Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gareth321 | Hacker News Reader

Thanks to. Humanity has attempted 37 separate experiments with communism in the last century alone, and they resulted in 100M+ deaths. To be clear, no one is claiming that capitalism is perfect. Merely that it is the best of all the options on the table. The problem with communism is that it doesn't account for the human element. Most notably greed, corruption, and nepotism. The reason capitalism succeeds where communism fails is that it embraces the ugly underside of humanity and harnesses it for good. Elon Musk would never have revolutionised internet payments, EVs, space-based internet distribution, and reduced space transport costs by 90% if there were no reward for him. Humanity benefits thanks to his greed.

View on HN

Yes but we can't run a simulation of what life would have been like if, say, we'd had monarchies or socialism instead, and technology kept advancing. We can only state what has transpired. If there was no Elon Musk, would someone else have had the vision to build out the super charger network and the gigafactory to have forced electric vehicles into being viable? If the Wright brothers hadn't been the first to fly, would someone else have managed to do the same thing? The first transatlantic telegraph cable failed.

This is why we should rely on precedent. It’s not like we haven’t tried other forms of governance and economies. We have. Many. The best so far has been capitalism. Since I live in Denmark I would argue the best social outcomes are from strong capitalist economies with strong social safety nets.

How do we classify China on this spectrum?

I would currently classify China as a one-party socialist state under Communist Party rule with a state-directed mixed-market economy. Under Mao Zedong, China was a relatively faithful adherent Marx's writing and vision for communism, and I would classify it as communist one-party state with a highly collectivised, state-directed command economy.

The tricky thing about governing and economic systems is that they're never ideologically pure. No previous system can ever be called "purely" communist, nor can any current system be called "purely" capitalist. We therefore often analyse outcomes from nations using the dominant system is the lens.

Then why would you claim that capitalism is the largest driver of poverty reduction when China was the largest contributor to poverty reduction in the last 100 years? Add to that USSR and it is clear that you should be thanking socialism and not capitalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com