So, recently the results were in on the elections of the Republic of Moldova. The communists won, with about 50% of the total vote. Using the amazing twitter technology to organize (I say if they have cell phones, they can't be off too badly), young uns raided parliament. After things settled down, Moldova said that Romania helped stir up the riots. Some people think there's going to be another color revolution (Rose revolution in Georgia, Orange in Ukraine, etc) - I think that's bull, but that's just me.

Links:
Ten reasons why the Communists won
Someone's opinion on the matter
Blog post with more links
Analysis of 'revolutionaries' twitter use

Anyway, at least from what I've read so far, I'd say the communists won fair and square. Western observers think so too, though apparently some weren't so sure (How could someone possibly prefer communism? Must be something wrong!). The communists have run Romania better than liberals did when those were in power, each group of non-communists is competing with the communists and other groups of non-communists, etc. And, of course, there's things like lowering bread price (populist stuff), which I don't like but which most countries do on a far worse scale (for example, in US, it's warmongering - it's bad for the country, and the people don't get anything out of it, but it works) and the steady growth that accompanied the communist administration. Anyway, what do you folks think? The liberals in Moldova seem like a bunch of clowns.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 11 2009, 8:26 pm by Centreri.

From the little I've seen, I think that it'll be... interesting to see what happens. I hope they don't take total power, but I'm glad SOMEONE'S embracing Socialism that doesn't seem to be a dictator.

edit: i think Neanderthals should take over the government now

What is it precisely you wish to be discussed Centreri? The fairness of the election, or the election of communists? I don't think you're technically breaking this rule since you did include "Anyway, at least from what I've read so far, I'd say the communists won fair and square." which I suppose could be a basis for a debate. However, if that is the basis then no one will be able to argue anything simply because they were not there and could not see it for themselves (unless you actually were there, in which case you would be able to present your evidence), and this is clearly something that must be proven or disproven empiricaly. If it is communism you wish to be debated, by all means continue, but edit your first post to reflect your viewpoint on communism and its role in this story.

I know I'm likely to get singled out on this post, but the forum says Serious Discussion, not necessarily debate. This is certainly an interesting topic, one that we don't necessarily know a great deal about right now, and if we limit the discussion to one particular aspect of the elections in Moldova, then we will be missing out on a great deal of discussion. In the interest of topic completeness, perhaps we could simply compromise for once on these stringent rules. Unfortunately, I fully expect the moderators to continue running the police state we refer to as the SD forum. But Vrael, I think you got his point all wrong. Why did communism win? There's a compelling argument there.

With that said, there's no reason a communist party couldn't exist within a democratic (blanket term here) system.


That last word there would have provided the main opposition to a communist party in terms of funding. Without that class, I can't imagine a great deal of equally impoverished citizens rising up to try to create that upper class. For better or for worse, the people of Moldova think that communism works, and being so poor, I just can't see any other party taking over again except under serious corruption or a complete meltdown of Moldova's economy (if it has one).

As for embracing socialism, we do it in the United States all of the time. Redistribution of wealth? What about financial aid for school, the road system, and the insurance markets (to name a few)? We buy into these things we take for granted now, so you can't accept them and rail against "redistribution of wealth" without being tainted with at least some level of hypocrisy.

Stop being so strict. This topic is, like Sael pointed out, on all of the aspects of the issue. It's a discussion, because people are saying their opinions of the issue. It's serious, because it relates to real-world elections and the possibility of a revolution. Do you want me to spam this forum with topics on this issue with one sentence arguments, or to stick it all in one thread for some debate? I did what the rule said, which is, 'Please state your point of view or argument'. I didn't exactly state an argument, but I did put out a point of view. If you want to find a way with which this thread is against the rules, you're going to need to find another rule I broke.

Sael, I agree. I found that one of the most convincing arguments. Additionally, it seems like the Communists are making inroads into the younger people, and they're the only multi-ethnic party. Add in to that the news that the world economy is going down and capitalists everywhere are losing their fortunes, I'd say it's amazing that the Communists got only 50%.

I don't expect this to turn into a formal debate or anything Sael, and as for police state? I asked nicely that Centreri post explicitly in his topic what his view point is. Just because his topic is a good one shouldn't exclude him from the same standard I've been holding (or trying to hold) other people to. I'm not going to lock this or anything because I completely agree that it's a good topic, and I don't understand why you two think I'm being strict. I mean, come on, I asked him to edit his first post. And no Centreri, I don't want you to make 12 topics on this or something, but that's not what I was implying, and I didn't mean for this to be limited to one aspect. Perhaps my wording in my previous post was ambiguous and led to this discrepancy, but all I wanted was either a more explicit point of view, or an argument. I don't quite think that's a "police state" request?

As for my point of view, I don't think its such a bad thing the communists won (just don't tell the house on un-american activities I said that); if they are going to improve the standard of living for their citizens then it's all good really. The real question is, what will a communist party do to their civil rights and liberties? So long as they aren't too infringent upon them, it shouldn't matter that they're communist, though I think it unlikely that communism is going to produce good results for their country, but that really depends on the scale of the policies they enact, the people who enact them, and the effect on the people at large. Time will tell best. Sael brought up a good point that even the U.S., famed gladiator of capitalism, has some socialistic policies inherent in its structure, so why not a communism party?

A communist party that infringes on rights of people are not communist, they are capitalist in disguise.

Anonymous, I disagree. Communists always infringe upon the rights of people, holding more intelligent, hard working folks back while lifting less intelligent and lazier folks up. It's in the definition.

However, I think that communism could work in a state like Moldova, very badly hurting economically. Perhaps communism is something that they actually need right now to get back on track, because with communism, the whole country can work in concert. I feel that communism that operated on the idea of supply and demand could stand a fair chance of succeeding in a poor economy. The Soviet model failed for obvious reasons. China was even worse in some aspects. It all depends on the leadership, the size of the country (Moldova, being a smaller country, would also have less bureaucracy to contend with), etc. I mean, every modern, quasi-successful economy runs on a blend of socialism and capitalism. You don't find them in their pure forms anymore because they don't work alone.

Considering that despite what you may think of it, my first post contained a pretty clear point of view, I simply don't see why I should be forced to do something about it. I have a point of view - I think that the communists won fair and square, I posted a link that well summarized a few reasons for it, and I've posted a few of my own reasons. The 'point of view' or even 'argument' has been fulfilled. It's that nice last paragraph in my first post, that has 'I'd say' in in the first sentence.
Capitalism isn't as popular in Eastern Europe nowadays. Most countries there are set to have their economies contract around 8% (excluding the stronger ones, like Poland and Czech Republic). Ukraine is 11%, Latvia is maybe 10%, similar with the other Baltics. Moldova, which would if part of the capitalist chain be one of the weakest economies there and prone to losing more than 10%, should only lose about 5%.

When the economy suffered through the same liberalization that all of the post-Soviet countries went through, Moldova was hard hit. 1992-2001, Liberals controlled the government. Poverty rate was at above 50%. In 2001, the Communists under Vladimir Voronin won the elections, and since then Moldova has enjoyed steady economic growth of maybe 5 or 6% per year. I actually believe that the Moldovan economy seriously contracted under the liberals, but I can't find a conclusive source for that. Anyway, at this point, the communists are simply the best party. And I've checked, they have more support now than they had in 2005, and more popular votes than in 2001. 49.9% popular and 71 MP's out of 101 in 2001, 46% and 56 MP's in 2005, 50% and 60 seats in 2009. Though the popular vote difference is minute, the circumstances are amazing. Back then, people were living below poverty and starving. Now, they're stable, and they still stick to the communists. I'd say that such a strong social support system can only be a plus in the crisis, and because of the US's relative lack of such, Americans are being hurt far more than Europeans in general.

As for civil rights and such, they probably have it, as there are effectively free elections and the election monitors didn't come home screaming about nasty policemen.

Heh. If more of us lived under a Moldovan system, democratic communism with idiotic liberals and a demilitarized policy, I think that the world would be a far better place. Although, most Americans wouldn't think that, because they wouldn't have iPods . Actually, they would, since these Moldovans apparently have cell phones... and, hey, music would be cheaper, since artists wouldn't be paid more than others, it'd just be a more pleasant job. Sounds like heaven, doesn't it? Incidentally, I believe that a system like this is going to be the only solution the problems facing mankind today, unless we find a way to go to another Earthlike planet and kill that off too.

EDIT: On the other hand, I think it might be a little too liberal. Some order imposed from above would do wonders to prevent stuff like this from happening. Disgusting.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Apr 9 2009, 10:38 pm by Centreri.

When you say that capitalism and communism don't work in their pure forms, Sael, I think that's slightly wrong. Capitalism works best in its pure form, but the problem then becomes that those folks who are successful capitalists then have the power to exploit their own success and the system that gave it to them, and also that there are no restrictions on the people, who then may act in ways detrimental to others in the pursuit of their own success. In essence, capitalism is the best system for allowing a person to succeed or fail on his or her own merits, but it is not necessarily the best system for the welfare of a nation. Socialistic policy and regulation can help to "shave off" the detrimental parts of capitalism to society, like higher taxes for the super rich who would just let that money stagnate, or regulating the amount of trees that can be cut down per year for corporations who would otherwise rid us of our forests completely. Maybe you already knew this, but I think it's important to be clear about what you're saying.

Well, that might be one consquence, but I would personally be more concerned with the rights involved. I don't think the United States can ever be an actually communistic country because of our constitution and bill of rights, which places the rights of the individual as one of the most important factors in the running of the country. Sure, if you do some research there will probably be some cases where these rights are infringed upon, as with any system, but as for the vast majority of times, the constitution wins out. The moral aspects of communism are what bother me the most (obviously). Who really has the right to say that you may take some of my work for your own? Who really has the right to tell me what job to do, when to sleep, where to work, and what to believe in? Now, this applies to America just as much as any other country, like with taxes, but I believe the exchange rate in America between moral value and communal contributions is rather good. No one tells me what job to do, where to live or work, or what to think (lol unless you want to argue the media brainwashes us or something). That's what I think the moldovians should be afraid of. However, if they can met the moral aspects while still enacting communism, then I'd have no problem with it.
Nope, not at all lol.

What are you talking about when you say "being hurt" ? You mean the economy "crisis"? If so, then I would say it has to do with the confidence game that the stock market plays, and not the fact that one country is capitalistic and another communistic. People get mad when their stocks don't turn out perfectly and make them loads of money, then they wonder why and never realize that it was a risk in the first place. Apparently Americans are taking bigger risks, if they're getting hurt more.

Why? Soviet Russia didn't seem all that nice to me, but perhaps you mean something else. I will wait for a clearer explaination of what you mean before I venture to refute this.



That's a lot of facts and figures. Citations please?

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Apr 10 2009, 1:57 am by Vrael.

All right, fellows. Let's take the moderation debates to PMs. There's been quite enough in here at this point. Suffice it to say that the topic will not be closed for a lack of an argument.

Land locked countries are usually doomed. Less trade routes, and more suffering.
I say we can expect more riots soon.

Vrael, that's pretty much what I said. Capitalism is pretty idealistic - it doesn't work because people are greedy. I might be tempted to post some links to sites about mining towns decades ago, but it's pretty common knowledge that those companies exploited the workers in now unfathomable ways. I remember learning in high school history that many of these companies provided their own currency so people wouldn't actually be able to move anywhere else. If you worked for a mining company, you got to live in a crappy house basically owned by the company, and you got to shop at the company store, and even through all of that, they would try to wring every cent out of you. Without being paid in standard US currency, folks were unable to move away. Besides, they were in debt to these companies, but the debt was in the company currency, and it turned out to be a mess for these workers.

We might feel that to be an archaic example, but it did happen not too long ago, and I'm sure it's being repeated elsewhere across the world. Idealistic capitalism, the thought that you can always improve your own situation by working harder, is marred somewhat by reality, don't you think? If we instituted absolutely no regulations, I fail to see how that would improve things. I kind of hate to point it out, but let's look at Bernie Madoff. That's capitalism at its purest. He's making money because he figured out how to make money. Of course, it's entirely immoral, and we, as society, don't stand for it, but if there were pure capitalism, he'd continue on his merry way. We wouldn't even have organizations like the SEC in pure capitalism (though a whole lot of good that's done us recently anyway).

So no, even if we have pure capitalism, I don't think it would ever work. Capitalism for the individual might work best in its pure form, but as an economic model overall, it is downright horrible. It's bad for the welfare of a nation, but more specifically, it's just bad for the welfare of the economy itself. Some people might get really rich off of it, but then it holds everyone else back. Everything stagnates, and the people in power get to retain their power through monopolies. In the end, capitalism by itself is just self-defeating, which is basically what you said. It's very idealistic but very unrealistic.

*Edit* And to Moose, I made a topic in the Staredit Network forum for moderation discussion. It's a topic worth discussing openly and freely, and that's all I'll say about that in here.

I'll admit, I don't know the specifics, but based on several articles I've read, the reason that Europe is resisting huge stimulus packages is because it has a social safety net that helps people, unlike America, which is more capitalistic . I believe this article summarizes it nicely.
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Laziness isn't a virtue. This stuff is all googlable.
I'm afraid that communism can be implemented without you being forced to believe one thing or take a certain job. That's what it's like in Moldova, I believe, the main difference is that the wages are standardized.
Link

EDIT: Actually, the USSR didn't have forced jobs. What are you talking about? At the very least, not later on. Forced military service (conscription), but that's something else entirely.
It seems you completely missed the demilitarized bit, or the part where they elect the communists. Well, no, no elections. Communism is too unpopular. What I'm referring to here is ecological damage of capitalism. Democratic Governments can (but won't) intervene in capitalism to preserve the earth up to a certain point, because this will reduce the standard of living, and people don't care about future generations. Communism can do it up to any point. It can almost completely reduce pollution by forcing people to farm (which I hope won't happen, but it could very well be possible if the Earth's in that bad shape in the future). Otherwise, if you assume that the earth is fine (or if what's needed to fix it isn't as extreme as 0 pollution), communism can still provide for a pretty good life. It's not necessarily less efficient than capitalism - it all depends on the skill of the government at regulation of the economy. But, I'm mostly in for communism for the ecological benefits.


NEW:
Analysis of 'revolutionaries' twitter use

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Apr 13 2009, 5:37 am by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: It's a violation of rule #1.

Well, I felt it necessary to point out the distinction between what you said and what you meant.

The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck in a nutshell.

I completely agree.

Take the Robber Baron's of the late 1800's. It works alright, just not nicely.

This I disagree with. It's definitely bad for the welfare of the nation as a whole since a very limited class of individuals would profit from it, but the actual economy would thrive due to having no restraints against its growth.

Such is the nature of the moderator.
Kudo's to you for actually providing citations though, last 3 or 4 times I asked in other topics, no one actually came up with any. (like the bazillion I asked for in the homosexuality topic)

Unfortunately for you in this case, however, SEN expects the person making the claim to cite his own stuff, rather than just making a claim and expecting everyone else to go search it.


Maybe I didn't know what I was talking about. However, I do know at least that my math professor who grew up in Romania under a communist regime was extremely regulated in practically his life (until he moved here). That is really what I was getting at: People telling you "you have to do this" and "you need to fulfill X hours of this" and stuff.

I also have a quarrel with wage standardization. If I run a business, who has the right to tell me how much I should pay someone else? Who has the right to tell me I have to hire someone because they need a job? It's a very long, but very interesting read:
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Take this book with a grain of salt, because it's about as pro-capitalist as you can get, but it still makes some good points. (It's a good story though too, and worth reading just for that)


I don't think the ecological benefits are dependant on the government at hand, but rather on the people who make up the country. A capitalistic government can regulate the burning of coal just like a communistic one can; it just takes the support of the people to pass the law and enforce it. I think this distinction is often overlooked in this argument due to the fact that the U.S., being the primary example of capitalism, does not consist of the most ecologically-minded people. Also, I am quite sure that communism is necessarily less efficient than capitalism. At the very least, the addition of the government regulation required to regulate the economy makes it less efficient, and there are numerous other aspects (like wage standardization, job distribution, ect) that I could go into.

I don't know about Romania, but they don't speak for communism. I think the point of traditional communism is to give as many people as possible as good a life as possible. I'm all for not completely standardized wages, but I think that wages should range between x and 3x, no more disparity than that. Anyway, it doesn't really matter if you don't bring ecology in. You value your rights, but that guy values a job. In the end, cumulative happiness increases. With communism or with capitalism humanity progresses, yada yada.

A capitalistic government can - however, as I'd pointed out, it won't, as you said, because of the people. Which is why I favored removing the election bit. A bit 20th century, I know, but on the upside you get a government perfectly capable of enforcing careful use of resources and whatnot. I had already said this in sentences 4 & 5 of what you just quoted, actually. As for efficiency, no, not necessarily. In theory, you can have perfect managers of the economy. Practically, it's pretty hard to do it. As for wage standardization, I already mentioned that I believe not in complete standardization but in a window that keeps everyone above poverty. This would push up efficiency. Job distribution, as I'd mentioned, wasn't everywhere like it was in Romania, so please stop using that as an argument. The Romanian government must've been filled with idiots. And in exchange the government gets increased revenues from all those billions that would be pouring into the pockets of billionaires but isn't.

For severity of communism, I think Romania was fairly lenient. I'm pretty sure other countries, like Bulgaria, were more strict. I don't have any genuine sources for this off the top of my head except for Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian. A book of fiction, yes, but reportedly well researched (it would have to be to stand up to a fair amount of historical criticism, at least so much as could be reasonably leveled at fictional accounts).

And looking at GDP for the United States at least, that's an average of $47,000 per person. If every working age person made between $30,000 - $100,000 annually, it's hard to argue that society would not be more beneficial to more people. On a slight tangent about socialism, $100,000 would be much easier to swallow for the average American than somebody earning $25 million a year or more. There would still be incentive to excel - $100,000 a year as a goal would be far more luxurious than a $30,000 budget for a person - but class differences would be greatly diminished. As a society, doesn't there come a point in time when success edges into greed?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 13 2009, 9:00 pm by Sael.

The point is, the same applies to the communistic government. It is limited in exactly the same way, and will not protect the environment if its people do not wish to.

Let us then compare the perfect cases of capitalism and communism
Communism:
1). A trade is developed
2). Prices and wages begin to fluctuate, and come to some equilibrium
3). The government begins to regulate the process
4). A new equilibrium is established
5). The government must fine tune its equilibrium

Capitalism:
1). A trade is developed
2). Prices and wages begin to fluctuate, and come to some equilibrium

Communism is of necessity less efficient than capitalism. That isn't to say step 3 from the communistic process wouldn't do the captialistic country some good, just that communism is 100% perfectly less efficient than capitalism due to the extra steps required. This does not imply that a communistic country necessarily must be worse off than a capitlistic country, or that the per capita income of a person in the capitalistic country must be higher or anything like that, this is purely in terms of efficiency of establishing a market for a good or service.

Just because you don't like reality doesn't mean it is invalid.
Romania is a real country and really operated under a communistic regime. It is therefore relevant and a natural part of this discussion.

Perhaps, but any country's government could be filled with idiots. Such is to be reasonably expected, so when you go to talk about communism, be sure to take this into account.

Difficult, but not impossible. No more difficult than it is to argue that socialism is better than the current system, in fact. Again, I encourage you to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It's rather extreme, but it gets the point across.
This also depends on your definition of "beneficial." For example, I place moral integrity as more important than a person having a few extra thousand dollars, because I believe it follows that if everyone was held to a high moral standard,
that society would slowly correct itself, without the necessity of moral infringement in other areas like wage caps or job distribution.

What's so great about getting rid of class differences? Besides, the only class that truly exists in America is the American. (This is by law, not de facto) Secondly, and more importantly, the incentive isn't necessarily the amount of the money, but the amount of freedom one can earn. Sure, 100 grand is a lot to someone like me, but what about the person who aspires to build his own company of rocket ships that will take people to the stars? He will need millions, maybe billions. Such a limit would prove extremely detrimental to people like Andrew Carnegie or Bill Gates, or whoever owns a multi-million dollar company. Unfortunately, the freedom is tied to the money, and if there are limits on the money, there are limits on the freedom. I much prefer the current tax system of progressive tax brackets currently implemented in America.

That depends. If you make a product and sell it for 1 buck a pop and become a billionaire overnight because your product is so damn good, then that's not greed.
If, the next day, you jack up the price to 50 bucks, and become a 50-billionaire overnight, after having already become a billionaire, then yeah, that's greed.

Because Soviet citizens wanted 25% of the budget to go into military, right?
... What kind of screwed up logic is that? In the accepted form of communism, the government controls prices and wages, so they don't fluctuate. Even with this excuse for logic, it comes out like this:
Communism:
1) Trade is developed
2) Government establishes equilibrium (of whatever you were talking about)
3) Government tweaks equilibrium

Capitalism)
1) Trade is developed
2) Price and wages fluctuate and come to equilibrium
3) Prices and wages continue to fluctuate as something changes.

I don't see anything there, even if you do some tweaking, that changes efficiency, and I very much question how a country with larger GDP per capita (excluding natural resources) can be less efficient.

We're not discussing how communism was implemented in various countries. We're discussing how communism can be implemented, and it can easily be implemented without forced jobs (and you didn't even provide a source, just said that you had some professor who might've said something about it at some point).

Better idiotic communists than Bush .

I find you more annoying now, so if you want to say that Romanian people were forced to do a certain job that was out of line from their interests, you're going to have to provide an actual source.

Addressed.

Yeah, if everyone had good morals, we wouldn't be discussing this topic at all. That's idealistic though and not worth discussing. Unless, of course, you were referring to regulation, which is probably what you meant by "a high moral standard." The only reason that it's not more difficult to argue this is because it's mostly subjective. To make it easier to argue, we'd have to set some parameters for what constitutes "beneficial" to a society. I propose a number of areas to judge a country with:
Statistically: mean and median income per person
Amount of disposable income per person, and spread between bottom 10% and top 10% of people making at least... for United States, $10,000 a year and/or at least $1 million in net worth
Poverty Rate
Education, Infrastructure, Healthcare

This is just a quick, rough list. If everyone who worked received at least $30,000 in income annually... for the sake of arguing on top, we'll say that mean income would remain the same (because total GDP would remain the same with an equal number of workers). I doubt median income would change that much either with the same GDP. Then again, I never took statistics, and I haven't even looked at a great deal of data for income and whatnot (just quick stats on wiki) and I haven't even thought the $30k-$100k hypothetical scenario fully through.
Poverty Rate - 0% for working folks
Disposable Income - much better for most folks and "much worse" for folks making more than $100,000 right now. No more expensive cars for your daughter's sweet 16! Poor poor girl
Education, Infrastructure, Healthcare - more people can afford to go to college without relying upon increasingly limited financial aid, more people would have to use tax payer money for medical treatment and would be able to afford preventative care, and I'm sure the number of tax exempt folks would fall dramatically to offset the number of folks paying higher rates while they make more money (I heard a few days ago on some 24 hours new station, maybe CNN, that the tax rate for the richest folks in NY was 50% for all 3 federal, state, and local in total). There would be more people paying taxes, but rich people would not be paying as much. It would balance out I think.

I might respond to the other points if I get a chance later. Also, I haven't looked through the contents of this post even once after I wrote it, so there might be some slight discrepancies.