Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

> What if society really appreciated its essential workers and compensated them like it did?

The person I was responding to was arguing against compensation as a concept in general.

Very fair. I don't think you can remove compensation. But, I think the post still had some good thoughts and good aims. They need some tweaking. Your post highlighted an area that needs tweaking, and mine tried to build on both posts.

That tweak is a universal basic income (or other broad based benefits that establish a floor for quality of life) which would attempt to reduce the impact of one's lineage on one's options.

What if monetary or material compensation was replaced with simple respect and appreciation though? As it is, the people who do the dirty jobs of society are often treated like they themselves are filth.

Then we would not be living in the same world with the same parameters as we are now.

And yet there are functional societies out there today, much as there were in the past, that are not capitalistic societies. Treating people like shit and forcing them to do dirty jobs you don't want to do under threat of starvation is not an inherent property of the human condition.

Which societies operated like that? I am not aware of any, that could operate as a country of decent size today. Note that this supposed country would also need to be able to defend itself, if it has possession of anything valuable (such as water, arable land, weather, etc). And also be able to deal with immigration and outsiders coming in, and kicking out people who would mess up the system.

What kind of idealistic misunderstanding of history do you have that non-capitalist societies were some kumbaya utopia? Korea historically had slavery and extreme class differences. Europe had nobility and serfs who were not far off from slaves (and could be tortured or executed). Ancient Sparta and Persia had slaves and going way back into biblical times (though this still happens today in some places), people could be stoned just for not believing the right things. People today make the mistake of assuming things were altogether better in the past just because one particular aspect they dislike today was better before. Hierarchy and treating each other terribly are an inherent part of being human, and it's taken centuries of work to get to a point that we can even pretend otherwise.

He said some non-capitalist societies, not all non-capitalist societies that have ever existed.

Which makes it a moot point. The common thread across capitalist, socialist, monarchist, whatever-ist societies with suffering is that humans are involved. Neither capitalism nor socialism is inherently bad; some humans are, especially in aggregate, hence we always need ways to enforce order. The fatal flaw to any utopian society is that the more it depends on trust, the more some people will abuse it and coordinate with others to abuse it. The less trust you have, the more force you need to enforce your worldview on others (which radical liberals and conservatives essentially push for). There is no magical world where we all live in harmony

I don't understand your point. The corollary to "there is no perfect society, suffering always exist" is not "therefore all societies are equally bad". No, liberalism is an improvement on feudalism. Capitalist “liberal democracies” are an improvement on capitalist absolute monarchies.

All I'm saying is we can do much better than this.

You can't go back and forth between theoretical and real-life. I don't accept the claim that democracies are always better than monarchies. Monarchies and authoritarian states are great in theory, if they enforce the worldview you want. Look at how America's republicanism has allowed its own self-degradation through lobbying and regulatory capture. My first point is that everything in the real world is case by case and it's intellectually dishonest to go for such grade-school arguments as saying that democracy = good, monarch = bad. Capitalism can be good or bad. Monarchies can be good or bad, etc. My second point is that the only common theme is that some humans are bad actors, therefore it doesn't matter how your society functions, there will always be people who exploit the system. The only reason you think monarchies is bad is because historical monarchs have been abusive. But there have also been abusive democratic leaders. Humans are the problem, not the systems we create.

Disagree entirely. Ironically it's your "systems don't matter, it just depends on whether the people in charge are good or not" that is grade-school level. x)

First, I didn't say democracy good, monarchy bad... My point is precisely that western bourgeois democracy is pretty flawed. It is however better than the absolutist monarchies of the 1700s and 1800s.

>some humans are bad actors, therefore it doesn't matter how your society functions, there will always be people who exploit the system. The only reason you think monarchies is bad is because historical monarchs have been abusive. But there have also been abusive democratic leaders. Humans are the problem, not the systems we create.

That's just silly. A well designed system has institutions, checks and balances that prevent bad actors from wrecking the system. An absolutist monarchy has none. Can't you see how that matters? Taking your argument to its conclusion, then absolute monarchies, bourgeois democracies, direct democracies, soviet-style totalitarianism... it's all the same! All it matters is if you're lucky that the people in charge are good.

Have you read Another Tomorrow by Yanis Varafoufakis?

The title is Another Now, thanks for the rec!

No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com