Comment by demonshalo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by demonshalo | Hacker News Reader

Oooh the good old democratic myth. Perhaps Carlin was right all along (which he usually is): "Inside every cynical person is a disappointed idealist".

Sunde was one of my heroes growing up in Sweden when I was a socialist and believed in the collective's ability to fight for the sake of what is deemed as "good". But, like every child, I had to eventually grow up and realize that most things are about trade-offs in this world - which is far better of a deal than most think it is.

> "I'm a socialist. I know Marx and communism did not work before, but I think in the future you have the possibility of having total communism and equal access to everything for everybody."

I realize now, looking back at the ideas Sunde holds and in turns the ideas that I held for a long time, that I was naive. Sunde, like everyone else in that camp fails to realize what is right in front of their eyes. Capitalism will not self-destruct. Socialism prevented capitalism from self-destructing and instead empowered it by showing everyone that capitalism, with all its flaws and disgusting habits, is the only system that is able to empower and uplift more people from poverty than all other systems COMBINED.

I understand his position yet I can't help but facepalm every time I hear someone say "equal access to everything for everybody". This statement is perhaps, one of the stupidest things that have EVER been uttered by a human yet it is something that I used to deeply believe in.

Makes me kidna wonder where I would be today had I kept believing in fairy tales...

> Socialism prevented capitalism from self-destructing and instead empowered it by showing everyone that capitalism, with all its flaws and disgusting habits, is the only system that is able to empower and uplift more people from poverty than all other systems COMBINED.

I disagree. Capitalism has not empowered people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation) and does not uplift people from poverty. Human kind is now able to produce so much that extreme poverty should not even exist anymore. We're able to produce thousand times as much goods per worker as in the 1700s, and yet do we live (and by we I mean all the workers, not just us with high-level jobs in rich countries) that much better than at that time? We produce enough food for hunger to disappear on a global scale, and yet we prefer to burn or stock what cannot be sold because we care more about the exchange value of things than the lives it could save. We could use machines instead of workers in mines (like in Congo), but we prefer to send workers through toxic muds because we care more about profit than the lives of these workers.

I do agree that capitalism is a system that has had a significant impact on our ability to produce more goods, and that in some countries we can see a positive impact (mostly due as you said to socialism and the fact that workers actually fought to soften their living conditions), but look at it globally. And look at recent years too, with poverty skyrocketing even in the most "advanced" countries.

Pay attention ladies and gents. This here is known as cognitive dissonance.

> Capitalism has not empowered people and does not uplift people from poverty.

Alright. So this is a definite statement. A conclusion. hmm interesting, lets's continue reading to see what reasoning this follows from.

> We're able to produce thousand times as much goods per worker as in the 1700s, and yet do we live (and by we I mean all the workers, not just us with high-level jobs in rich countries) that much better than at that time?

Ok so, capitalism created RICH countries, yet it did not uplift people form poverty. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If I were you, I would try to state my position a bit better because you sound completely self-contradicting. What you mean to say is that capitalism have created a lot of wealth, but it hasn't evenly distributed it.

>I do agree that capitalism is a system that has had a significant impact on our ability to produce more goods, and that in some countries we can see a positive impact

ooh look. That IS the EXACT OPPOSITE statement to the first one you made. Wow...

See, the reason I hate debating leftists is that they start by rejecting your statement and move on to actually PROVE IT but provide some context in which it does not satisfy what they deem to be "fair". Well, here is the thing chap. If the Congo had capitalism, the Congo would reap the benefits of that capitalism as you PROVED above that it has. It just so happens that the poorest places in the world at the least capitalistic ones. Must be a coincidence right?!

> And look at recent years too, with poverty skyrocketing even in the most "advanced" countries.

facepalm

> Makes me kidna wonder where I would be today had I kept believing in fairy tales...

Probably watching Bernie hand over your life-savings worth of donations to the same Clinton & DNC that predictably cheated him out of a win.

sounds about right!

capitalism isn't done yet. it will keep being powerful and useful until we reach post-scarcity. capitalism itself is only a tool. for all we know, markets will always be part of our economic fabric. imo building cooperative systems that work with capitalism to deconstruct hierarchical economic systems is where we ought to focus our attention at the present time. as long as we pay attention to where the power is and push to decentralize it, i think we'll be fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com