Hacker News Reader

Comment by taway_1212 | Hacker News Reader

> Part of what killed wage growth was the demise of Communism.

Also, communism was so inefficient that it basically took the countries under it from international competition - they couldn't develop anything advanced that would match products created under capitalism, and so were essentially forced to sell resources (eg. minerals, food) or low-processed industrial products (eg. steel) in exchange for more advanced stuff such as medicine or electronics, for which they paid through the nose. Basically, the process was not dissimilar to colonialism that preceeded it, and created massive growth for capitalist countries - so much so that in the US people doing unskilled work could afford a good life for their family on a single salary. Now that communism is dead, those unskilled people in the West are unfortunately in for some rude awakening (already in progress).

View on HN

Well, from a long term scale, it was inefficient because workers were not incentivized to work. I would imagine stagnant wages have the same affect long term. They also spent way to much on their military. Perhaps the West is due for a collapse too.

They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.

The Soviet system is not working because the workers are not working.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sovietcollapse.htm

Single salary households existed because women were out of the labor force. Those slowly disappeared as the internal labor market grew, as you could get away with paying women less

Communist countries often couldn't even produce food. Even during the Cold War the USSR had to import grain from the USA. Millions starved to death in China.

Please point out a country that actually implemented Communism. The Soviet Union never got past Socialism, where capital was owned by the state, not by workers. Communism doesn't imply a state-controlled economy, and that's the inefficient part. Socialism combines the worst aspects of a late-stage capital ruling class with a command economy.

Oh yeah, by "communism" I mean whatever was implemented in Soviet block, China, India, Vietnam etc., not what Marx and others envisioned in their theories.

I think it's a big difference, and one of the enduring legacies of cold-war propaganda is the confusion of the issue by conflating the two. A market economy is better at allocating resources efficiently than a command economy, but the argument over whether to have a command economy or market economy is separable from tendency of wealth to concentrate. The existance of winners is important to a market economy, but it also serves as an entaxic force (inverse of entropy, analogous to gravity) in the system that moves it towards greater order and centralization, until the corporate winners become de-facto states unto themselves with their own command-setting potential. Keeping the winners from leveraging their winnings to also win every subsequent round is the game we're playing to keep the field fair. That points to ideas from communism, but it has nothing to do with whether there's a command economy. Socialism is what happens when the demagogues get control of the ideology, just as they have in the US.

What we need are anti-trust protections that prevent the formation of `too-big-to-fail` entities of all stripes.

Just to be clear, when people say "Communism" and specify "the Soviet Union", that's adequate for rhetorical purposes. You can clarify that the Soviets were merely extremely socialist if you want, but everyone else understood what he was saying.

"A market economy is better at allocating resources efficiently than a command economy"

It was that way, agreed but might not always be that way.

Because free market economies have their own share of inefficiencies and moral hazards and certainly cannot be the efficiency pinnacle of human civilization.

I don't know what computers and networks will be capable of in the future, but it's worth noting that command economies failed in the time before these things really took off. The weak link has always been people who's brains developed in a time when they were monkeys scrabbling under trees and screeching at their fellows. No wonder they can't efficiently run big systems. But it's becoming evident maybe these tiny self centered brains are just big enough to design something that _can_ run a complex system efficiently.

Market economies are good at allocating resources, but they're also good at concentrating resources, which kills the market. And in some sectors, markets don't benefit the social fabric as a whole, hence why intervention into markets is often necessary

I've never understood why the fact that striving for communism reliably lead to disaster can be used a defence of communism. Can you explain that line of reasoning? It seems to me that's saying nothing more than "The utopia that I imagine is fantastic!". The main contention is not the qualities of the imagination, but the clash between the imagination and reality.

Simply put, it can never be implemented because perfect Communism would mean absolute genocide for the nation that manages to pull it off. All variations of Socialism function by extreme, persistent violence, to enforce the state's control over most aspects of a person's life including particularly economically (and everything else as a consequence).

The closer you get to implementing this fantasy Communism, the closer you get to death. That's why nobody can do it, it's why nobody ever has, it's why nobody ever will. It requires a staggering amount of aggression and violence to even attempt Communism, much less these idealized versions (which require 24/7 perfect violence to be applied to disallow even the slightest step outside the framework by the population).

This is classic no true Scotsman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com