Marxism Vs. Liberalism

[Subversive Pessimist]

H. G. Wells interviews Joseph Stalin in 1937.

One part I especially liked:

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. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class? On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits. They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have

292

the class of the poor, the exploited Class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labor power to the capitalists and which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say: Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?



---------------------------------------------------------------------

You will find the rest of the interview here:

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by H.G. Wells+--> (H.G. Wells)The effect of the ideas of Roosevelt's "New Deal" is most powerful, and in my opinion they are socialist ideas.[/b]

Wretched liberal bullshit.


Originally posted by Joseph Stalin+--> (Joseph Stalin)...I do not in the least desire to belittle the outstanding personal qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative, courage, and determination.[/b]

Why not, Joe? Aren't revolutionaries supposed to "belittle" capitalist bastards?

Particularly one who was, in a calculated fashion, lying to millions of workers in the United States at the time!


Originally posted by Stalin
Theoretically, of course, the possibility of marching gradually, step by step, under the conditions of capitalism, towards the goal which you call socialism in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, is not precluded.

Yes it is "precluded", Joe. And that was known back in 1914. Even you knew it by 1917 if for no other reason than Lenin told you.


Originally posted by Wells
It is useless approaching these circles with two track class war propaganda. These people understand the condition of the world. They understand that it is a bloody muddle, but they regard your simple class*war antagonism as nonsense.

Meaning Wells regards class war as "nonsense".

Dickhead!


Originally posted by Wells
Take old [J.P.] Morgan for example. He only thought about profit; he was a parasite on society, simply, he merely accumulated wealth. But take Rockefeller. He is a brilliant organizer; he has set an example of how to organize the delivery of oil that is worthy of emulation.

Clearly Wells does not understand capitalism at all. What Morgan and other finance capitalists did and still do today is organize the delivery of capital.


Originally posted by Wells
It seems to me that I am more to the Left than you, Mr. Stalin; I think the old system is nearer to its end than you think.

:lol:


Originally posted by Stalin
We Soviet people learn a great deal from the capitalists.

Unfortunately true. :(


Originally posted by Wells
And it seems to me that when it comes to a conflict with reactionary and unintelligent violence, socialists can appeal to the law, and instead of regarding the police as the enemy they should support them in the fight against the reactionaries.

That Wells could say this in 1937 -- four years after the Nazis came to power -- is almost beyond belief! How did the "law" assist communists, socialists, trade unionist, and Jews in the Wiemar Republic?


Originally posted by Wells
I think the forms of the struggle should fit as closely as possible to the opportunities presented by the existing laws, which must be defended against reactionary attacks.

Or, we "should" play their game on their turf by their rules.

This is the kind of idiocy that lies at the roots of the "voting for socialism" and "voting for the less evil capitalist" babble that still holds back the left today.


Originally posted by Wells
I can formulate my point of view in the following way: first, I am for order...

So was Hitler.


Originally posted by Stalin
If, however, any of the laws of the old order can be utilized in the interests of the struggle for the new order, the old laws should be utilized.

That's a very large "if", Joe. The people who actually draft the laws of a capitalist government are not dummies; those laws are designed to serve the capitalist class first and foremost.

By the time you get down to the working class, there ain't much left over...if anything.

Furthermore, an appeal to capitalist "law" is just like electoral politics -- it "sends a message" that the "law" is something "special" that "stands above society".

As you ought to know, Joe, that ain't so.


Originally posted by Wells
There was a case in the history of England, however, of a class voluntarily handing over power to another class.

Ah, the English. What really happened, of course, is that the old ruling aristocracy and the new bourgeoisie merged. People with titles and no money married people with money and no titles.

The titles then gradually lost political significance.

By continental standards, this was indeed a "peaceful transition"...but, in my opinion, the grounds were prepared for it by the English civil war and Oliver Cromwell. The aristocracy knew that another civil war was not an option...so they gradually surrendered on the best terms they could get -- which, all things considered, were pretty damn good.

To the best of my knowledge, England was the only place this ever happened. In every other country (to this day), aristocracies were overthrown by violent insurrections, bloody civil wars, military conquests by external powers or some combination of those events.


[email protected]
But is there a great difference between a small revolution and a great reform? Is not a reform a small revolution?

:lol:


Wells
At the present time there are in the world only two persons to whose opinion, to whose every word, millions are listening: you and Roosevelt.

No one was listening to Hitler?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Subversive Pessimist]

It seems to me that I am more to the Left than you, Mr. Stalin; I think the old system is nearer to its end than you think.



But is there a great difference between a small revolution and a great reform? Is not a reform a small revolution?

I laughed the shit out of me when I read these!! :lol: I believe he called himself socialist in that interview...