 20,201 people were executed during 1930, the year of Dekulakization.

The two-stage progress of collectivization—interrupted for a year by Stalin's famous editorials, "Dizzy with success" and "Reply to Collective Farm Comrades"—is a prime example of his capacity for tactical political withdrawal followed by intensification of initial strategies.

Famines

Famine affected other parts of the USSR. The death toll from famine in the Soviet Union at this time is estimated at between five and ten million people. The worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, had caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths. Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons. According to Alan Bullock, "the total Soviet grain crop was no worse than that of 1931 ... it was not a crop failure but the excessive demands of the state, ruthlessly enforced, that cost the lives of as many as five million Ukrainian peasants." Stalin refused to release large grain reserves that could have alleviated the famine, while continuing to export grain; he was convinced that the Ukrainian peasants had hidden grain away, and strictly enforced draconian new collective-farm theft laws in response. Other historians hold it was largely the insufficient harvests of 1931 and 1932 caused by a variety of natural disasters that resulted in famine, with the successful harvest of 1933 ending the famine. Soviet and other historians have argued that the rapid collectivization of agriculture was necessary in order to achieve an equally rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union and ultimately win World War II. Alec Nove claims that the Soviet Union industrialized in spite of, rather than because of, its collectivized agriculture.

The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1947 as a result of war damage and severe droughts, but economist Michael Ellman argues that it could have been prevented if the government did not mismanage its grain reserves. The famine cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.

Ukrainian famine

Main article: Holodomor

The Holodomor famine is sometimes referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide, implying it was engineered by the Soviet government, specifically targeting the Ukrainian people to destroy the Ukrainian nation as a political factor and social entity. While historians continue to disagree whether the policies that led to Holodomor fall under the legal definition of genocide, twenty six countries have officially recognized the Holodomor as such. On 28 November 2006, the Ukrainian Parliament approved a bill, according to which the Soviet-era forced famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Professor Michael Ellman concludes that Ukrainians were victims of genocide in 1932–33, according to a more relaxed definition, which is favored by some specialists in the field of genocide studies. He asserts that Soviet policies greatly exacerbated the famine's death toll (such as the use of torture and execution to extract grain (see Law of Spikelets), with 1.8 million tonnes of it being exported during the height of the starvation—enough to feed 5 million people for one year, the use of force to prevent starving peasants from fleeing the worst affected areas, and the refusal to import grain or secure international humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering) and that Stalin intended to use the starvation as a cheap and efficient means (as opposed to deportations and shootings) to kill off those deemed to be "counterrevolutionaries," "idlers," and "thieves," but not to annihilate the Ukrainian peasantry as a whole. He also claims that, while this is not the only Soviet genocide (e.g. The Polish operation of the NKVD), it is the worst in terms of mass casualties.

Current estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 2.2 million to 4 to 5 million.

A Ukrainian court found Josef Stalin and other leaders of the former Soviet Union guilty of genocide by "organizing mass famine in Ukraine in 1932–1933" in January 2010. However, the court "dropped criminal proceedings over the suspects' deaths".

From Wikipedia, article Great Leap Forward:

The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths. Estimates of the death toll range from 16.5 to 46 million, with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 to 32.5 million. Historian Frank Dikötter asserts that "coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward" and it "motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history."

The years of the Great Leap Forward in fact saw economic regression, with 1958-61 being the only years between 1953 and 1983 in which China's economy saw negative growth. Political economist Dwight Perkins argues, "enormous amounts of investment produced only modest increases in production or none at all. … In short, the Great Leap was a very expensive disaster."

Thank for your reply. Now it's your turn to try again.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blindpig]

132. Concerning Mao:

http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward


http://www.maoists.org/dikotterbook.htm

[dionysus]

146. communism has already proven itself to be a dismal failure, comrade.

[Jack Rabbit]

85. That is exactly why I said it is a false dichotomy

Both of Blindpig's replies to me (posts 48 and 69) and socialist_n_TN (post 53) imply the existence of a middle ground. He may not like the other alternatives, but they are there.

[socialist_n_TN]

113. I don't think it's a matter of "like" RE: the other alternatives

To me it's more of a question of survival.

Look, I can make a unitef front with socialists of a non Marxist type on SPECIFIC issues that help the working class. Hell, I can make a united front with almost ANY bourgeoisie party if it benefits working class conditions, But as pig said, ANY compromise with capitalism amounts to a capitulation TO capitalism, at least eventually. What the American fascist party is trying to do to the social safety net is what ALWAYS happens when you compromise with capitalism. We had 80 years of the FDR reforms (a compromise with capitalism) that were brought on by capitalist fear of working class solidarity and, truthfully, fear of communism. The capitalists started to undermine these reforms almost as soon as they were implemented. Eventually, they regained enough wealth and power to begin to do away with them. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT CAPITALISTS DO. Which is where we are today.

Capitalism needs to be overthrown, not compromised with. ANY "compromise" can only be temporary for the immediate benefit of working class conditions. The ultimate goal MUST BE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SYSTEM. Anything else will, sooner or later, bring the class struggle into sharp relief again. THAT IS INEVITABLE WHEN THE SYSTEM CONCENTRATES WEALTH AND POWER INTO FEWER AND FEWER HANDS. And that concentration of wealth is what capitalism DOES.

If I had to nutshell it, it boils down to these two choices. One or the other will win out. I prefer the economic democratic model, i.e., communism.

[Jack Rabbit]

121. Even if you are right about capitalism needing to be overthrown

as long as it doesn't need to be overthrown right this minute (or even in just the next decade or century), then why not make a compromise with capitalism now in order to buy time? Not everybody has your perspective on history (I don't agree with it, but in this discussion, I haven't said with what it is that I do agree), and while I think today we can get a call to arms to rein in the excesses of Ayn Rand's wet dreams. I don't think the complete destruction of the system can be accomplished any time soon. Again, if your perspective has validity, then the New Deal, as you say, bought us 80 years. We may have to do that all over again, and perhaps even institute reforms that will have us starting from a better spot than we were after passing the Social Security Act. You may think that is only a small gain, but that is what we can get.

[Jack Rabbit]

66. Exactly

"Great" dichotomies are almost always false.

[fascisthunter]

106. Indeed

[CJvR]

46. Since...

...communism requires terror and tyranny where as in a capitalist society they are optional I vote capitalism.

[socialist_n_TN]

50. VERY interesting results.........

Last time I looked it was DEAD even. This is a surprise even for an old Marxist like me. But I have seen support for socialism grow on this board over the last year and a half, so I guess it's only natural that support for the communist version of socialism would also grow. I'm just surprised at how MUCH it's grown.

It just drives home what I've been saying for the last few months. NOTHING recruits for Marxism, like capitalism. :)

[socialist_n_TN]

52. BTW, shouldn't the colors on the bars be switched?

It's humerous that the Capitalist one is red and the Communist one is blue.

[blindpig]

56. Without them there wouldn't be 'us'

Capitalism necessitates Communism.

I hear there's a sale on rope.....

[socialist_n_TN]

59. And I hear we can get it CHEAP!

nm

[scarletwoman]

102. I wouldn't read too much into it.

I mostly voted "Communism" as an act of protest against this stupid dualistic poll, not because I harbor any fondness for communism.

And when it comes right down to it, it was either not vote at all, or vote for the only available alternative to capitalism, which I would NEVER vote for. Pretty much the same reason I vote for Democrats -- I would never vote for Republicans, so it's either not vote, or vote for the only available alternative.

Truth is, I have no faith in either alternative. Human beings will always fuck up ANY system. There will always be those who seek to dominate, and always those who will be oppressed by the dominators.

Doesn't matter which economic system is in place, someone will always grab for privileges and power, and someone else will be disempowered.

sw

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. Red-baiting. Won't vote. Unrec.

[Dreamer Tatum]

62. Pitting communism vs capitalism is red-baiting? Wow...thin skinned. nt

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glen123098]

68. Both pure capitalism and pure communism have been tried.

Neither worked, so I don't see the point of this poll.

[Erose999]

71. A little column A a little column B. A 100% capitalist society is just as bad as a 100% communist

society.

[Rex]

72. Wow, running almost 50% 50%!

I'm sure that pisses off a lot of closet libertarians that post here under the disguise of a moderate.

[Bozita]

74. Is that unrestricted, deregulated capitalism? The Milton Friedman wet dream?

[Very_Boring_Name]

75. It's whatever you want it to mean

[Cal Carpenter]

76. No amount of regulation can damper the inherent problems in capitalism

Remember all the gains made by the New Deal etc? Where are they now? Both ruling parties busting unions all over the country, wages declining, worker's rights in the shitter, pensions gone, corporate profits at record levels...

Anything that benefits the working class (by which I mean 90%+ of the population) is going to be crushed by the power of capitalism. That's what capitalism does. We get one step forward and ten steps back. It's a losing battle.

If we haven't figured that out yet, we never will...

[BOG PERSON]

77. where is the third position?

[blindpig]

79. Right here:

[socialist_n_TN]

103. LOL

:rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

81. The funniest part of this is knowing that the capitalists think they are "winning" something today.

In the game of capitalism, only the rich win.

[TBF]

83. They all think they will be rich "one day" - that is the American Dream

nt

[FLPanhandle]

84. In the game of communism, only those in the leadership win.

Same thing.

[BOG PERSON]

87. dupe

n/t

[BOG PERSON]

88. that doesn't make sense. how can communism be a game.

competition is suppressed under communism.

[FLPanhandle]

96. Have you read the stories of the communist elite?

It was like the old royal court trying to earn favors and get positions for family members. Quite a game keeping their privileges going from generation to generation. Made Wall Street look friendly.

[BOG PERSON]

101. it's kind of an abuse of language to call that a "game"

considering the communist elites came from very diverse backgrounds. some from peasant families, others from working class ones, or even from the dispossessed gentry.

[FLPanhandle]

109. Different backgrounds

However, once in power they acted like every person with power. They tried to keep it to themselves and ensure it was passed down to their families too. The "game" was staying in favor and backing the right people. It was a game played for generations.

[BOG PERSON]

120. that's kind of a facile generalization, don't you think?

sadly, communist governments didn't go far enough in weakening the institution of the family and reforming family members who are given to mooching. still, i don't think there's any history of the leaders of communism's heyday (e.g. lenin, stalin, mao) using their party privileges to help their relatives.

[hifiguy]

86. Democratic Socialism! n/t

[JoseGaspar]

93. Sheesh... 100 years of intense propoganda...

And all it takes is a little GREAT RECESSION to make them start thinking the unthinkable again.

Time to retreat to that Libertarian ashram in the mountains...

And chant the great mantra:

"Freedom means private property."
"Freedom means PRIVATE PROPERTY."
"FREEDOM MEANS PRIVATE PROPERTY."

... until the next bubble puts them all back to sleep again.

"Would you like that McMansion with or without fries?"

[Never Stop Dancin]

95. Huma must be fuming right now at Rep. Weiner

whether she dumps him or stays is an open question.

[Taverner]

97. Neither - Socialism

Communism is not Socialism

Capitalism is not Socialism

[robertpaulsen]

104. Poll question: Are you with us or are you with the terrorists?

I can't vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us">either way. I'll vote for the http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/plague-o-both-your-houses">"a plague a' both your houses" option. Because both houses are plague ridden. Both houses have no future as an either/or choice on a planet where infinite growth is set to collide with finite resources. Re-localization will be the natural outgrowth in the wake of this collision, and there is no one-size-fits-all economic system equipped to deal with the needs of every locale. Anyone engaging in the polemics of binary logic for one side or the other on a global scale will be resigned to the dustbin of history.

[BOG PERSON]

107. lame (n/t)

[robertpaulsen]

115. I agree. Binary logic is lame. n/t

[BOG PERSON]

119. fence-sitting is lamer (n/t)

[robertpaulsen]

136. That observation is a perfect example of the logical fallacy at play on this thread.

The fence doesn't exist except in the minds of those who buy into the false dilemma forged by binary logic. Which apparently is something you've bought lock, stock and barrel.

So if fence-sitting is really lamer than binary logic, where do you stand? Are you with us or are you with the terrorists?

[BOG PERSON]

137. i eat food and drive a car and live in an air-conditioned house

so in this case i'm with us. but as a middle-class philistine i can also sort of understand the terrorists' point of view, you know?

[robertpaulsen]

138. OK, you got me. That made me laugh.

You may not be sitting, but you have constructed a fence where you can rest your chin and contemplate what's on the other side.

[fascisthunter]

105. Why just Capitalism vs Communism?!

I see, there must be commies here.

[kuthek]

117. Can you make a good case for communism?

So what do you do with the segment of the people who do not want communism?

Stalin killed roughly 10 million of them and put millions more in the gulag.

China just runs them over with tanks! (Tiananmen square)

Thanks but no thanks. I will be sticking to capitalism.

[defendandprotect]

122. Verdict is in ... "A pox on both their houses" ---

Where's democratic socialism?

[BOG PERSON]

124. trapped forever in the heads of impotent dreamers

[defendandprotect]

125. Seems to have reached the shores of quite a few countries!!

[BOG PERSON]

127. you mean like bizarro-britain and bizarro-france and bizarro-scandinavia?

no. social-democracy is in secular decline in all those places and fascistic anti-immigrant movements are working hard to replace them. as you probably know, fascism is a form of militant social-democracy that seeks to smooth over the contradictions of class society (seeing society as an organic whole) while preserving the contradiction between capital and labor.

[defendandprotect]

128. Socialism is well respected all over the world --

European countries have mixed capitalism and socialism --

with good results -- and they were starting fresh post WWII and made those choices.


HOWEVER, even in Germany where we put a democractic system in place --

and everywhere around the globe where capitalists can reach, it corrupts.


As Michael Moore has said -- capitalism is an evil and you can't regulate an evil.

We saw how quickly the New Deal was attacked and though it took decades finally undone!

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.


When fascism is rising, everything is threatened -- and we can see that happening again.

And ....

as you probably know, fascism is a form of militant social-democracy that seeks to smooth over the contradictions of class society (seeing society as an organic whole) while preserving the contradiction between capital and labor.

I know NO such thing --

Fascism can only rise on violence and lies -- political violence --

and we've seen that in this country for more than 50 years --

and when they feared killing any more political leaders, they moved to organized

stealing of elections with computers which began to come in during the late 1960's.

I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey.

Was there ever a "Southern Strategy" or was there only ever computers?


Don't forget that we also had the LARGE computers used by MSM come in during the mid-1960's

which gave them new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections -- PREDICT and CALL Electoral College

Votes and to CALL winners of states -- what we saw in 2000 was merely a REVERSAL of those new

powers.

Every day here you can read how corrupt posters think corporate press is --

however, I always sense that while they believe they "lie" they think there are some limits

to it -- !!

:evilgrin:



PS: Certainly any form of slavery is fascism -- and never has slavery sought to "smooth

over the contradictions of class society" --

Fascism is violent and brutal -- and every form of it is based on lies, misinformation and

the myth of "inferiority" among selected humans who are to be enslaved.

We are seeing this again right now with the rise of the right and sexual enslavement of

females and young males - and children -- and these trade routes are moving thru US.

[kuthek]

134. Those are the good points

But European socialism has it's problems too. The biggest being the unemployment rates. If you think it's bad here, Europe has double and in some places triple the unemployment we do.

[blindpig]

135. Which only goes to show that they are not really socialist.

Unemployment is a necessary feature of Capitalism.

Full employment is a primary tenant of Socialism.

[Philippine expat]

141. Regulated capitalism yes

Unregulated capitalism no

[winston65]

143. my $0.02 worth

boil it down. Under capitilism you're a slave to a wage. Under socialism, you're a slave to the state. One word repeats in both sentences: slave.