No it doesn't , DotP necessarily means factionalism and such, democratic centralism simply necessitates an agreement to be abided to by all constituents of said group
Since this account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle, we've banned it. That's not allowed here, because it destroys the intellectual curiosity this site exists for. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
I know this has already been down voted, but I want to point out that this exact dialog was invented by the soviet union to distract from their abysmal human rights records[1]. Moreover, it doesn't even make sense as a deflection given that the Soviet Union had institutional racism at a very high level, ranging from antisemitism [2] to ethnic cleansing[3] to outright genocide[3]. America is certainly guilty of racism, and we should discuss these issues. However, it should not be used as a weapon to defend evil regimes.
> Well for one, you have a choice of where you want to work.
No you don't , it's entirely dependent on your birth and the luck of the draw in what class you were born into, your opportunities etc.
> If you can convince someone to hire you, the government isn't going to come in and say "actually, we need more factory workers. So you don't work there any more. You instead are working here."
There was no forced allotment of work in the soviet union, that's a nonsense claim coming from McCarthyist myths
> I'd also like to point out that there are numerous places in the US where people are perfectly capable of living on minimum wage, working 40 hours a week.
Not without exorbitant debt or unfavourable conditions compared to those who work above the minimum wage. A society that does not require you to work, and allows a livable wage for all work is a preferable one.
> Most homeless people are homeless not because it is impossible for someone to live off of these wages, in the right areas. They are instead homeless because they have some sort of mental or physical disability that makes them incapable of work.
That's not true at all, here in Ireland for example, mostly it's because of real estate speculation and treating houses as investments rather than places were people live. Mental and physical disability should not mean you live out on the streets
> The idea though, that able bodied adults are unable to provide for themselves, is ridiculous. There are numerous living conditions and places where it is cheap enough to live off of.
I've never seen a country where most of the homeless were unemployable, and in many cases the homeless have jobs, at least here. It is absurd to argue that people should move into the rural equivalent of a ghetto , devoid of job opportunities or development, or live cold.
There are tons of places in the first world that are both cheap, and definitely not a ghetto.
Not everyone should live in the Bay area, or New York, or even downtown in some major city!
There are lots and lots of places that are even within commuting distance of a major city (that isnt SF or New York...), That are inexpensive.
The world is bigger than a couple coastal cities, and there are lots of opportunities if you are willing to expand your horizons beyond 1% of the land.
> here in Ireland for example, mostly it's because of real estate speculation and treating houses as investments rather than places were people live
Then maybe people shouldn't live in this very small percentage of the world, or expand your horizons beyond demanding that you be able to live in the most expensive parts of it?
If you really think the stalinist USSR was any worse than modern capitalism I'd highly like to you to look at the plight of third world countries and the post colonial ties that have caused famine,war and chaos in many of them for over 100 years. Western capitalism is built off the abominable conditions it creates, at least the USSR had a measurable improvement and a move away from the horror of the 30s in the 50s.
And why pretty much every Soviet citizen would have killed for a business trip (leisure trips very pretty much impossible) to even the poorest third-world country?
I fail to see how Marxs LTV is shitty, infact I would say that long term predictions show approaches like Marxs' works a lot better than any praexological or more traditionally neo classical methods.
Steve Keen's Debunking Economics has a good section on the problems with Marx's labor theory of value. IIRC, Marx's original sketch included a good model of the effects of capital, but he later neglected that to focus on labor alone and later Marxists kept that tradition.
Trying to figure how why asking for evidence for something is considered worthy of a downvote by the people on this orange site. Is it because it was too 'to the point' and not verbose enough?
