Hacker News Reader

Comment by unmole | Hacker News Reader

Let me get this straight: A billionaire CEO is a communist?

It seems like most of them are - they know (or at least believe) that the rules won't apply to them after the "revolution".

Yes he has an attitude of "I've got mine, now nobody else should be able to have the kind of financial success I have." He and Reid Hoffman are two of the most politically active CEOs (and with the same political viewpoints).

That's not communism. It's selfishness, and either a lack of self-awareness or being a jerk, but it's not communism.

Communism would be advocating that the government take his assets - all of them.

What you're referring to is the theory. What you're replying to is the reality. Communism as implemented always results in an upper class and "everybody else". This was true for the Soviet Union, is true for China, and is true for Cuba.

Fair point.

Is it a fair point if every practical application of another system also results in the same? What is the point of differentiating -isms only based on what ends up happening if they all result in the same?

At least the theory of it being different is a distinguishing feature.

> I've got mine, now nobody else should be able to have the kind of financial success I have.

What does pulling the ladder up behind them have to do with communism? This is not dissimilar from incumbents attempting regulatory capture.

Are they advocating for the communal ownership of the means of production? If not, they are not communists. Unless you're just using commie as a placeholder to refer to any political ideology you disagree with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com