Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ray20 | Hacker News Reader

> unless automation taxes pay for it

But this doesn't solve the problem in any way; it simply leads to production drop.

I mean, this is literally the logic of every communist government in the 20th century. They had the same logic that "given the mechanization of agriculture, food practically produces itself; you just need to throw a seed in the ground and give it a couple of tractor rides, and the earth will do the rest. Therefore, we need a tax on such activity, because we have enough resources to feed everyone".

In other words, it's literally a pure tax on automation. The results were mass deaths from starvation every single time.

View on HN

There were so many contributing factors to those famines but my understanding is that it was far and away the broken incentives for reporting failures as successes to avoid immediate head chopping.

There has yet to be an attempt at a centrally planned economy that actually had accurate data to plan with.

Not advocating for central planning but the important point is that these failure modes are possible under any tyrannical regime. For an example of where capitalist competition fell down in a similar way, look no further than the Irish potato famines.

> it was far and away the broken incentives for reporting failures as successes to avoid immediate head chopping

Actually, no. What you're describing is more of a part of the next stage, designed to solve the already existing problem of famine, rather than its cause.

When communists come to power, they don't try in the first place to reorganize food production under strict centralization; this directly contradicts Marxism, according to which the state gradually withers away as a communist society is built. They simply try to redistribute what is already being produced in a more fair manner, to force peasants to contribute their "fair share" to society.

This causes production to plummet, people are dying of hunger, and only then the government takes control of organization of food production, and only after that do the factors you mentioned become relevant.

But the famine itself under communism, at least in its initial, most massive iteration, is not a consequence of a tyrannical regime, but is a consequence of the "taxation policy" being pursued.

Surely redistributing food (still effectively central planning) produced by a large number of peasant farmers is exactly equivalent to redistributive taxes on a very small number of very wealthy people who have captured the productivity gains of automation. Let's just dispense with the entire field of economics, all that fussy declining marginal utility and indifference curves, and just make a real zinger of an analogy.

Yes, it's EXACTLY equivalent. If you read the works of the communists who implemented all of this, you'll find literally the same arguments about unjust wealth created by productivity gains of automation (mechanization).

Not sure that is the historical timeline for Collectivisation in USSR and definitely no China. Collectivisation and Land Reform was a primary goal in itself in China from the 1950s. Communist Liberation was 1949 so right from the onset.

"state gradually withers away as a communist society is built" is 19th century Marx. I think 20thc Leninism, in practice, had a less sanguine view of the evolution of the state. The NEP was a tactical move. You could argue that Mao was always suspicious of state and party machinery which inherently had reactionary and counter revolutionary tendencies. However even when he was Mobilising the Masses, it was not restore to "autonomy" to the people but to clear the deck for further revolution. In Mao Zedong thought, "autonomy" is a very bourgeoisie.

Do you think perhaps the totalitarian dictatorships perverted the communist aims of the proles perhaps just a little bit?

It's absolutely correct that we can easily feed, clothe, house everyone. We can even give everyone comforts. It's mostly greed that prevents it. Greed that capitalism spends $trillions cultivating by brain-washing us all to want more and never be satisfied.

Do you think perhaps the totalitarian dictatorships perverted the communist aims of the proles perhaps just a little bit?

No, I don't think so. From a historical point of view, everything is quite clear: after communists came to power, the most severe famines occurred even before this totalitarian dictatorship is build, as a consequence of these very tax policies, the purpose of which is "easily feed, clothe, house everyone".

Totalitarian dictatorship comes later, as the problem transform to "we can easily feed, clothe, house everyone, but they don't want to, so we should force them"

Pretty sure the Bolsheviks developed their bloodthirsty authoritarian tendencies well before the revolution was even won.

Could you expand on your second paragraph - I'm not sure I understand your position. Are you saying you think we're not able to provide for basic necessities with our current level of technical ability and available workforce?

Our ability to do this is more of a fact. But the socialist distribution system completely destroys this ability.

If you're willing, could you go on (expand your point), or link to a treatise that supports your position?

You are correct but

> It's mostly greed that prevents it

Greed is a human axiom. Anything that depends on humans not being greedy isn't worth the paper it's printed on. That's why capitalism won, despite its many faults: it requires human greed to function.

If that were the case why so much brainwashing is needed?

Because its the only way the people who would like to be in power and can't manage to produce anything anyone else wants can see to get themselves put in charge: convince enough other people that despite their freedom, high standard of living, etc. they are somehow oppressed.

> Do you think perhaps the totalitarian dictatorships perverted the communist aims of the proles perhaps just a little bit?

Do you think perhaps there is a reason why any communist regime quickly devolves into a totalitarian dictatorship?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com