Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwdunne | Hacker News Reader

Please don't confuse Marx's theories with Marxism-Leninism. The latter is more like state capitalism, i.e like most 'communist' countries we have seen. If you actually read what communism, socialism and marxism are about, you'll find that they are a far cry from the ideology of the soviet union (as defined by their actions). For one, a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism but clearly did not feature in Soviet states. It was a distortion by Stalin, I believe, since it's also called Stalinism.

It does seem, however, mob mentality (think the effect Hitler's speeches had, despite such insane content) combined with a dictatorship of the proletariat creates the perfect open field for totalitarianism to take hold, where even further power is taken from the working class. The fact it also creates a scapegoat in the capitalist, wealthy class is even worse.

View on HN

No true Scotsmen fallacy.

I read Capital and some other bugs. Problem is that Marxism defined as 'class struggle' is essentially hate movement, they are defined by their enemy. Once they come to power and the 'class struggle' is solved, it does not have any more solutions. So it needs 'constant revolution'.

> For one, a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism but clearly did not feature in Soviet states.

It did. But 'working class' was defined as factory workers, but 90% of people were working in agriculture. Marxist solution was to convert everyone into factory worker and kill rest.

> It was a distortion by Stalin, I believe, since it's also called Stalinism.

Stalin was not distortion, there were other leaders similar to him, who would take his place if we would not exist. Also other countries followed similar fate (China, North Korea...)

Could you point out the passages in Capital where Marx defines class struggle as "essentially hate movement"?

He had this to say in the introduction though:

> “I do not by any means depict the capitalist and the landlord in rosy colours. But individuals are dealt with here only insofar as they are the personifications of economic categories, the bearers of particular class-relations and interests. My standpoint, from which the development of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he remains, socially speaking, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them.” (Marx, Capital Vol. I, 92)

Marx clearly opposes the personification of the conflict between classes. The aim of his Capital project was precisely to demonstrate how people's actions are determined by social relations, and not by greed or evilness. And what he wanted to replace were these social relations themselves, not the individuals affected by them.

Also, the no true Scotsmen fallacy refers to universal claims, like "Scottish people don't put sugar in their tea". Saying that Lenin had a different view of the world than Marx, and very different ideas on what needs to change and how, can be easily backed with facts. That is not a fallacy.

Regarding the last paragraph, I think the fallacy accusation had referred to the unstated universal claim that failed communist states were not really communist.

Where do you see hate against capitalists in Marx works? On the contrary, while he sees it necessary to overcome capitalism, he variously describes capitalism in glowing terms, describes capitalists as bound by the same system as the working class, and describes capitalism as a necessary precondition for socialism.

The entire first half of the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto, for example is one long description of how the bourgeoisie / capitalist have driven humanity forwards.

> It did.

It did not. Not past the October "revolution". The Bolsheviks played with it as long as it suited them (that is, as long as they did not have influence in the democratically elected Provisional Government, but had influence in the Soviets set up in the Moscow and Petrograd soviets), but when it was clear that most people did not support them, they quickly curtailed the power of the Soviets and hunted down and murdered thousands of leaders of opposition groups that countered their influence in them. Including Marxists.

> Stalin was not distortion, there were other leaders similar to him, who would take his place if we would not exist

After he had murdered and exiled the opposition in his own party, yes. Which against followed the murder and exile and prohibition of Marxist and other socialist groups years earlier.

[EDIT: Maybe whomever downvoted could bother replying]

> Where do you see hate against capitalists in Marx works?

The need for proletarian revolution. And I am talking about marxism, not Marx works. Marx himself mostly hated local socialists (they wanted practical stuff and found him ridiculous).

> Not past the October "revolution". The Bolsheviks played with it as long as it suited them...

Bunch of guys have this bible about how revolution is necessary, how it will solve everything, and how heaven on earth is coming. And when majority disagree with them, they just apologize, step down, and quietly leave to deserted island to build their version of Utopia alone?

> After he had murdered and exiled the opposition in his own party, yes. Which against followed the murder and exile and prohibition of Marxist and other socialist groups years earlier.

Personality cult raised in every soviet country. It is very convenient to blame everything on single person and not on the system itself. If anything famous Trockij loved 'doing paper work' even more than Stalin.

> Maybe whomever downvoted could bother replying

I upvoted and hate this on HN as well.

If it wasn't clear from your earlier comments it is now that if you have read any Marx you didn't understand it.

> Marx himself mostly hated local socialists (they wanted practical stuff and found him ridiculous).

HAH! That is the complete opposite:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ou...

'Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).'

> And I am talking about marxism, not Marx works.

Why did you call jwdunne's distinction between Marx's theories and marxism a "no true scotsman" when you're making the exact same difference?

Did Marx explicitly state working class as factory workers? Farmers who did not own their land would fall under the same category, surely?

From what I've read about Marx's theories and the Soviet Union, they are two separate things. It's like comparing communism to state capitalism.

Stalin also lived a life of luxury whilst many starved. This is exactly what communism was meant to prevent. This is just capitalism gone wild but where the state has a monopoly. The man at the top still eats 3 meals a day whilst enjoying movies and fine wine where a whole strata goes hungry.

Funny side note: I was born in Scotland but told I'm not Scottish. I'm literally not a true scotsman. Made me laugh.

The idea that landless workers would fall under the same category comes from Lenin.

It was explicitly an attempt to "work around" the many parts of Marx' theories that Lenins opposition in the RSDLP used against his own insistence that it would be possible to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia.

When Lenins theory proved conclusively false (the Bolsheviks only managed to get support in the big cities in the elections in 1917, hence their coup d'etat), the Bolsheviks tried a wide range of approaches to demonise and marginalize farmers, and eventually tried to force them into collectives.

Did you even read that stuff?

Landless peasants were remainder of 'feudalism' and needed to be 'saved'. If peasants owned even small farm, that made him capitalist and enemy.

It does not say anything peasants should have any sort of voting rights, or even control.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1964/xx/collect...

> Stalin also lived a life of luxury whilst many starved.

Stalin lived very modest live compared to other leaders.

As I pointed out elsewhere: The idea that landless peasants "needed to be saved" as well as the precursor idea (that they could be relied on to support the revolution) stems from Lenin, no Marx.

read the link I attached

What you said is really key. Defining any movement by hate is pathologic in the first place, no matter the rationalizations. What's worst, it will focus on self propagation of that (un)prupose. You really exposed the bug.

> You really exposed the bug.

typo, but it fits.

> a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism

What does this mean? It sounds like you're trying to emphasize it as something good but I can't see how anything with the word dictatorship in it can be that.

Where the entire working class controls the state and sets policy, which the Soviet Union clearly did not have. I never said it was a good thing, my second paragraph highlights the flaws I see in it.

That is what Marx coined it as. Perhaps dictatorship wasn't so strongly associated with tyranny at the time of writing as it is now, which would make sense since we have much greater access to information now, especially accounts on what all the dictatorships of the 20th century were like.

So what is the difference between democracy and communism? It's just assumed that people will have the power to vote, but will voluntarily choose a communist distribution of wealth?

If I understand correctly, no, communism does not assume that, due to "false class consciousness". The proletariat identify themselves with the interests of the bourgeois, not with their own interest, and won't vote in favor of their own true interest. Therefore the proletariat needs saving from itself.

This simplifies to "if you don't agree with me, you're too much of an idiot to participate in the conversation". It's a profoundly anti-democratic idea. (Again, presuming that I understand it correctly.)

"Dictatorship" in Marxism only works if you use it to mean roughly "power" or "rule".

Consider that Marx referred to capitalist democracies as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie: The bourgeois/capitalist class maintains the balance of power.

It's also worth pointing out that Marx did not describe the dictatorship of the proletariat as something desirable, but as a necessary temporary state. At the same time he pointed out that there's a fundamental difference: Any capitalist can become a proletarian simply by giving up his wealth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com