Newsnight on 'responsible capitalism', Prof Eric Hobsbawm (19Jan12)

[mrfresh976]

Looks like a character out of a Roald Dahl book.

[CommSense]

What a cook.

[mfl002]

Talking about 'responsible econimics' puts Eric in good company with the billionaires & other plutocrats at Davos this week. What a snake.

[zodiacchiller]

The interviewer is a moron.

[lukevcollison]

Interviewer really seems to miss the point of what he's saying quite a bit here.

[afare1]

good post liar

[erelpc]

Evil man is a huge proponent on the use and threat of violence to solve problems.

[niriop]

@erelpc Hahaha, the pathetic propertarian, always trembling at the possibility of change

[erelpc]

@niriop I want change. It's you who trembles at the thought of chang.

[niriop]

@erelpc Pathetic reversal without anything being added.

Hobsbawn doesn't even endorse violence in any sense here.

[Bastiat90]

What did he say that was untrue? Hobsbawm, when asked if the death of 20 million people could be justified if it lead to the socialist promised land, he said yes. He remained in the Communist Party until it was dissolved, whereas many of his comrades left the party after the crushing of the Hungarian uprising of 1956 or the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

[niriop]

@Bastiat90 But what does that have to do with anything being said here?

[Bastiat90]

I was responding to an earlier comment

[Neidhardt84]

@Bastiat90 If all the working people around the world would come to their senses, the ruling classes would fall without the need to sacrifice 20 million people.

[Bastiat90]

That's an ignorant comment to make. What if the working classes don't want communism? A small minority may have been intrigued by it in the 50's, but its support has collapsed. Or is it false consciousness?

[nocturnezero]

@Bastiat90 What if the workers in the Soviet Union didn't want capitalism? They didn't, by any means, whether or not they were standing in bread lines or starving on collectivized farms. Central to Marxist interpretation is that economic conditions shape thought.

[Bastiat90]

Whether the workers wanted capitalism is irrelevant to this debate: did the workers want communism? Leninist theory justifies the Vanguard party, thereby taking away from the workers a democratic solution to their troubles; that is totalitarianism. How do you know they didn't want capitalism if they weren't allowed to vote on it?

[nocturnezero]

@Bastiat90 How does the Vanguard party in a democratic state governed by Soviets (clearly not what the USSR was, but that's what the theory calls for, which is what you cited) remove of a democratic solution?

[Bastiat90]

How can it not? How do you remove a Vanguard party?

[nocturnezero]

@Bastiat90 Vote it out of office? The same way the Greek Communist Party gets taken out of office when people don't like shit it does?

[Bastiat90]

Then how is it a Vanguard party? Communism is inimical to democracy. Both are shit but democracy less so

[nocturnezero]

@Bastiat90 The Vanguard party is kind of contingent upon being the political front for a *mass* movement or a *popular* uprising. It doesn't really have a reason for existence if it's not supported by an active majority of the people in question. But, if it fails, it gets taken out of power like any other party, unless it's in the USSR and sinks its teeth into the government, but that's not what Leninist theory calls for, which is what we're discussing.

[Bastiat90]

And how do you measure its support if it refuses elections. None of the 20th century communist rulers subjected their parties to genuinely free elections