Hacker News Reader

Comment by qsdf38100 | Hacker News Reader

Any time I hear "Capitalism is [...]", it is when one forces his own, carefully worded definition, so that the subsequent arguments sound natural, logic, simple, irrefutable. "It's simply the system of exploitation".

Let me try that game. Capitalism is what emerges from trade and money. You can fight it, you can embrace it, but you won't eradicate it. Black markets and barter will emerge, which are forms of capitalism. In the end, all you can do is regulate it (or not). Then I would define socialism as an attempt to regulate it so it doesn't turn into the law of the fittest.

View on HN

Socialism turns into the survival of the fittest as the civilians start fighting each other for food, and positioning themselves favorably for scraps by burying their neighbors for "crimes against the state." Everything anybody needs to know about socialism was already experienced by and written about by Solzenichen.

I said that socialism is an _attempt_. I certainly agree that it can fail and produce misery.

I'd like to define socialism as a moderate regulation of capitalism. Like, capitalism with the right balance of regulations (so industries aren't free to wreck the environment, risk people lives, etc), cheap/free social services/health care and taxing the wealthy more than the poor.

Then I could say I'm for socialism. Now a lot of "socialist" countries are dictatorships and/or heavily corrupt states. So I... don't know. I guess I'm a centrist then?

Trade and money existed long before capitalism. Capitalism is not trade and never was. Trade will always exist regardless of the economic system.

>law of the fittest

Fittest? Capitalism rewards who already has capital. Monopolies inhibit competition, stifles innovation, and effectively nullifies the "fittest" argument. Still, that's the ultimate dream of every capitalist.

This rhetoric is a result of propaganda funded by the very capitalists that need to justify their atrocities.

What really baffles me is that these arguments are, today, almost exclusively made by those that are not capitalists. They defend their overlords with more faith and fervor than most church goers. When in reality most are one medical emergency away from bankruptcy, but still think they might become a billionaire.

I'm basically saying neo-liberal capitalism, as in minimum-regulation capitalism, is unfair. You're right that it's about having capital already, not about being fit. Anyway, I think the law of the fittest is awful, so I'm not defending neo-liberal capitalism, quite the contrary.

Anywhere you have money and trade, you will have wealthy people, using their wealth to get unfair advantages over poor people, and get even wealthier. I don't care if it fits your definition of capitalism, even though I think it does. My point is that you can fight it, or embrace it, but it's going to emerge, and you won't eradicate it. So, instead of describing this naturally emerging thing as pure evil, let's try to make it fair, have regulations to protect consumers, taxes to redistribute wealth and prevent too much wealth accumulation. That's what I would like "socialism" to mean.

Being a billionaire is absolutely not my goal in life, not even a desire. Billionaires actually are lonely people, stuck in a very restricted social circle. They can't have normal friends. Ask minecraft's creator.

Please don't assume I'm a brainwashed wannabee-billionaire defending my "Capitalist" overlords. I would be better placed to assume you're the typical anti-system guy that thinks "Capitalism" is the root of all evil, and that sees everything in this light.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com