Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by gaius | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

gaius

communism didn't really exist to fall in the first place

Come on, we can do better here than the tired old “not real communism” argument.

it just means that we didn't have the right data, or perhaps we need a new analysis

Ah yes, always followed by “it will be different next time”. How many millions more have to die?

View on HN

I think it's fair to call all attempts so far "not reall communism". But you don't have to conclude "real communism would work". You can also conclude "real communism seems unimplementable". It is, after all, a social order that was created purely on paper and from theoretical arguments, which is ridiculous. That activity gives you something to try, but certainly not a fixed solution that you just need to implement as prescribed.

Its a typical low blow, akin to throwing all right-wing under the guise of Franco, the Weimar republic, or some other right-wing system. Communism has been implemented on small scale. One notable example in Spain [1], problem is that any large political system eventually turns out to be either authoritarian or ineffective or sabotaged (I leave the guess by whom as an exercise to the reader). Its also been applied in part in West-Europe as well as USA, just not in full.

Capitalism is a race to the bottom where the poor countries in the world are being put under the thumb. You don't have to look very far. Just look at all the CIA ops the USA has conducted in the 20th century, e.g. Allende.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#1936_Revolu...

Capitalism is actually currently ending the world hunger because trickle-down effects actually exist. Living standards are rising globally incredibly quickly. Middle-class kids in Jordan are playing Diabolo 3 on their computers despite the region having almost no natural resources, almost no water and despite it being troubled by Syrian refugees. Yes, capitalism needs regulation, but it is a lie to say that the entire approach is doomed to be a race to the bottom.

This is an experiment with 1 trial. What evidence do you have that another system with the same technological advances would not produce the same or better living standards? (none!)

East vs West Germany, North vs South Korea, even Cuba vs Florida. There have been plenty of experiments.

China vs. Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Until China went state-capitalist Hong Kong’s economy was one-sixth the size of China’s for 1/200th of the population. Now it’s 2-3%...

Another system != Statist communists, categorically

> Capitalism is actually currently ending the world hunger

There are a ton of efforts, both from state-actors[1], NGOs[2] and individuals, seeking to eradicate extreme poverty worldwide. It is not apparent that it is "fixing itself with capitalism" or that any of the previous actors think it is going to happen.

> trickle-down effects actually exist

Citation Needed because trickle-down economics has been shown to increase inequality and not increase the quality of life for those in poverty.

> Yes, capitalism needs regulation, but it is a lie to say that the entire approach is doomed to be a race to the bottom.

Why is it a lie?

[1]: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/data/oecd-internati...

[2]: https://data.oecd.org/drf/grants-by-private-agencies-and-ngo...

>> Middle-class kids in Jordan are playing Diabolo 3 on their computers despite the region having almost no natural resources, almost no water and despite it being troubled by Syrian refugees.

That's interesting, but what is the proportion of middle-class individuals to the rest of the population, in Jordan? If there's 100 kids able to play Diablo 3 in Jordan, while every other kid their age can't afford a computer, then Diablo 3 is not a very useful metric of anything.

Jordan is one of the richest countries in the region btw.

Capitalism needs all kind of patches/bandaids in order to function, and even then it won't function for all. The Kuznets Curve (as mentioned in this article [1] about the doughnut economy) shows the vast amount of inequality in rich countries. Not so much for the general readership of HN (ie. I am arguing the readership is biased).

I fundamentally disagree with a left-right x-axis; we're missing out on authoritative-liberty. Hence politicalcompass.org provides a better framework.

Some of these bandaids are authoritarian, some are liberal. For example, trademarks, patents, copyright each grant power to one or more individuals (ie. a minority) over a vast majority. Here, the free market is being regulated by the government. We consider it part of capitalism.

[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/the-new-economic-mode...

> ny large political system eventually turns out to be either authoritarian or ineffective

Your thoughts on seasteading, even as a hypothetical?

The original intention was the communist revolution would take over the whole world at once. it was never intended/feasible to be a sole communist nation surrounded by a sea of capitalist nations, but they couldn't admit that failure and pressed on anyway.

The original intention was the communist revolution would take over the whole world at once

This in and of itself speaks volumes. If it were truly a viable system it could start in one country which would quickly outstrip all others in technology, culture, industrial production, quality of life for its citizens... Then all other countries would gladly follow.

But they knew from the very beginning that people who could vote with their feet, would flee that system. Countries that restrict people from leaving know perfectly well that they are doing something evil.

Well, your 'restriction' motivation is a bit conspiracy theory / disingenuous, but yes for many reasons communism at the level of nations doesn't work. Do we really need to re-hash that the leninists' revolution model was flawed over and over again? There is no disagreement here.

Instead, following your startup idea, we should foster worker co-ops, which already exist today and are compatible within existing nations. One example is the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Millions fewer than died under centuries of global slavery and imperialism, which I'm sure you're not going to now claim is "not real capitalism".

That’s a common misconception : Capitalism isn’t as ambitious as communism in that matter. It doesn’t aim at making the world a just or better place, just more economicaly efficient one. Communism is not only an economical system, but it also aims at solving the unfairness that it attributes to capitalism, and then invents all kinds of counter measure ( one of them being the revolution, and « temporary » dictactorship).

For a capitalist, this vision is like blaming the engine for the direction the car is taking.

> Capitalism [...] doesn’t aim at making the world a just or better place

I didn't say it did. I pointed out that if you're going to insist that mass murder under a few decades of communist regimes = real communism, then mass murder (and genocide and slavery) under centuries of capitalist regimes = real capitalism.

> Communism [...] invents all kinds of counter measure ( one of them being the revolution, and « temporary » dictactorship).

Communism did not invent revolution or dictatorship.

Indeed, dictators originally had term limits even, so the idea of a temporary dictatorship is... pretty much its original intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

Well, no you can’t make that equivalent reasoning , that’s my point. People blaming communism makes a lot more sense because it does deal with what the political regime should be (once again, a dictatorship). Who should be in charge, for what political goals, with which privilege, as well as provides all the intermediate steps on how to accomplish that goal.

It is not of the same nature.

> Well, no you can’t make that equivalent reasoning

And yet I seem to have done it.

> People blaming communism makes a lot more sense

You're entitled to your opinion.

> because it does deal with what the political regime should be (once again, a dictatorship).

Since you persist in arguing about "dictatorship" instead of communism, I don't see any point in continuing this.

Edit: instant downvoter I think you missed one of my posts; here's a link to make it easier:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16034997

Feel free to check out my comments page and obsessively downvote others you may have missed, if any.

I don't understand the sentence "your persist in arguing about "dictatorship" instead of communism". Maybe i wasn't clear in what i meant by dictatorship, but i refer to the "dictatorship of proletariat" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletaria...) which is core to the communist doctrine.

You'll probably argue that this kind of dictatorship isn't to be understood in the common sense, but judging by the various communists thinkers that refer gladly to violence, as well as its historical examples, i'd say the difference aren't that clear.

> "dictatorship of proletariat" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletaria...) You'll probably argue that this kind of dictatorship isn't to be understood in the common sense

I don't have to. Your own link says so in just the second paragraph:

    Dictatorship of the proletariat is different from the
    popular notion of 'dictatorship'

It just doesn't ring true.

Both slavery and imperialism have had a long history before capitalism. Capitalism exists in circumstances with no plausible relationship to slavery or imperialism.

It annoys me because this dialectic is so obviously wrong.

And mass murder had a long history before communism.

Are you even disagreeing with me?

We've asked you before not to use HN primarily to argue about ideology. Since you're still doing that, I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It is an old argument because communism can mean different things. What you mean with communism I would rather call more precisely real socialism [1] Now those real socialist states had as their goal, or at least said so to achieve communism: "the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state" [2]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

You could also ask: How many millions more have to die before we overcome capitalism?

> It is an old argument because communism can mean different things.

Actually, it has a very concrete definition. The only thing that's flexible is where will communists move the goalpost when another downside or systemic problem is pointed out.

One can also state, WRT the US, that "real" capitalism hasn't existed and its closest approximation has been in steady decline for the last 125 years. Ergo, if we only tried "real" capitalism things would be so much better.

It does not work the other way around, as capitalism as a term was coined by socialists and communists to describe the then status quo.

Real communism was tried and worked – in communities under 100-200 people (like kibutzim). This feeling of community, where people truly care about one another, is detrimental for communism to work – and turns out, millions of people can be shaped into something similar only under a terror and propaganda machine.

Free people will never care about millions of their "comrades" the same way the can care about their 100-200 closest social connections.

I think you meant to s/detrimental/fundamental/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com