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

61–70 of 124 posts

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

#61

Post by Miner49er »

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…

UBI is interesting, because it isn't really socialist. It can easily be a tool of capital to retain power. If lots of things are automated, to the point where many don't need to work, who will own the robots (the means of production)? The socialist solution would be to find a way to collectively control/own these. Maybe vote on a board to decide what is best or something like that. They would find a way to distribute the goods produced. This could be called a UBI.

But UBI would also be the capitalist way to go about things. The capitalists will own everything, and just give the masses enough UBI to keep them happy enough to not fight back.

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

#62

Post by refurb »

VictorPath wrote: post #21
refurb wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You realize the labor participation rate accounts for the retired? A stat that might change with the aging workforce?

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

#63

Post by sacrosancty »

marcodiego wrote: post #6

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

I think communism requires society to operate in an unstable state away from its Nash equilibrium, so it needs a strong dictatorship to keep people coerced into working against their personal interests (even if that's ultimately better for them when everyone complies). If it was democratic, most individuals would see opportunities to do better for themselves one way or another if they had the opportunity, so they'd vote for more individual rights, and erode the communism. Either that, or people really like freedom of choice so much, they'll tolerate a worse quality of life in other areas (assuming communism leads to better quality of life).

With capitalism, the coercion to work is decentralized in the form of people promising to give you somebody else's work (money) if you do some work for them. Being decentralized makes a dictatorship unnecessary to sustain it.

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

#64

Post by CodeGlitch »

mcv wrote: post #59
yazantapuz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes this is why anything to do with ai should be open source. It can be too powerful in the hands of bad actors.

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

#65

Post by nopenopenopeno »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #46
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As strange as it may seem, the us also has a system that respects the rights of people who want to be homeless nomads. If people want to be homeless due to mental health issues, there is no easy way out if the government is allowed to overrule someone who says ‘No! Don’t help me!’ Very difficult ethical issues all around. In our area, we have shelter beds open and people sleeping in the cold outside of the building…

How do you explain the astronomical numbers of homeless people in the US, for example, compared with so many other wealthy nations?

Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke?

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

#66

Post by nopenopenopeno »

yazantapuz wrote: post #51
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Capital doesn’t “work”. People work. These are just objective English language definitions. What you’re saying is simply nonsensical. Can you try explaining again?

Wrt “earning capital,” you may have purchased capital, but you sold your labor for wages.

Compensation paid as stock options are an exception, and are a result of New Deal reforms to get more working people bought into the capitalist system, which has been successful, so far. But owning stocks is not the same as owning capital because you still do not control the capital and therefore cannot collect rents. Realize capitalists never directly trade the capital for the labor to operate that capital, unless forced. Historically, only communists have ever forced such a thing.

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

#67

Post by seneca »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #65
mensetmanusman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As strange as it may seem, the us also has a system that respects the rights of people who want to be homeless nomads. If people want to be homeless due to mental health issues, there is no easy way out if the government is allowed to overrule someone who says ‘No! Don’t help me!’ Very difficult ethical issues all around. In our area, we have shelter beds open and people sleeping in the cold outside of the building…

How do you explain the astronomical numbers of homeless people in the US, for example, compared with so many other wealthy nations? Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke?

> Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke?

The person you're replying to didn't say any such things. Your replies on this post have followed a pattern of lazy swipes, and degrade the quality of discussion here.

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

#68

Post by virgilp »

syki wrote: post #22
virgilp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah but communism as a doctrine will inevitably lead to exactly that, concentrating too much power into too few hands. Because if you want to look for the "collective interest" of the people, then people will disagree. Musk can do rockets not because he convinced everyone that it's in our collective interest (though he may believe so) - he can do them because he doesn't have to justify the collective interest. As soon as the collective interest is a matter of doctrine, some group of people will be in charge of it, and they will by necessity suppress other opinions about what "collective interest" might be.

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

#69

Post by onenukecourse »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #60
onenukecourse wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Nothing I said contradicts what you wrote. The US did assist Pinochet (bad). The Cuban people did revolt against Battista (good).

You'd be surprised, however, how popular Pinochet is particularly among working class Chileans, just as you'd obviously be surprised how much support Cuba needed from the USSR to keep the regime together. Material support and training manuals on how to buttstock resistive people.

Battista fell over 60 years ago, Cubans want something else.

Reality is complicated, it cannot be reduced to pretty slogans.

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

#70

Post by nopenopenopeno »

onenukecourse wrote: post #69
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Nothing I said contradicts what you wrote. The US did assist Pinochet (bad). The Cuban people did revolt against Battista (good). You'd be surprised, however, how popular Pinochet is particularly among working class Chileans , just as you'd obviously be surprised how much support Cuba needed from the USSR to keep the regime together. Material support and training manuals on how to buttstock resistive people. Battista…

I am not surprised by either! But, in both cases, the US has played an extremely aggressive role in generating the circumstances.
Post reply on HN