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

111–120 of 124 posts

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

#111

Post by akvadrako »

dragonwriter wrote: post #110
akvadrako wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did mean 20th century. I still contend socialism is about central planning. Common ownership and participation in the means of production via democracy is central planning in practice, since people end up pooling their decision making power. Representives then implement policies decided by the collective, which all people are subject too. It's opposed to the libertarian vision, which would be for each person to mak…

> I still contend socialism is about central planning. Actual socialists, for the whole history of socialism, disagree, but please, don't let that distract you. > Common ownership and participation in the means of production via democracy is central planning in practice, When the common ownership is done through the state which directly controls industry, sure, you get central planning. When it's done through democra…

Libertarian socialism is a synonym for anarchy, which gives a clue how compatible they are.

I would call what you are describing communism, not socialism. And it's nothing like any major socialist society in existance, because it's unobtainable in practice.

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

#112

Post by fsloth »

InitialLastName wrote: post #95
fsloth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only implementations are basically run by dominant elites, who emerge as the ruling class, resulting in exclusive political economic systems. Daron Acemoglu's "Why nations fail" offers a great framework to discuss this, I think. Appropriation of capital basically means that the government decides to eradicate right to private ownership, thus reducing the will for economic creative destruction. The lack of this cr…

> The only implementations are basically run by dominant elites, who emerge as the ruling class, resulting in exclusive political economic systems. This is mighty reminiscent of basically every other system of large (super-Dunbar-scale) society control, from the ancient priest-kings, through the Roman "republic" and imperial systems, medieval feudalism, and late-stage capitalism. When control of the political system…

"was probably worse on all three counts."

I disagree. The czarist state was far more lenient creature than the industrial scale slaughtermachine that was the stalinist USSR. A poignant example is the treatment of dissenters when Stalin himself was condemned for insurecctions against the czarist Russian state pre 1917. He was sent to 'exile' meaning he had to spend time in specific village, while being more or less free, being cordially observed by the guardsmen. Compare this to the well documented purges he laid upon those regarded as enemies of the state. (Ref. "Young Stalin" by Simon Sebag).

Of course USSR was more a continuation of the Russia of preceding centuries than a new political entity - hence alone cannot be used to empirically judge the quality of communism as a philosophy for state building.

"Luckily" we have many more examples around the world, especially from the eastern block countries which were prosperous modern states before they fell under the communist yoke - which in my opinion form sufficient evidence that communism does not really work as intended as a form of government that would be an obvious improvement to human condition.

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

#113

Post by helloworld11 »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #41
onenukecourse wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gorby appears to be the sole exception. Might have something to do with having close family killed in the famines, and tortured in the Gulags. Every European other regime fell under pressure from the streets. Cuba is a tyranny. They've soften up to get European investment and tourists, but they're brutal in their indoctrination, imprisonment of dissidents, etc. They're also an important (and beloved) backstop prevent…

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.”

And what would you call the Cuba of the last several decades? A democratic politically liberal state that respects personal and political freedoms? I'm honestly curious. Also, you don't need to be brainwashed, you simply need to read, observe and speak to people who live or have lived there.

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

#114

Post by syki »

mantas wrote: post #106
syki wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person (or persons) with sufficient power/influence decided to pursue space flight and it happened. Which example does the previous sentence refer to?

Another person with sufficient power/influence decided that computing is evil and USSR fell behind in (micro)computers and chips terribly. Also, a lot of USSR space advancements were made thanks thanks to captured Nazi scientists. If they had to rely purely on homegrown science, they'd have had much harder time.

Look up Wernher Von Braun. A group of people thought Jim Crow was a great idea. A group of BP executives thought it was a great idea to not fix oil leaks in Nigeria and poison a bunch of people. I think you miss the point. People with power in any system can use that power for bad. It’s not the economic system that causes this it’s shitty humans that do.

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

#115

Post by mantas »

syki wrote: post #114
mantas wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another person with sufficient power/influence decided that computing is evil and USSR fell behind in (micro)computers and chips terribly. Also, a lot of USSR space advancements were made thanks thanks to captured Nazi scientists. If they had to rely purely on homegrown science, they'd have had much harder time.

Look up Wernher Von Braun. A group of people thought Jim Crow was a great idea. A group of BP executives thought it was a great idea to not fix oil leaks in Nigeria and poison a bunch of people. I think you miss the point. People with power in any system can use that power for bad. It’s not the economic system that causes this it’s shitty humans that do.

Thing is, in democratic market economy system there're various checks & balances. Sooner or later (usually, sooner) we learn about all of those issues. If somebody just bids on a wrong evolutionary path... Well, there're many investors bidding on all possible paths. Some win, some loose.

In soviet central planning system, few people make decisions that affect many and there's was redundancy. No free press. No political opposition. No economic rivalries to challenge. Same in civic/industrial evolution. If a committee decides to pursue idea X and drop idea Y.... So be it.

There was no democratic feedback mechanism either. Public is not happy that state money is used to prop up revolutions all around the world while one's citizen are living in poor condition? Tough luck, party line is never wrong.

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

#116

Post by nopenopenopeno »

yucky wrote: post #84
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is not accurate. Cubans could not vote out the Communist Party since it is enshrined in the Cuban constitution that there is only one party, the Communist Party, and all other political parties are classed as "illegal". "Cuba is a one-party state, with the Communist Party of Cuba being described as the "superior driving force of the society and the state" in the Constitution of Cuba, and all other political part…

“Free and fair voting” is an extremely subjective phrase. In many liberal democracies, this just means “the rich get their way.”

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

#117

Post by yucky »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #116
yucky wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not accurate. Cubans could not vote out the Communist Party since it is enshrined in the Cuban constitution that there is only one party, the Communist Party, and all other political parties are classed as "illegal". "Cuba is a one-party state, with the Communist Party of Cuba being described as the "superior driving force of the society and the state" in the Constitution of Cuba, and all other political part…

“Free and fair voting” is an extremely subjective phrase. In many liberal democracies, this just means “the rich get their way.”

Call it what you want, how do you defeat the communist party in elections if it is enshrined in the Cuban constitution that there can only be one legal party, and that party is the communist party?

How does that jibe with democracy and free elections?

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

#118

Post by refurb »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #25
refurb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those are some impressive mental gymnastics.

Regardless, the USSR was heavy on the “you don’t carry the water, you don’t drink”.

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

#119

Post by nopenopenopeno »

thodin wrote: post #89
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? Do you even have the first idea what you’re talking about? The other “option” was Batista. And Cuba is more democratic than the US, but it doesn’t allow oligarchs to astroturf consent like in liberal democracies.

There are always a lot of options if you don't have marxists around :) Cuba was just a Soviet Union's project to burn enough money to show that socialism works. But it didn't. And I very unhappy that we were living so poor in soviet era while paying those "democracies" which were modeled just like our country - with literally no choice on any elections. And being rich is not a sin, btw.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. The Soviet Union had no role whatsoever in the Cuban revolution.

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

#120

Post by virgilp »

syki wrote: post #98
virgilp wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is - they could because the party leadership wanted to/ decided it was important. My point isn't that communism can't achieve anything, it's that you can't have private initiative that's against the party line - and that's not an accident of one particular implementation, that is a "feature" of communism itself. "Unanimous" agreement on the collective good/collective interests only works, at all, in small grou…

A person (or persons) with sufficient power/influence decided to pursue space flight and it happened. Which example does the previous sentence refer to?

When Musk decided to pursue space (or EV for that matter) he had very little power. Wasn't even a billionaire yet. There are thousands of people with similar fortunes that you never hear about.
Post reply on HN