Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

marxists.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 124 posts

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#21

Post by VictorPath »

refurb wrote: post #3
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #2

>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it still rarely fails to blow Americans’ minds when I explain it to them.

I mean, the US and other countries have reached “full employment” on several occasions - a level of unemployment where effectively everyone who wants a job had one (the unemployed who do exist are the small fraction you cant eliminate as people are in between jobs or seek other opportunities - employment “friction”).

This is the labor force participation rate for men in the US from 1948 to now from the US bureau of labor statistics

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001

Was 86% or above before 1950, never above 70% over the past 5 years. The trend has been downward the whole time.

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#22

Post by syki »

virgilp wrote: post #12
mantas wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D

This is unfortunately not a joke. It blows my mind that many people today don't understand that communism can only work in a primitive society (the "pure" form that many dream about) or it inevitably leads to an authoritarian dictatorship (in more advanced societies). (I wouldn't lump "socialism" in there because it's more vague; social-democracy can and does work).

Isn’t the issue less to do with “communism” than with concentrating too much power in too few hands? It seems to me all political systems tend toward autocracy and the only thing preventing that eventuality are robust systems in place that disperse power.

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#23

Post by HPsquared »

virgilp wrote: post #12
mantas wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D

This is unfortunately not a joke. It blows my mind that many people today don't understand that communism can only work in a primitive society (the "pure" form that many dream about) or it inevitably leads to an authoritarian dictatorship (in more advanced societies). (I wouldn't lump "socialism" in there because it's more vague; social-democracy can and does work).

I think different systems work best at different levels of scale. Power needs to be accountable and visible to the people affected by it. The more local it is, the more you can safely do.

NN Taleb stated it well on Twitter, I think: "At Fed level, libertarian; state, Republican; local, Democrat; family/friends, socialist."

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#24

Post by VictorPath »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #18
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #2

>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it still rarely fails to blow Americans’ minds when I explain it to them.

In every system you need some slack otherwise the slightest hiccup brings everything to a halt. Here the point is not to have an underclass of long-term, exploitable unemployed but to have some slack, ie. a minimum number of people available to ensure the system runs smoothly without shortages and hindrance to business growth and change. Low unemployment is good and desirable but shortages are not.

> you need some slack

The slack can be heirs forgoing the size of their profits, by boosting wages where needed, as opposed to slack in the wages if the people doing all the work and creating all the wealth.

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#25

Post by nopenopenopeno »

refurb wrote: post #13
mantas wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappointed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism

In other words, rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) and they received the same treatment that the US gives to it’s unemployed and homeless, except the US maintains an economic system that guarantees an unemployed and homeless population.

If you think you’re making the USSR appear less reasonable than the US, maybe think again.

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#26

Post by Shin-- »

mantas wrote: post #9
cloutchaser wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a social safety net so that the unemployed can live somewhere and eat, under this definition do they count as unemployed? And a second point, in my home country the government introduced rules where to have government benefits you have to work a little, painting your community, cutting grass in public places etc. People on the left were outraged. How dare you give work to people on a government mandate, a…

... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappointed.

A collectivistic society expects everyone to do their part to reach a good standard of living for everyone. 8 hours/day, as was common, to rebuild destroyed countries and economy is less than countless people in capitalist nations have to work today. The biggest difference is, is that this amount of labour is necessary for their own survival, that there is no collective sense, without authorities trying to reward them in some ways to keep them happy, or even showing any appreciation for the work they do.

Socialists don't say that socialism would suddenly lead to less work for everyone, a revolution and rebuilding after a revolution is a lot of hard work, but the work is done for the collective good, not to make a few even richer. It shall have meaning and be valued by society. And yes, eventually - even Marx talked about it already - work that is not necessary and labour that can be automated will become more free time for everyone.

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#27

Post by nopenopenopeno »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #18
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #2

>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it still rarely fails to blow Americans’ minds when I explain it to them.

In every system you need some slack otherwise the slightest hiccup brings everything to a halt. Here the point is not to have an underclass of long-term, exploitable unemployed but to have some slack, ie. a minimum number of people available to ensure the system runs smoothly without shortages and hindrance to business growth and change. Low unemployment is good and desirable but shortages are not.

The question at hand concerns who pays the price when that slack runs out.

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#28

Post by KptMarchewa »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #19
mantas wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D

Democracies never end up in dictatorships? How much historical data do we have on that? I'm pretty sure at least brazil was democratic and then was ruled by military dictatorship (juntas) for a long time. 1940s Germany as well right? I just realized I've never seen the breakdown on that for any length of time, lets say going back to the first republics? I don't know, it seems like a lot of European countries with a p…

If you redefine socialism as "what most Western Europe countries do" you can have some real paradoxical views.

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#29

Post by tomohawk »

Timely that Crimea and Ukraine are in the news again.

It was right about the time of this interview that Stalin was starving out Crimeans and Ukraineans with forced collectivization and other modern horrors.

https://iccrimea.org/historical/famine1931.html

Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)

#30

Post by nopenopenopeno »

cloutchaser wrote: post #5
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #2

>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it still rarely fails to blow Americans’ minds when I explain it to them.

If you have a social safety net so that the unemployed can live somewhere and eat, under this definition do they count as unemployed? And a second point, in my home country the government introduced rules where to have government benefits you have to work a little, painting your community, cutting grass in public places etc. People on the left were outraged. How dare you give work to people on a government mandate, a…

> A government can create full employment by creating jobs and forcing people to work. Why don't modern socialists support that?

I am myself a politically active Marxist and we do say this, but we also understand that this isn’t going to happen. Keynesianism was not a sustainable solution. It only bought time. Ultimately states in capitalist societies are in service of capital. In the US, realize the 1970s financial overhaul, including the Bretton Woods System, was the capitalist response to the New Deal giving workers too much power. 1960s inflation hit the ruling class and they responded by brutalizing the economy. See: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

Post reply on HN