Hacker News Reader

Comment by OCASM | Hacker News Reader

No, communism isn't the answer. Some people having an edge over others is not an issue in the first place.

This isn't someone having an edge over someone else because they worked for it, took a risk for it, or earned it in any way. It's because they had different parents - capitalism is about rewarding work, risk, etc not having parents who can afford to send you to a better school.

Communism pretends to seek equality at all times for all, but this is only proposing a more equal start for all, and still allows some to do better than others. Are you sure authoritarianism isn't the word you were looking for?

> Capitalism is about rewarding work, risk, etc not having parents who can afford to send you to a better school.

Since when is capitalism _about_ rewarding work and risk?

I don't personally think that capitalism does a good job of rewarding work. But, IME, people who are in favor or capitalism are under the impression that it's a system that allows anyone to succeed and do well, all they have to do is work hard, get money, invest, start their own business, etc.

They feel communism is unfair as it rewards people for doing nothing, while capitalism allows rags-to-riches based on work and risk AIUI

Many people would characterize this misconception as the lie of the American dream. I don't know if there ever has been a time under capitalist systems where things like inheritance, etc (which would unlevel the playing field, as it were) were explicitly banned.

A large part of the reason capitalism works is not because people want to make a better life for themselves, but because they want to make a better life for their kids. In a system where a parent can not work hard to increase the likelihood of their children’s’ success in life, likely the system would collapse. (This doesn’t mean that schools shouldn’t become more socialized, I’m pointing out the flaw in the argument that capitalism is tied to individual benefit. For any parent, their individual benefit takes a back seat to that of their kids.)

You're right about the flaw in tying capitalism to individual benefit, however, don't those parents also appreciate the love a not-so-fortunate parent has for their own child? If they want such great opportunities for their child, why wouldn't they want the same for other children? Capitalists who are so selfless for their own offspring should also feel the same about others, right?

I guess it's just hard for me to imagine someone who loves their child so much but doesn't care enough about how much someone less fortunate would care about their child. Perhaps it's because I'm not a parent

Communism is about the state owning the means of production. If the state bans private schools, it is granting itself a monopoly on the education market. It's one of those rare instances where communism is actually the right term.

Good point! I take it back, you (and the person I was replying to) are right about the usage of the term.

Capitalism is about private property and freedom. If parents want to provide generously to their children that's perfectly fine.

Equality of opportunity is equally as bad as equality of results. It denies people the ability to reach as high as they can and forcibly brings them down.

Is that really worse than what we already have, where most people are denied the ability to reach as high as they could because of who they were born to? You can appreciate that many parents who are able to want to provide generously to their kids, so imagine a parent feeling the same but not being able to be generous. Passing on money you don't have is pretty hard, but passing on the way people looked down on you for your financial status is unfortunately easy to pass on, as are your wishes that you went to (or even had the money to) go to college, among other things. You know your child deserves so much and could do so much, if only they had the resources to achieve all they could

It is worse because you'd be taking away opportunities from some to give to others against their will. It's cheating.

By doing nothing you're allowing opportunities to be taken away from many kids against their will (bc their parents lack the money). That's cheating

You're not taking away anything because they never had them in the first place.

I believe that it's useful to have capitalistic motivations to motivate people to perform. You should be able to start a business and get outsized returns if you take risks and succeed. However, I also believe in equal opportunities, and giving kids a more equal start.

We could easily give kids an equal start if we mentally handicap them all at birth.

Sure, but it'd also be easier to just provider decent nutrition at school, to ensure it's actually happening, irregardless of whether the parents are rich or not.

Disclaimer: I'm Scottish/European; we have different cultural thoughts on these issues

This implies that all people have the same mental and physical abilities and any observable differences are due to nutrition. One famous European (albeit Austrian), has debunked this theory in 1860s. I am not sure if his discoveries are taught in Europe nowadays though.

The generic argument is that people should have an equal start otherwise we're running a Ponzi scheme society.

This doesn't mean that people should have an equal finish though, as if you work harder and smarter, not many would you shouldn't reap the rewards.

What you’re suggesting is a pretty massive intervention. I think it’s useful to know whether or not your proposed intervention would actually do anything before seriously putting it forward. Do you know whether schooling actually has a causal effect on life outcomes? I think you might be surprised if you start reading the literature on this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com