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

51–60 of 124 posts

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

#51

Post by yazantapuz »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #49
yazantapuz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) So, if I plan to live from rents that i earn from my past work i am a parasite?

Rent is attained by controlling access to capital that you own, according to the state. Wages are attained by selling your labor to someone else. Which is it?

I have earned a certain capital selling my labour. That capital is now working for me (some rent, bounds, etc). Why you think that someone doing these is a parasite?

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

#52

Post by Jensson »

VictorPath wrote: post #45
marcodiego wrote: post #6

It is a shame Marxsim/communism/socialism is so much associated with tyranny and dictatorships.

Up until 10,000 years ago, the entire world was communist. The remaining hunter gatherer bands in the Amazon and elsewhere are communist. Marx said "I am not a Marxist" and "I do not write recipes for cookshops of the future", so there is no Marxist society other than the one he envisioned in the far future (certainly not a nearer term socialist future) which had the banner "From each according to ability, to each ac…

Having tribes where everyone knows and are related to everyone makes a lot of things work that doesn't work at larger scales.

> From each according to ability

This is the dystopian part, if they judge you to have high ability they will work you to the bone and punish you if they think they could grind more work out of you. There is no freedom to quit and do something else, there is just the judgement of the state and if they get something wrong you are screwed.

Reward people for work instead of punish people for not working, that is the capitalist way. Punishing people to get them to work is a bad idea, I thought most people on the left agreed with this? So why do you still think communism makes sense, when it is a system based on punishment rather than rewards?

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

#53

Post by nopenopenopeno »

Jensson wrote: post #47
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know anything about Cuba besides what the children of ex-Cuban plantation owners say?

Could Cubans vote away communism if they wanted? If not then it isn't free. People could vote away capitalism in USA and become communist if they wanted. Every democracy could.

Absolutely, but Cuba’s democracy is very localized and bottom up in order to prevent a wealthy ruling class from controlling dominant narratives, i.e. oligarchy like in the US. And they don’t hold ridiculous election performances every 4 years to wrangle consent from the public.

Democracy is very sensitive and the liberal democracies in Western capitalist countries are brutally anti-democratic. Most Americans realize this but will be so quick to presume any other country a dictatorship.

Cuba has never been a “dictatorship”. Castro and his successors were and still are deeply loved by the Cuban working class that put them into power. US leaders understand this and it’s why none of their attacks have penetrated. See: Bay of Pigs

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

#54

Post by mcv »

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.

I think the goal of no unemployment is a false one. The real goal has to be no poverty. Employment is only important because it provides people with an income that saves them from poverty (or at least should; too many jobs still pay poverty wages).

If a society had a basic income for everybody, the unemployed wouldn't be poor, and would still be available for work if the demand for extra labour was high enough.

Although ultimately, I do think that eventually automation should lead to less people having to work. Or perhaps preferably: people having to work less; we should also get rid of the 40+ hour work week, so we can divide the available work more equally, while also making sure everybody has enough time to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

And part-time work also provides the needed slack in the system without condemning anyone to poverty.

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

#55

Post by l-_l-_l-_lo_ol »

"Stalin : There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective."

Horrifying.

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

#56

Post by dW4XWxH5Rxsh5rC »

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.

>Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism

In what part of his works does Adam Smith says something like that?

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

#57

Post by fsloth »

lordnacho wrote: post #50

This bit makes me think of HN people and UBI: > Wells : I remember the situation with regard to the technical intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical intelligentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do and every engineer, technician and intellectual found his opportunity. That is why the technical intelligentsia was the least revolutionary class. Now, however, there is a superabundan…

Turchin's theory of elite overproduction as an engine for societal upheaval is quite relevant to this, I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction

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

#58

Post by mcv »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #14
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…

First off, Stalin is not the be all end all of socialist thought. In fact a lot (most?) people who call themselves socialist these days don't even like Stalin. Even if he was well liked, one can support someone's broader ideas without supporting every single individual position. It's not a contradiction to say "I like [person]'s ideas, except [specific idea], which is dumb." Secondly, tying unemployment benefits to c…

> In fact a lot (most?) people who call themselves socialist these days don't even like Stalin.

That could also be because he was a murderous dictator, and not necessarily have anything to do with his economic ideas. (Although some of his economic ideas, and they way they were implemented in particular, lead to lots of death too.)

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

#59

Post by mcv »

yazantapuz wrote: post #39
ARandumGuy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, Stalin is not the be all end all of socialist thought. In fact a lot (most?) people who call themselves socialist these days don't even like Stalin. Even if he was well liked, one can support someone's broader ideas without supporting every single individual position. It's not a contradiction to say "I like [person]'s ideas, except [specific idea], which is dumb." Secondly, tying unemployment benefits to c…

> Work should not be a requirement to live a comfortable life. _Someone else_ will we working to give you a comfortable life.

> _Someone else_ will we working to give you a comfortable life.

Robots, preferably.

We're not there yet, but it would be a nice goal. And certainly a lot better than having robots do all the work but the fruits of their work going only to the rich who own them.

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

#60

Post by nopenopenopeno »

onenukecourse wrote: post #48
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize Pinochet was a capitalist dictator and the people he murdered were socialists, no? And you have to be absolutely brainwashed to believe Cuba is a “tyrannical dictatorship.”

"Pinochet was a capitalist dictator" If you read my comment carefully I clearly state: - Pinochet slaughtered (tens) thousands of innocents - Cuba is a backstop to American imperialism in the region which I clearly eluded as a good thing for those L. Americans outside of Cuba (at least until Americans drop their Monroe BS). My parents are from Argentina and lost many friends, students and professors (luckily no famil…

> I reject the destructive "socialism" vs "capitalism" false dichotomy.

Nothing could expose your class position as much as your suggestion that Cuba’s leaders are Pinochet’s “counterparts.”

Pinochet was lifted into power by the American capitalist empire. Castro was lifted into power by the Cuban working class. It takes a lot of nerve to equate the two in any way, and even more to suggest that the latter should step down in spite of overwhelming support from the Cuban people.

Post reply on HN