A Question for Revolutionary Socialists.

[Gradualist Fool]

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.

[Whitten]

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.

If he's still your history prof could you ask him for a source on this? Somehow I doubt this was the state policy.

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.

Keep in mind the great leap forward was designed to build capitalism in China, almost all of Mao's period in office was devoted to building capitalism in China. It wasnt developed enough to become socialist.

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?

While I agree that the DPRK sucks, I feel it only fair to point out that that famous photo was taken during a blackout.

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.

In China this was the case, that is why they maintained 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.

In the days of Marx this would have been true. Nowadays this is unlikely to be the case. Keep in mind globalisation and imperialism. Few country's proletariat would be free to maintain a revolution, and the bourgeois would keep the 1st world proletariat under control through more generous wages and stuff.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Whitten+October 27, 2006 06:07 pm--> (Whitten @ October 27, 2006 06:07 pm)

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.

If he's still your history prof could you ask him for a source on this? Somehow I doubt this was the state policy.[/b]

He said it was just a rumor put forth by one eyewitness, not actual credible evidence. But still, there is documentation of oppression under Mao. The professor claimed that the "Hundred Flowers movement," involved the wholesale slaughter of political dissidents.

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 06:07 pm

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.

Keep in mind the great leap forward was designed to build capitalism in China, almost all of Mao's period in office was devoted to building capitalism in China. It wasnt developed enough to become socialist.

I don't believe that at all, because the plan for the "Great Leap Forward," was essentially a copy of Stalin's policy of collectivization. They intended to force China into being a modern industrial country in the same way that Stalin did: through the large-scale collectivization of agriculture. It doesn't make much sense that they were trying to "build" capitalism by banning private production and seizing all private property.

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 06:07 pm

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?

While I agree that the DPRK sucks, I feel it only fair to point out that that famous photo was taken during a blackout.

Ah, that's a valid point. I thought it was rather strange that North Korea would have such little electricity. How do they compare, normally? I mean, has there been a photo of the same thing, taken recently?

Certainly, I'm sure you still agree that South Korea's economy is stronger and the people are more prosperous.

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 06:07 pm

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.

In China this was the case, that is why they maintained capitalism.

What do you mean?

Whitten

@October 27, 2006 06:07 pm

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.

In the days of Marx this would have been true. Nowadays this is unlikely to be the case. Keep in mind globalisation and imperialism. Few country's proletariat would be free to maintain a revolution, and the bourgeois would keep the 1st world proletariat under control through more generous wages and stuff.

I don't believe it's possible to eliminate true "freedom." If the people are exploited en masse, then they will revolt. As I see it, as stands under Capitalism, the wages of workers are continually rising, rates of welfare spending are going up, global equality is increasing, and poverty is continually declining. In America, there is a disturbing divide between the rich and poor which is growing, but I don't believe that they can keep it up. With regard to the term "first world," I've come to understand that it's inappropriate to divide countries into "first-world" and "third-world."

See this lecture to see what I mean:
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer...&flashEnabled=1

And the data here, backs it up:
http://www.gapminder.org/

[Raj Radical]

*sigh* Social Democrats....

What are we going to do with you guys?

What I got from that is socialism will just appear in a poof of illogical mysticism once the material conditions are right? I think your under the assumption that lassiez-faire capitalism is anarchy, when in reality the power and coercion has just been transfered from the Government to the corporations. Essentially cutting out the middle man.

I'm not going to even touch on China and USSR, as there has been plenty of discussions between OI'ers screaming that USSR were communists and is that what you want? and us trying to explain the material conditions of those feudal shitholes before the revolutions along with the personality cults that led them.

BTW: I never heard anyone actually claim that Oaxaca was the start of a world wide revolution. Mostly just a F-U to the right-wing mexican government and their vote fraud. Sounds familiar.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal@October 27, 2006 10:01 am
What necessitated the substantial poverty and famine of Mao's economic policy under the "Great Leap Forward"?

Nothing "necessitated" it. It was caused by forced collectivization, combined with the illusion that rapid industrialization could be simply ordered into existence. In short, part of the political approach of a privileged bureaucratic caste.

There was, it happens, a thread on the Great Leap Forward recently, you might learn something by reading it.

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%.

Is this any more truthful than the stuff about people being forced to eat their relatives? Especially since land has, in fact, still not been privatized in China.

It cannot be bought, sold, mortgaged, or foreclosed on. But presumably what's meant is the end of collective farming.

Even assuming this stat isn't an outright lie, a lot more info would be needed to understand its meaning. Increased over how long a period? What kind of average? Means can be very misleading with income distributions.

Its very easy to lie or mislead with statistics since most people don't know much about 'em.

***

I suppose your overall point, which you're trying to make in a very confused way, is: does China's current rapid growth prove the superiority of the market?

Not especially. For starters, I might point out there's a lot of countries more market-oriented than China today - and experiencing less economic growth.

The more basic reason China's experiencing rapid growth is the transition from agriculture to industry. This is facilitated by a lot of things, including partial protection of its domestic market, while other countries markets are more open to Chinese exports. Remaining elements of postcapitalist economic policy play a role here, more subtly than tariffs and other means of achieving a protectionist result.

During the 30s, the USSR experienced rapid growth - also undergoing a transition from agriculture to industry - while the rest of the world was sunk in the Great Depression. It also experienced rapid growth after WWII. Many people thought this proved the superiority of the USSR's economic system.

Later, of course, that system of bureaucratic planning, which blocked the conscious and democratic participation of working people in economic decision-making, hit its limits and began to stagnate.

My point here is, that you can't always draw a correct general conclusion from a momentary impression.

[Janus]

He said it was just a rumor put forth by one eyewitness, not actual credible evidence.

Sounds like something farfetched even for the Black Book of Communism.

because the plan for the "Great Leap Forward," was essentially a copy of Stalin's policy of collectivization. They intended to force China into being a modern industrial country in the same way that Stalin did

Yes, but China's economy was much more backward and behind than the USSR's which resulted in a poor copy.

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%.

Increased living standards were not due simply to the break up of the collectives but also due to the other reforms that occured as well as the government's focus on economic development. Once the government turned its attention away from the countryside, the living conditions immediately fell again.

[BobKKKindle$]

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?

With respect, you seem to have a somewhat confused and misguided image of what the socialist mode of production actually signifies for most Leftists. Socialism would involve the the production of commodities not on the basis of, as occurs under capitalism, the profitability of the commodity, or through a highly detailed national plan, as occurs under a command economy, but rather through a system of workers and consumers councils that engage in dialouge and forumalate production schedules to meet people's needs.

The exact mechanics and format of these councils should not be decided upon in advance in theoretical terms, because when genuine (and by genuine I mean not led by a small bourgeois vanguard) workers movements have gained control of the means of production, the structure of the workplaces under worker's control has always differred depending on the material circumstances in the country concerned. I gather that under mercantilism the government's primary role is to maintain a surplus on the capital and current accounts - I have yet to hear a socialist who makes this the key part of their platform.

The only expropriatory role a state could possible play under Socialism is in depriving the bourgeoisie of their propety and placing it under worker's control.