Communists Lose in Moldova Vote

[New Tet]

Sobering news for some.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/europe/31moldova.html?_r=1&hp

[Kukulofori]

This is GREAT news. It doesn't mean the communist ideal is less popular, it means that the reality's come in that the communist party is only offering what it can as a political party, which is to say not much since it has to work within a capitalist system without drastically changing anything.

[New Tet]

This is GREAT news. It doesn't mean the communist ideal is less popular, it means that the reality's come in that the communist party is only offering what it can as a political party, which is to say not much since it has to work within a capitalist system without drastically changing anything.

So what you're saying here is that the mere existence of a communist party does not ensure anything will change fundamentally?

[Kukulofori]

I'm saying that the existence of a communist party as a revolutionary organisation, especially within the current framework, ensures that nothing will change fundamentally, and that that realization is an important first step to revolution.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The Moldovan CP is even less communist than the Chinese Communist Party. Over the past eight years, while they've been in power, they have done nothing but pursue a string of privatizations and neoliberal reforms.

Of course, the other parties are much, much worse, and this result will hurt the communist cause, but don't imagine that it represents a fundamental change towards capitalism. Capitalism is already there.

[New Tet]

The Moldovan CP is even less communist than the Chinese Communist Party. Over the past eight years, while they've been in power, they have done nothing but pursue a string of privatizations and neoliberal reforms.

Of course, the other parties are much, much worse, and this result will hurt the communist cause, but don't imagine that it represents a fundamental change towards capitalism. Capitalism is already there.

So in your opinion the Moldova party was communist in name only?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Also, this story is far from over. These early elections had to be called because the Moldovan CP only had 60 seats in Parliament, and 61 were needed to elect a new president. Now the opposition parties have 53 seats and the CP has 48. They're still unable to elect a new president, and the deadlock will continue unless they agree to form some kind of grand coalition.

[New Tet]

I'm saying that the existence of a communist party as a revolutionary organisation, especially within the current framework, ensures that nothing will change fundamentally, and that that realization is an important first step to revolution.

Assuming that you are correct, what is the second step to revolution?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So in your opinion the Moldova party was communist in name only?
Oh yes, without a doubt. Their election posters advertised such things as the elimination of the profit tax during their time in power and the increase in foreign direct investment (i.e. foreign capitalists buying means of production in Moldova) since 2001.

Having said that, however, even a party that is communist in name only can still do good propaganda work on behalf of communism.

[New Tet]

Also, this story is far from over. These early elections had to be called because the Moldovan CP only had 60 seats in Parliament, and 61 were needed to elect a new president. Now the opposition parties have 53 seats and the CP has 48. They're still unable to elect a new president, and the deadlock will continue unless they agree to form some kind of grand coalition.

And are there any organizations in Moldova that you know of that are genuine socialist parties?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

And are there any organizations in Moldova that you know of that are genuine socialist parties?
Not that I know of. The CP does include many people who are genuine communists, but not in any leadership positions.

[New Tet]

Oh yes, without a doubt. Their election posters advertised such things as the elimination of the profit tax during their time in power and the increase in foreign direct investment (i.e. foreign capitalists buying means of production in Moldova) since 2001.

Having said that, however, even a party that is communist in name only can still do good propaganda work on behalf of communism.

Yeah. Some of the best books I've ever read by and about Marx were published by Novosti and other Soviet-era publishers.

[Kukulofori]

Assuming that you are correct, what is the second step to revolution?

Revolutions don't follow any cut-out formula. There are many, many second steps just as there are many, many first steps, and I can't really comment on what they should do next because I have no idea what's already been done.

[Ovi]

So what you're saying here is that the mere existence of a communist party does not ensure anything will change fundamentally?
Yeah, in worse. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe thanks to them.

So in your opinion the Moldova party was communist in name only?
If you'd ask me any communist party is communist only in name :laugh:
Hopefully we'll get to see the end of the communist party in Moldova these days.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yeah, in worse. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe thanks to them.
Their policies are indeed strongly pro-capitalist and neoliberal, but I'm not sure they have much to do with Moldova's present economic situation. It's a tiny, landlocked, agricultural country. It would be poor no matter who was in power.


If you'd ask me any communist party is communist only in name :laugh:
Hopefully we'll get to see the end of the communist party in Moldova these days.
Many years ago, I also thought we would be better off without the parties who are communist in name only. Today, I think that view is very wrong. Look: If you have a political party that only pretends to be communist, at least that means the debate about communism vs. capitalism is kept alive. At least it makes people think about communism. If the party disappears, the debate disappears along with it, communism is no longer seen as a real alternative, and capitalism gains wider acceptance.

[Ovi]

It's a tiny, landlocked, agricultural country. It would be poor no matter who was in power.

For some reason the people in Luxembourg don't want to comply with your prediction.


Many years ago, I also thought we would be better off without the parties who are communist in name only. Today, I think that view is very wrong. Look: If you have a political party that only pretends to be communist, at least that means the debate about communism vs. capitalism is kept alive. At least it makes people think about communism. If you just mention that you're against capitalism you're immediately accused of .If the party disappears, the debate disappears along with it, communism is no longer seen as a real alternative, and capitalism gains wider acceptance.

But the bad part is that people start to think that communism means Stalin, Mao or the communist party of moldova. The anti-communist position is very pronounced in my country and so is the neighbouring Moldova's youth, without most of them knowing what communism means. If you mention that you are against capitalism you are immediately being accused of being one of THEM. I don't see this as an advantage in any way.

[Asoka89]

I would advice that people confused about why a Communist Party can't govern the capitalist state without losing its principles to read chapter one of Karl Kautsky's "Road to Power"

http://radicalebooks.blogspot.com/2009/07/karl-kautsky-road-to-power-100-years-on.html

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

For some reason the people in Luxembourg don't want to comply with your prediction.

You know, Luxembourg is a tax haven, which has something to do with its astronomical GDP. That skews its economic situation considerably.

Moldova has always been an extremely poor place - with the USSR in place it had a stronger economic network pulling it up. The absence of industry in most of the country, especially as the country's industrial Transnistria region seceded to form an even smaller unrecognized mini-state right after Moldova's independence with the break-up of the USSR, doesn't help much. It became what it is now - a nearly complete basket case - after the collapse of the USSR.

The "Communist" Party came to power in 2001, after 10 years of things getting worse for everybody, propelled by nostalgia for the "good old times" among those old enough to remember them.

It's hardly the "Communists" fault that Moldova is economically fucked - in fact, they've still done better than any other single party for the last eight years...

Still, the fact that these neoliberals got set back can't be considered some kind of serious failure for real communsts.

[Ovi]

You know, Luxembourg is a tax haven, which has something to do with its astronomical GDP. That skews its economic situation considerably.

Still, "It's a tiny, landlocked country. It should be poor no matter who was in power. ". Right? That's like saying these countries should be poor unless they are rich.


Moldova has always been an extremely poor place - with the USSR in place it had a stronger economic network pulling it up. The absence of industry in most of the country, especially as the country's industrial Transnistria region seceded to form an even smaller unrecognized mini-state right after Moldova's independence with the break-up of the USSR, doesn't help much. It became what it is now - a nearly complete basket case - after the collapse of the USSR.

The "Communist" Party came to power in 2001, after 10 years of things getting worse for everybody, propelled by nostalgia for the "good old times" among those old enough to remember them.

It's hardly the "Communists" fault that Moldova is economically fucked - in fact, they've still done better than any other single party for the last eight years...

Still, the fact that these neoliberals got set back can't be considered some kind of serious failure for real communsts.
First of all they weren't actually doing that great under Stalin's rule either. Not the communists fault? Those "communists" that rule since world war 2? Were they supposed to be a developed country since 19'th century so that the soviets could do their work?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

For some reason the people in Luxembourg don't want to comply with your prediction.
Luxembourg does not have an economy dominated by agriculture, though. I didn't just say tiny and landlocked, I also said agricultural.

Luxembourg is wealthy because it created favourable conditions for large numbers of rich people from other countries to move there. It's the same story as with Monaco or Andorra. I doubt Moldova could do that, because a country needs to be very small to have an economy based on rich foreigners. Luxembourg has 490,000 people. Moldova has 4.3 million. And even if it could do it, this kind of "economic growth" is an illusion.


But the bad part is that people start to think that communism means Stalin, Mao or the communist party of moldova. The anti-communist position is very pronounced in my country and so is the neighbouring Moldova's youth, without most of them knowing what communism means. If you mention that you are against capitalism you are immediately being accused of being one of THEM. I don't see this as an advantage in any way.
He he, cunosc foarte bine situația din România, având în vedere că și eu sunt român. :)

To continue in English for the benefit of the other readers: I am also Romanian, and it is precisely the situation in Romania that has led me to conclude that even a false Communist Party is better than no Communist Party at all. For the past 20 years, there has been no Communist Party in Romania, and in fact all political forces try to distance themselves from communism as much as they can. And we both know what disaster those other political parties have created. Did this lead people to question the existing system? Did this lead to the birth of any major anti-capitalist political trends? No! Stupidly, insanely, "communism" is still blamed for everything that goes wrong in Romania, even after 20 years of capitalism, even after 20 years of having parties in power that claim to be utterly anti-communist.

From this I conclude that the disappearence of false Communist Parties will bring no benefit to the public image of communism.

[Ovi]

Luxembourg does not have an economy dominated by agriculture, though. I didn't just say tiny and landlocked, I also said agricultural.

Of course they are not agricultural. Because they are not poor!!


Luxembourg is wealthy because it created favourable conditions for large numbers of rich people from other countries to move there. It's the same story as with Monaco or Andorra. I doubt Moldova could do that, because a country needs to be very small to have an economy based on rich foreigners. Luxembourg has 490,000 people. Moldova has 4.3 million. And even if it could do it, this kind of "economic growth" is an illusion.
First you're saying that it's a poor country because it's too small. Now it's a poor country because it's too big?


He he, cunosc foarte bine situația din România, având în vedere că și eu sunt român. :)

To continue in English for the benefit of the other readers: I am also Romanian, and it is precisely the situation in Romania that has led me to conclude that even a false Communist Party is better than no Communist Party at all. For the past 20 years, there has been no Communist Party in Romania, and in fact all political forces try to distance themselves from communism as much as they can.

So you are one of THEM!!!:laugh:
Actually it's sad; sad to see that you who should know better than most around here of the atrocities committed in Moldova by the soviet union are actually praising their criminal system!


And we both know what disaster those other political parties have created. Did this lead people to question the existing system? Did this lead to the birth of any major anti-capitalist political trends? No! Stupidly, insanely, "communism" is still blamed for everything that goes wrong in Romania, even after 20 years of capitalism, even after 20 years of having parties in power that claim to be utterly anti-communist.

And you are blaming everything wrong on the absence of the communist party!


From this I conclude that the disappearence of false Communist Parties will bring no benefit to the public image of communism.

If the communist parties would dissappear, people might realize that there can be something better than capitalism, without being shouted that anti-capitalism is much worse: You want communism? Look at North Korea! China! Moldova! You want that?

[Asoka89]

If the communist parties would dissappear, people might realize that there can be something better than capitalism, without being shouted that anti-capitalism is much worse: You want communism? Look at North Korea! China! Moldova! You want that?

The end of the Communist Party won't extinguish the memory of "state socialisms". You act like the legacy is the only think stopping this--- what about hegemony, reitficiation, etc... your view is wwwwwwwwaaaaaaaayyy too simplistic

[Ovi]

The end of the Communist Party won't extinguish the memory of "state socialisms". You act like the legacy is the only think stopping this--- what about hegemony, reitficiation, etc... your view is wwwwwwwwaaaaaaaayyy too simplistic
What I'm saying is that the presence of communist parties doesn't help at all the defeat of capitalism/state capitalism. Of course leninists woudn't want that anyway...

If there would be a communist party in my country that would have a few votes, the anti-communist feeling would be even stronger.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Still, "It's a tiny, landlocked country. It should be poor no matter who was in power. ". Right? That's like saying these countries should be poor unless they are rich.

Eh? I'm not sure why you're replying to my post with this bit. I didn't suggest that small landlocked countries need all be poor. Someone else suggested this as the (partial) explanation for Moldova's case. You replied by comparing Moldova to Luxembourg. I explained the qualitative difference and the objective causes of Moldova's current state.


First of all they weren't actually doing that great under Stalin's rule either. Not the communists fault? Those "communists" that rule since world war 2? Were they supposed to be a developed country since 19'th century so that the soviets could do their work?

But I've explained it, no? Is it the fault of Soviet policy that the tiny Moldova is still largely agricultural? Surely the Soviet Union wasn't supposed to industrialize every darn bit of land on its territory? The United States has large swathes of agricultural land too, you know. They aren't "19'th century" either.

Besides, the Soviets heavily industrialized the eastern half of Moldova. That's the part that seceded from the Moldovan government as the unrecognized Transinistrian republic.

I do love how you brought in Stalin here for no readily apparent reason - the left-wing variety of Godwin's law.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Of course they are not agricultural. Because they are not poor!!
What came first, the chicken or the egg?


First you're saying that it's a poor country because it's too small. Now it's a poor country because it's too big?
Actually, I'm trying to get rid of oversimplifications (and it was partly my fault for introducing them in the first place - I apologize for that). Moldova is a poor country because of historical and geographical reasons. Its size is one such reason, but not the most important. Moldova isn't just a small country, it's a small landlocked country in Eastern Europe with no significant industrial base who used to be part of a much larger federal state that broke up and cut most of Moldova's traditional economic ties at the same time as its economic system was rapidly privatized.

One or two of those factors alone would not make a country poor. But all of them together will.


So you are one of THEM!!!:laugh:
Actually it's sad; sad to see that you who should know better than most around here of the atrocities committed in Moldova by the soviet union are actually praising their criminal system!
Who said anything about the Soviet Union...? :confused:

And the existing capitalist system is just as criminal.


And you are blaming everything wrong on the absence of the communist party!
No, I'm just saying this absence hasn't improved things.


If the communist parties would dissappear, people might realize that there can be something better than capitalism, without being shouted that anti-capitalism is much worse: You want communism? Look at North Korea! China! Moldova! You want that?
No, people would continue to shout that, even 20 or 30 or 40 years after those false "communist" governments disappeared. That's my point. The opponents of communism will point at China, North Korea or Moldova forever, even long after those countries have become fully capitalist.

[makesi]

The best analysis I've seen of Moldova and Voronin is on a Russian-language website, left.ru

Anarchists have no problem categorically bashing the, especially (and I mean ESPECIALLY) the Soviet, past.

These parties do more than just leave open certain avenues of debate, they also represent institutions that have historically been instances of much greater popular involvement in politics. Communist parties are, definitely historically, if less so today, not mirror images of various types of western/ized/izing pro-capitalist parties. The cadre structure and community involvement which is key to socialist and communist parties and fundamental to--when they are operating on a more orthodox pattern and exhibit a more decisive commitment to anti-capitalism--their purpose and cause makes them elementally different from western/ized/izing pro-capitalist and, so-called, "civil society"-based parties that serve as vehicles for lobbies and lobbyists, temporary causes, vote collecting machines, temporary mobilizing mechanisms, and instruments for career politicians. These aspects are certainly not without precedent amongst communist parties but are not part and parcel of the party's genuine essence the way they are with bourgoise parties.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If there would be a communist party in my country that would have a few votes, the anti-communist feeling would be even stronger.
What makes you think that? I think the more visible communists are, the more difficult it becomes for capitalists to demonize them.

[Ovi]

But I've explained it, no? Is it the fault of Soviet policy that the tiny Moldova is still largely agricultural?

It sure ain't mine. THEY ruled over Moldova for about 50 years.


Surely the Soviet Union wasn't supposed to industrialize every darn bit of land on its territory?

So it's their fault that they didn't industrialize it or not?


Besides, the Soviets heavily industrialized the eastern half of Moldova. That's the part that seceded from the Moldovan government as the unrecognized Transinistrian republic.

Which they colonized with russians. And which became independent with the help of Russia. Now that helped!


I do love how you brought in Stalin here for no readily apparent reason - the left-wing variety of Godwin's law.
Someone suggested that they were actually doing great during Stalin's reign. No aparent reason?


What came first, the chicken or the egg?
You were saying it's a poor country because it's a poor (agricultural) country. Now that makes a lot of sense.


Moldova is a poor country because of historical and geographical reasons.

Now that it's completely different. Obviously you can't do much economy when you're constatly being invaded. That's the reason it's a small country now.


Who said anything about the Soviet Union...? :confused:

A party that continues to implement the brain washing activities and censorship of the ex. soviet government it's a new soviet government to me.


And the existing capitalist system is just as criminal.

Yes, but I don't praise none.


No, people would continue to shout that, even 20 or 30 or 40 years after those false "communist" governments disappeared. That's my point. The opponents of communism will point at China, North Korea or Moldova forever, even long after those countries have become fully capitalist.

And that's because of these state capitalist bastards. Will their further presence improve anything? Will people understand what communism is all about if the seld identified communist parties mantain that it's a sick totalitarian system?


What makes you think that? I think the more visible communists are, the more difficult it becomes for capitalists to demonize them.
You mean the more we learn about Stalin/Mao/Ceaușescu, the more we would like to be ruled onced again by some sick bastards?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Which they colonized with russians. And which became independent with the help of Russia. Now that helped!

You mean Ukrainians? There are as many of them in Transnistria and more in Moldova proper than there are Russians. They brought in skilled urban workers from the eastern parts of the country to work in the new industrial enterprises, as in Estonia and elsewhere. Of course, you see it through your own colored glasses. But let me know how you feel about the Soviets colonizing Moscow with Chechens.

Amen to whoever said anarachists will say anything to bash the Soviet Union...

I'm pretty critical of Soviet policy myself, but this is really digging hard.

I think the rest of your anti-Soviet complaints in this Moldova thread are sufficiently addressed, so I'll take a rest now.

[Ovi]

You mean Ukrainians?

No I mean russians. Almost doubling the percentage of russians from 13% to 25% in 50 years could be called collonization.


They brought in skilled urban workers from the eastern parts of the country to work in the new industrial enterprises, as in Estonia and elsewhere. Of course, you see it through your own colored glasses. But let me know how you feel about the Soviets colonizing Moscow with Chechens.

What do you feel about the soviets "colonizing" siberia with chechens?


Amen to whoever said anarachists will say anything to bash the Soviet Union...

I'm pretty critical of Soviet policy myself, but this is really digging hard.

You've just said they 'brought' skilled workers. So to you there was no mass deportation, no russification, no planned hunger, no crimes?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

No I mean russians. Almost doubling the percentage of russians from 13% to 25% in 50 years could be called collonization.

What do you feel about the soviets "colonizing" siberia with chechens?

You've just said they 'brought' skilled workers. So to you there was no mass deportation, no russification, no planned hunger, no crimes?

1. When did the Soviets colonize Siberia with Chechens?

2. When did the Soviets induce planned hunger and mass deportation in Moldova?

3. Do you think making shit is up is equivalent to trolling?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No I mean russians. Almost doubling the percentage of russians from 13% to 25% in 50 years could be called collonization.
Why? What's wrong with Russians? Are Russians not supposed to be allowed to live in Moldova? Why should we care about national borders, given that they are, as many anarchists often point out, creations of the state and of the ruling classes?


What do you feel about the soviets...
I need to remind you that Stalin and the Soviet Union are not one and the same thing, just like George Bush and the United States (for example) are not one and the same thing. The USSR had many leaders besides Stalin, and many of their policies were different (for example, no deportations). It is misleading to speak of the actions of one leader as if they were done by all the leaders of that country.

[Ovi]

Why? What's wrong with Russians? Are Russians not supposed to be allowed to live in Moldova? Why should we care about national borders, given that they are, as many anarchists often point out, creations of the state and of the ruling classes?

Who said anything bad about the russians? There should be no borders, but does Stalin's imperialist actions against eastern europe clasify as internationalist to you?


I need to remind you that Stalin and the Soviet Union are not one and the same thing, just like George Bush and the United States (for example) are not one and the same thing. The USSR had many leaders besides Stalin, and many of their policies were different (for example, no deportations). It is misleading to speak of the actions of one leader as if they were done by all the leaders of that country.
So, being a nazi is right? After all it's Hitler's fault for the death of all those people.

1. When did the Soviets colonize Siberia with Chechens?

2. When did the Soviets induce planned hunger and mass deportation in Moldova?

3. Do you think making shit is up is equivalent to trolling?
1. It's called deportation. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=32525 (http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=32525)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic#Stalinist_peri od:_collectivisation
http://social.moldova.org/news/60th-anniversary-of-the-2nd-wave-of-deportation-marked-in-moldova-202336-eng.html
Welcome on planet Earth!
3. Do you think denying the deaths of millions ordered by Stalin is any different from denying the holocaust? You do believe there was a holocaust right?

[New Tet]

What makes you think that? I think the more visible communists are, the more difficult it becomes for capitalists to demonize them.

Not when they act like clowns.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

1. It's called deportation. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=32525 (http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=32525)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic#Stalinist_peri od:_collectivisation
http://social.moldova.org/news/60th-anniversary-of-the-2nd-wave-of-deportation-marked-in-moldova-202336-eng.html
Welcome on planet Earth!
3. Do you think denying the deaths of millions ordered by Stalin is any different from denying the holocaust? You do believe there was a holocaust right?

1. You're suggesting I take a look at the Jamestown foundation, a right-wing source. The bulk of the Chechens were deported to Central Asia as a result of Stalin's policy, not Siberia - although some were sent there. I fail to see what this has to do with the topic of this thread. After Stalin, plenty of Chechens were settled in Moscow - the capital of the "Soviet Empire." I brought this up as a counterexample to your claim that "Russians moving to Moldova = colonization."

2. There were deportations in Moldova, as there were in every other Soviet republic, including Russia. Those deported were sent away as political opponents, rather than as an act of ethnic cleansing - quite a difference! Again, political opponents being deported and skilled Ukrainian and Russian workers being brought in to support the first wave of industrialization in the east =/= ethnic cleansing.

3. I am fiercely critical of Stalin. And I am not denying the deaths caused by his time in power - and have not done so anywhere. While I have laid out the above points in a clear manner (I hope), I am still curious as to why you took this thread in the direction of ah!-evil-Stalinists to begin with, and see no reason for doing so other than to divert the thread into something different that you would really, really like to talk about. But we were talking about politics in 2009 Moldova, not Stalin or his horrors in the Soviet Union. Why, Ovi, why?

[Ovi]

1. You're suggesting I take a look at the Jamestown foundation, a right-wing source. The bulk of the Chechens were deported to Central Asia as a result of Stalin's policy, not Siberia - although some were sent there. I fail to see what this has to do with the topic of this thread. After Stalin, plenty of Chechens were settled in Moscow - the capital of the "Soviet Empire." I brought this up as a counterexample to your claim that "Russians moving to Moldova = colonization."

2. There were deportations in Moldova, as there were in every other Soviet republic, including Russia. Those deported were sent away as political opponents, rather than as an act of ethnic cleansing. Quite a difference.

3. I am fiercely critical of Stalin. And I am not denying the deaths caused by his time in power - and have not done so anywhere. While I have laid out the above points in a clear manner (I hope), I am still curious as to why you took this thread in the direction of ah!-evil-Stalinists to begin with, and see no reason for doing so other than to divert the thread into something different that you would really, really like to talk about. But we were talking about politics in 2009 Moldova, not Stalin or his horrors in the Soviet Union. Why, Ovi, why?
1.So the Jamestown foundation made it up? It's an arbitrary link. If some empire invades a country, deports a large percentage of it's population and fills the gap with collonists...you call that a good policy? Plenty moved to Moscow? And many more to Siberia. What's your point?
2. Political opponents? half a million people deported and 200,000 dead by famine in a country with less than 3 million?
3. I didn't start by saying that Moldova was doing great during the soviet era. I didn't praise the communist party of Moldova. Nor did I say that the Soviet Union, who ruled for half a century, it's completely innocent of the economic situation in Moldova. Who started it again?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

3. I didn't start by saying that Moldova was doing great during the soviet era. I didn't praise the communist party of Moldova. Nor did I say that the Soviet Union, who ruled for half a century, it's completely innocent of the economic situation in Moldova. Who started it again?
Moldova wasn't doing "great" during the Soviet era. It was doing better than today. That's not necessarily "great." You can say that a country was doing better at time T1 than at time T2 without implying that you are a great supporter of the country at time T1. For example, I can say that Somalia was doing better in 1985 than today. That doesn't mean Somalia was great in 1985, or that I support it.

Also, the Soviet Union is innocent of the current economic situation in Moldova. You said nothing to deny this fact. You only mentioned the deportations that occurred in the 1940s and 50s. What do population movements have to do with a country's economics? Especially population movements that occurred 60 years ago?

The Soviet Union - or, to be more specific, the Stalin government - is of course responsible for the current demographic situation in Moldova. But what does that have to do with anything that we were talking about?

[Die Neue Zeit]

If only the false CPs were like the Japanese Communist party. It too is programmatically shallow, but at least it is oppositionist (as opposed to being in a position to govern the capitalist state).

[Q]

I would advice that people confused about why a Communist Party can't govern the capitalist state without losing its principles to read chapter one of Karl Kautsky's "Road to Power"

http://radicalebooks.blogspot.com/2009/07/karl-kautsky-road-to-power-100-years-on.html
Yes, 1914 proved that much...

[Ovi]

Moldova wasn't doing "great" during the Soviet era. It was doing better than today. That's not necessarily "great." You can say that a country was doing better at time T1 than at time T2 without implying that you are a great supporter of the country at time T1. For example, I can say that Somalia was doing better in 1985 than today. That doesn't mean Somalia was great in 1985, or that I support it.

Someone mentioned the "good old times". They weren't that good.

Moldova wasn't doing "great" during the
Also, the Soviet Union is innocent of the current economic situation in Moldova. You said nothing to deny this fact. You only mentioned the deportations that occurred in the 1940s and 50s. What do population movements have to do with a country's economics? Especially population movements that occurred 60 years ago?

It wasn't about the country's economy. It was about those good soviet times and about the industrialization of Transnistria.

And do you actually believe that without the soviet invasion of Moldova, it would have been even worse? I doubt.
By the way, you are the first I know to say that the sovier union has nothing to do with the economy in Moldova.

Moldova wasn't doing "great" during the
The Soviet Union - or, to be more specific, the Stalin government - is of course responsible for the current demographic situation in Moldova. But what does that have to do with anything that we were talking about?
Someone suggested that there were no deportations, only workers "exchanged" which is full of bullshit.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Someone mentioned the "good old times". They weren't that good.
Yes, that is true, and I agree.


It wasn't about the country's economy. It was about those good soviet times and about the industrialization of Transnistria.
Well, ok. In that context you are right to mention the deportations.

On the same subject, I want to mention that I do not look at the USSR as a "package deal" that must be entirely accepted or entirely rejected. I like some things about it and oppose others.


And do you actually believe that without the soviet invasion of Moldova, it would have been even worse? I doubt.
Looking at history, the Soviet occupation of Moldova was an inevitable consequence of World War 2. There are only two ways it could have been avoided:

1. If Germany won WW2.
2. If WW2 never occurred.

In the first case, if Germany won WW2, things would have been much, much worse for the entire human species (in fact the human species might not even exist today in that scenario, since Nazi Germany may have ended up starting a nuclear war some time later).

In the second case, if WW2 never happened... then we just don't know. Everything - all of human history since 1945 - has been deeply affected by WW2. There is simply no way to guess what the world (or Moldova) would be like today if the greatest war in human history never happened. It could be better, or it could be worse. Anything could have happened.


By the way, you are the first I know to say that the sovier union has nothing to do with the economy in Moldova.
I did not say that. I said the Soviet Union is not to blame for the present economic situation in Moldova. That's because the present economic situation was created by the restoration of capitalism in the 1990s.

If we were talking about the economic situation of Moldova in the 1980s, on the other hand, then of course the Soviet Union would be extremely important.

[Ovi]

Looking at history, the Soviet occupation of Moldova was an inevitable consequence of World War 2. There are only two ways it could have been avoided:

1. If Germany won WW2.
2. If WW2 never occurred.

In the first case, if Germany won WW2, things would have been much, much worse for the entire human species (in fact the human species might not even exist today in that scenario, since Nazi Germany may have ended up starting a nuclear war some time later).

Someone might have said the same thing about the soviet union if germany would have won.


In the second case, if WW2 never happened... then we just don't know. Everything - all of human history since 1945 - has been deeply affected by WW2. There is simply no way to guess what the world (or Moldova) would be like today if the greatest war in human history never happened. It could be better, or it could be worse. Anything could have happened.


It's like this: what were the odds that western germany would be doing worse than eastern germany? Pretty slim I'd say . (useless arguing I know)

[Asoka89]

There is no denying that social democracy/ capitalism has given to the working class historically more freedom and more prosperity than so called "state socialism"... it's hard not to acknowledge this. Compare East and West Germany.... North Korea and South Korea.. look at the success in China after liberalization.

Lucky for us Marxist thought was based upon socialism as a successor system to capitalism not as a tool for doing the historic task of the bourgeoisie.

[khad]

There is no denying that social democracy/ capitalism has given to the working class historically more freedom and more prosperity than so called "state socialism"... it's hard not to acknowledge this. Compare East and West Germany.... North Korea and South Korea.. look at the success in China after liberalization.

Yeah, China has masses of homeless, unemployed migrant workers. Kids committing suicide because they can't afford to go to high school. This never happened before. It must be progress,

[makesi]

There is no denying that social democracy/ capitalism has given to the working class historically more freedom and more prosperity than so called "state socialism"... it's hard not to acknowledge this. Compare East and West Germany.... North Korea and South Korea.. look at the success in China after liberalization.

Lucky for us Marxist thought was based upon socialism as a successor system to capitalism not as a tool for doing the historic task of the bourgeoisie.


The state socialisms and, their 3rd world nationalist variants, emerged in societies that often had average life expectancies of less than 40 years. Their life expectancy often went up to around 55-60 years, or higher.

The statistics in Russia and the vast majority of the post-Soviet states under democracy and capitalism contradict your argument completely.

Look at the rest of the capitalist world, with its variants of democracy. India, sub-Saharan Africa, the Philipines, Bangladesh.

Capitalism has produced wealth in the West (and Japan and South Korea to an extent) but definitely not uniformly with social democracy or any type of similar political system sometimes but with blood and tears quite often.

[makesi]

There is no denying that social democracy/ capitalism has given to the working class historically more freedom and more prosperity than so called "state socialism"... it's hard not to acknowledge this. Compare East and West Germany.... North Korea and South Korea.. look at the success in China after liberalization.

Lucky for us Marxist thought was based upon socialism as a successor system to capitalism not as a tool for doing the historic task of the bourgeoisie.


North Korea's economy was stronger and growing more rapidly until at least the 1970s and you can't simply compare these societies. Every building, literally every building, in North Korea over 1 story was bombed and destroyed during the Korean war.

East Germany was historically less industrialized region, it was the junkers part of Germany.

[Ovi]

North Korea's economy was stronger and growing more rapidly until at least the 1970s and you can't simply compare these societies. Every building, literally every building, in North Korea over 1 story was bombed and destroyed during the Korean war.

East Germany was historically less industrialized region, it was the junkers part of Germany.
So that explains why EVERY case of state capitalism ended up being much poorer than western capitalist countries?

[Asoka89]

I'm sorry market development was more successful than central planning. Deal with it and adapt.

And calling into question India, et all is red herring. Your talking about the effects of underdevelopment, not capitalist development, systems that had heavy bureaucratization and and red-tape. In the case of India they have benefited from liberalization.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So that explains why EVERY case of state capitalism ended up being much poorer than western capitalist countries?
It might also have something to do with the fact that every case of state capitalism started out much poorer than western capitalist countries. Many of the state capitalist countries have actually developed faster than the Western market capitalist countries - but not fast enough to catch up. The difference in wealth between Russia and America, for example, was much smaller in 1990 than in 1917.

And, of course, let's not forget the very many non-Western market capitalist countries (across Latin America, Africa, and Asia), most of which are not doing terribly well.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm sorry market development was more successful than central planning.
By what standards? In most cases, central planning achieved better economic growth than market development. China is the major exception, but Chinese development during the centrally planned period was greatly hampered by such things as the Cultural Revolution.

Of course, countries that began to industrialize using market capitalism in the early 19th century are much more developed today than countries that began to industrialize using central planning in the early 20th century... but that's only to be expected.

[Ovi]

By what standards? In most cases, central planning achieved better economic growth than market development. China is the major exception, but Chinese development during the centrally planned period was greatly hampered by such things as the Cultural Revolution.

Cultural revolution IS the the result of central planning.

Many of the state capitalist countries have actually developed faster than the Western market capitalist countries - but not fast enough to catch up.

That explains why East Germany is so much more developed that West Germany.


Of course, countries that began to industrialize using market capitalism in the early 19th century are much more developed today than countries that began to industrialize using central planning in the early 20th century... but that's only to be expected.
Ok, you are right. Stalin and all those good dictators have so much to do with the wealthy countries of Moldova, North Korea, Albania and whichever you like and we should all thank them for showing us the way towards economic development that no western capitalist country could even dream!

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Someone mentioned the "good old times". They weren't that good.

Nobody mentioned the "good old times." I wrote


The "Communist" Party came to power in 2001, after 10 years of things getting worse for everybody, propelled by nostalgia for the "good old times" among those old enough to remember them.

I put that in quotes for the ironic effect known as the scare quotes, not for the emphatic reading...

Note that I put "Communist" in exactly those square quotes as well. But I guess you've been to absorbed with fighting the "Stalinists" with accusations that

underdeveloped economy = Stalinist misrule

and

Slavic migration to Moldova = a Sovietized ethnic cleansing

-- all pretty ludicrous points -- to notice a thing like that.

Hopefully you're seeing how your retorts about the horrors of Soviet "communism" completely run far off from the material that I actually wrote.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Cultural revolution IS the the result of central planning.
No it wasn't. It had nothing to do with economics at all, let alone central planning in particular. The Cultural Revolution was started by a political conflict between Mao and the rest of the Chinese Communist Party leadership.


That explains why East Germany is so much more developed that West Germany.
Actually, after 20 years of capitalism, East Germany lags behind West Germany even more than it did before. Also, Der Spiegel - an extremely pro-capitalist publication - recently admitted that a majority of East Germans believe life was better before 1989. You can read the article here:

"Majority of East Germans feel life better under communism (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html)"

Of course, the article is insanely biased, and paints this majority opinion as a horrible disaster (I love the part where they complain that children listen to their parents more than they listen to propaganda in schools), but it's still a good article to read because they mention the facts about the popularity of the former East German system.


Ok, you are right. Stalin and all those good dictators have so much to do with the wealthy countries of Moldova, North Korea, Albania and whichever you like and we should all thank them for showing us the way towards economic development that no western capitalist country could even dream!
In most cases, the dictators themselves had little personal involvement in the economic development of their countries. So there is no reason to thank them for anything.

And, of course, you intentionally chose the worst examples you could find.

[Demogorgon]

So that explains why EVERY case of state capitalism ended up being much poorer than western capitalist countries?
As pointed out, there is the question of where they started from. It should not surprise anyone that if you take a rural backwater and an industrial powerhouse and compare them over time, that said backwater will remain less advanced even if it develops very quickly. And of course you have to look at what happens when you switch from one to the other. Russia in 1985 or Russia in 1995, take your pick of which looks better off.

For the record I do not support the method of central planning used in the Eastern Block countries but I don't support market capitalism either. One can easily pick out certain features from both that seem to have gained good results, but you need to be able to come up with a more cohesive model to be able to convince people. Moreover many of the most successful Western Countries used plenty of planning too. West Germany for instance heavily planned investment, they just avoided trying to micromanage. And if you want to look at the biggest post war economic success story of all: Japan, you will see enormous amounts of economic planning there. Again though, the temptation to micromanage was largely avoided. Plainly certain forms of planning work and others don't. For the record Japan didn't get it right either, I just use it as an example of planning achieving a fair bit of success.

[Ovi]

Slavic migration to Moldova = a Sovietized ethnic cleansing

You should first read something about the slavic migration which happened more than 1000 years ago. That has nothing to do with the soviets collonizing the edges of it's empire. Hundreds of thousands of people (in Moldova alone) were deported with the goal of ethnic cleansing and mass brainwashing whether you like it or not.

As pointed out, there is the question of where they started from. It should not surprise anyone that if you take a rural backwater and an industrial powerhouse and compare them over time, that said backwater will remain less advanced even if it develops very quickly. And of course you have to look at what happens when you switch from one to the other. Russia in 1985 or Russia in 1995, take your pick of which looks better off.

For the record I do not support the method of central planning used in the Eastern Block countries but I don't support market capitalism either. One can easily pick out certain features from both that seem to have gained good results, but you need to be able to come up with a more cohesive model to be able to convince people. Moreover many of the most successful Western Countries used plenty of planning too. West Germany for instance heavily planned investment, they just avoided trying to micromanage. And if you want to look at the biggest post war economic success story of all: Japan, you will see enormous amounts of economic planning there. Again though, the temptation to micromanage was largely avoided. Plainly certain forms of planning work and others don't. For the record Japan didn't get it right either, I just use it as an example of planning achieving a fair bit of success.

So central planning worked great in Japan. Great, but Japan doesn't call itself communist. I was not arguing about central planning in general, but that in the 'communist' countries.


No it wasn't. It had nothing to do with economics at all, let alone central planning in particular. The Cultural Revolution was started by a political conflict between Mao and the rest of the Chinese Communist Party leadership.

Was the cultural revolution the decision of the people? If not, that's central planning (at a cultural level if you wish).


Actually, after 20 years of capitalism, East Germany lags behind West Germany even more than it did before. Also, Der Spiegel - an extremely pro-capitalist publication - recently admitted that a majority of East Germans believe life was better before 1989. You can read the article here:

"Majority of East Germans feel life better under communism (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html)"

Of course, the article is insanely biased, and paints this majority opinion as a horrible disaster (I love the part where they complain that children listen to their parents more than they listen to propaganda in schools), but it's still a good article to read because they mention the facts about the popularity of the former East German system.

What does this have to do with anything? We were comparing the economic development of capitalist and state capitalist countries, not that of a transition economy.


In most cases, the dictators themselves had little personal involvement in the economic development of their countries. So there is no reason to thank them for anything.

You mean Ceaușescu had little to do with the austerity regime in Romania?


And, of course, you intentionally chose the worst examples you could find.
Are there any good examples?