Joseph Stalin and H. G. Wells, Marxism VS. Liberalism

[Malachi151]

I just found this very amusing:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/cc835_44.htm

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I just found this very amusing:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/cc835_44.htm

I thought you weren't going to post here anymore?

To be fair, I did read the link. Out of curiousity, what parts did you find most amusing?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by corplinx


I thought you weren't going to post here anymore?

To be fair, I did read the link. Out of curiousity, what parts did you find most amusing?

Only when its something out of the ordnary and I'm to gonig to wate time debating people.

The whole thing is interesting. Stalin is always portrayed as a crude oaf, which he certianly did not appear to be in that example.

His arguments were virtually all correct, he was obviously intellectually superior to Wells, and as is typical of Marxists vs Liberals, Stalin had more respect for capitalists as individuals than did the liberal Wells.

Stalin was humble, complementary, and well spoken, Wells was more of a "raging liberal" type and also didn't present very well thought out ideas. Being critical of the character of capitalsits it typical of liberals, whereas Marxists are more impressed by capitalist character, but are opposed to capitalists as a class, not on an individual level.

And just the things that were said in general were interesting when looking back on the situation now.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Stalin was humble, complementary, and well spoken

Stalin was what ???

Have you read Erich Fromm's "Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" ? Have you read Arthur Koestler's "The Zero and the Infinite" ?

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by Malachi151

The whole thing is interesting. Stalin is always portrayed as a crude oaf, which he certianly did not appear to be in that example.

His arguments were virtually all correct, he was obviously intellectually superior to Wells, and as is typical of Marxists vs Liberals, Stalin had more respect for capitalists as individuals than did the liberal Wells.
It's only words, it's Stalin's (horrible) actions we should look at if we want to learn something about him. Every leader will say stuff that sounds good..

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by El Greco


Stalin was what ???

Have you read Erich Fromm's "Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" ? Have you read Arthur Koestler's "The Zero and the Infinite" ?

Have you read the link? I said that THIS information was interesting BECAUSE is contradicts the typical view.

Bah, no debating here....

[Skeptic]

The whole thing is interesting. Stalin is always portrayed as a crude oaf, which he certianly did not appear to be in that example.

His arguments were virtually all correct, he was obviously intellectually superior to Wells, and as is typical of Marxists vs Liberals, Stalin had more respect for capitalists as individuals than did the liberal Wells.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Stalin was a nice guy.

Whatever, Malachi...

[fishbob]

From the article:The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All these are private property. The rail_roads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt's command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world. The State is an institution that organizes the defense of the country, organizes the maintenance of "order"; it is an apparatus for collecting taxes. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. That is why I fear that, in spite of all his energy and abilities, Roosevelt will not achieve the goal you mention, if indeed that is his goal. Perhaps, in the course of several generations, it will be possible to approach this goal somewhat; but I personally think that even this is not very probable. One of Malachi's points was that Stalin did not sound like a "crude oaf" in this interview, and I have to agree. Malachi's assessment of Stalin as Well's intellectual superior is a bit shaky. It sounds more like Stalin had some advance notice of the questions and had time to do a little research before the interview. In other words - it appears a little staged.

On a side note, evaluate Stalin's assessment of the capitalist state (my bold) with Kevin Phillips assessment of the Bush Dynasty (see my thread asking about Phillips). If Phillips is accurate, the state is more in the hands of the capitalists than you might think.