Gradualist Fool
27th October 2006, 17:01
What necessitated the substantial poverty and famine of Mao's economic policy under the "Great Leap Forward"? My history professor claimed once, that there were some accounts that one form of torture under Mao was to hold a gun to your head and make you eat your family or die. If you died first, your family would eat you.
I saw a documentary on China earlier which claimed that after land was privatized in China, the average peasant's income increased by more than 1500%. Now, to give you an idea of what that means. Let's say each peasant made America's minimum wage (a huge exaggeration, but useful to prove a point). The federal minimum wage in America is $5.15\hour. A 1500% increase in their wages would amount to making over $80\hour. Isn't it conceivable, therefore, that privatization actually improved the lives of Chinese peasants? The documenters spoke with one Chinese family in the countryside who certainly thought so.
And then, the most stark point is the distinctions between North and South Korea. South Korean soap operas (banned in North Korea) are smuggled to North Korea because people are intrigued by the Capitalist lifestyle, the same way Eastern Germany was intrigued by Western Germany. North Korea is, by far, more oppressive and corrupt than South Korea. And when you look at their actual economies, South Korea has exploded while North Korea has stayed in the dark ages. I mean, I'm sure some Capitalists here have posted the picture of that map of the amount of electricity in both countries, right?
I cannot argue that Capitalism is the most ethical or the ideal system. But pragmatically, it is the most efficient system, in the meantime at least -- because, in my view, the material conditions have not been met. And so, attempts at the establishment of Socialism ends in either a feudalist-like economy or an oppressive form of Capitalism.
I think one main point is that you don't seem to understand why Capitalism is "better," than Feudalism. I mean, if Socialists are going to establish democratic organizations which restrict trade so that it can be hoarded by the state -- how, then, do you distinguish Socialism for Mercantilism? And how can you argue that a Mercantilist-like policy is "more efficient," than Capitalism?
To attack Capitalism is to attack Socialism. If, in fact, Capitalism's downfall is necessitated by "overproduction," and reaching a certain "critical point," by which it cannot be sustained, how can we "establish," Socialism? If anything, the reverse is true: If we established total laissez-faire capitalism across the world, the revolution would happen overnight. Because Socialism's existence comes in response to the economic conditions which necessitate the fall of Capitalism, not a bunch of gung-ho revolutionaries who want to make the revolution happen.
You can deny that's the sentiment you have, but it's true. You're in such anticipation for the revolution. A large protest ends up in a city being taken over by renegades, and blocked, and you say, "OMG! The revolution is here! I need to go to Oaxaca!" Now the teachers have voted to return to work. A couple months from now, the Mexican government will re-establish control and nothing will have changed. Because the revolution must be led by the proletariat itself -- in full-force and as one single-minded entity -- not by a small group of Marxist militiamen, or any kind of "vanguard party." If the material conditions were met, one would not even need to shout for "solidarity," or spend hours handing out flyers.
I saw a documentary on China earlier which claimed that after land was privatized in China, the average peasant's income increased by more than 1500%. Now, to give you an idea of what that means. Let's say each peasant made America's minimum wage (a huge exaggeration, but useful to prove a point). The federal minimum wage in America is $5.15\hour. A 1500% increase in their wages would amount to making over $80\hour. Isn't it conceivable, therefore, that privatization actually improved the lives of Chinese peasants? The documenters spoke with one Chinese family in the countryside who certainly thought so.
And then, the most stark point is the distinctions between North and South Korea. South Korean soap operas (banned in North Korea) are smuggled to North Korea because people are intrigued by the Capitalist lifestyle, the same way Eastern Germany was intrigued by Western Germany. North Korea is, by far, more oppressive and corrupt than South Korea. And when you look at their actual economies, South Korea has exploded while North Korea has stayed in the dark ages. I mean, I'm sure some Capitalists here have posted the picture of that map of the amount of electricity in both countries, right?
I cannot argue that Capitalism is the most ethical or the ideal system. But pragmatically, it is the most efficient system, in the meantime at least -- because, in my view, the material conditions have not been met. And so, attempts at the establishment of Socialism ends in either a feudalist-like economy or an oppressive form of Capitalism.
I think one main point is that you don't seem to understand why Capitalism is "better," than Feudalism. I mean, if Socialists are going to establish democratic organizations which restrict trade so that it can be hoarded by the state -- how, then, do you distinguish Socialism for Mercantilism? And how can you argue that a Mercantilist-like policy is "more efficient," than Capitalism?
To attack Capitalism is to attack Socialism. If, in fact, Capitalism's downfall is necessitated by "overproduction," and reaching a certain "critical point," by which it cannot be sustained, how can we "establish," Socialism? If anything, the reverse is true: If we established total laissez-faire capitalism across the world, the revolution would happen overnight. Because Socialism's existence comes in response to the economic conditions which necessitate the fall of Capitalism, not a bunch of gung-ho revolutionaries who want to make the revolution happen.
You can deny that's the sentiment you have, but it's true. You're in such anticipation for the revolution. A large protest ends up in a city being taken over by renegades, and blocked, and you say, "OMG! The revolution is here! I need to go to Oaxaca!" Now the teachers have voted to return to work. A couple months from now, the Mexican government will re-establish control and nothing will have changed. Because the revolution must be led by the proletariat itself -- in full-force and as one single-minded entity -- not by a small group of Marxist militiamen, or any kind of "vanguard party." If the material conditions were met, one would not even need to shout for "solidarity," or spend hours handing out flyers.