Hacker News Reader

Comment by CWuestefeld | Hacker News Reader

I could only stomach the first 10 pages, and quit. But that little peak certainly made me think of socialism.

And I don't see how socialism is looking out for the little guy, either. To look out for individuals you need a liberal (in the classical sense) philosophy of individual liberty. Socialism is built on a philosophy of collectivism, doing what's best for the community as a whole ("the needs of the many exceed the needs of the few, or the one"). The rhetoric about helping the little guy is just what monsters like Lenin and Mao find it easiest to use to hoodwink the masses.

View on HN

I think it's a non corrupt court system that most helps the little guy. Few countries laws are nearly as corrupt as it's institutions.

PS: As an ideology I suspect the roots of Socialism is the idea that no single individual adds as much to his individual well being as his society. In the case of modern industrial society this is clearly true (from an economic prospective), if somewhat misguided because some individuals contribute far more to society than others.

I could only stomach the first 10 pages, and quit. But that little peak certainly made me think of socialism.

10 pages is enough to link the guy to socialism? really?

The rhetoric about helping the little guy is just what monsters like Lenin and Mao find it easiest to use to hoodwink the masses.

Monsters use any rhetoric they think will fit at their historic moment. This is just a red shirted example of Godwin's law.

10 pages is enough to link the guy to socialism? really?

Maybe not to start a conversation. But when chiming in to support someone else's claim, and with the clear caveat, then yes, I think it's perfectly OK.

Monsters use any rhetoric they think will fit at their historic moment.

Show me a monster since the advent of socialism that did not use it as its justification. The only one I can think of is Pinochet in Chile (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973#Casualties ), and even that needs a very loose definition of monster. Certainly the chart-toppers like Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Kim, Pol Pot, Hitler preached socialism. (I'll grant that they generally didn't understand the concept very well, but the point is that it's what they advocated to their partisans and people as the ultimate solution)

Specifically one from my own country,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_da_Costa_e_Silva

Argentina's story is a bit more brutal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina_(1966%E2%8...

All over South America during the 60~80 there were numerous 'capitalist' brutal dictatorships.

And then there's more, such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

Never forget, what makes you a monster is not that you killed millions, but that you were willing to do it in order to maintain your power.

I'm not finding counts of deaths, nor listings of atrocities, for these. I think you're stretching the "monster" thing here; they're not in the same league as Lenin and Mao.

what makes you a monster is not that you killed millions, but that you were willing to do it in order to maintain your power

But if you believed that doing so was somehow right (again, the "greatest good" nonsense or something), then it's OK? That's nuts.

I'm not finding counts of deaths, nor listings of atrocities, for these.

Argument from ignorance. They were in the same league from the point of view of their victims.

But if you believed that doing so was somehow right (again, the "greatest good" nonsense or something), then it's OK?

I never said that. From available evidence, not one of the people you mentioned did their atrocities for the ``greatest good'', and it would not matter if that was the case, because the willingness to commit atrocities is the monstrous thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com