Hacker News Reader

Comment by consonants | Hacker News Reader

Not at all. Incan society had a caste system, nobles, royalty, etc. Nobles owned estates and laborers. Workers did not own the means of production.

View on HN

Well, theoretically, workers own the means of production in communism, but that's now how it happened in practice. In practice, the Party owned everything, and its high ranking members were effectively nobility. Workers in communism were nothing more than indentured servants.

That seems a best a very bad caricature of what happened in the Soviet Union. What's happening in Communist China now?

What makes you say it's a "very bad caricature"? All the stories I've read and heard (from my relatives and friends in Romania) paint a very bleak picture of what life was like then. I was 4 years old in '89, but I heard a lot form my parents. Essentially they were prisoners in their own country, and the higher layers of the party practically owned all of it.

Life may have been bleak, but that's not what you were saying. You're taking anecdotes from one part of the Soviet Union and applying it to the whole thing. Would you say that Russians are immeasurably better off now than during Communism?

Can't speak about Russia, but other countries are much better off. Poland and Estonia come to mind right now. Also, I haven't heard any contradicting anecdotes from other parts of the Communist bloc. Life seems to have been mostly the same everywhere.

After thinking about it, I feel like the comparison to China deserves a discussion. China moved away from pure communism a long time ago, and basically implemented a form of capitalism-on-communism. They're now arguably the most dog-eat-dog capitalist country in the world, very far from a worker's paradise that communism is supposed to be.

A more fair comparison would be to North Korea. They're still old-school communist, and really not doing well.

And the US isn't purely capitalistic either; public police/fire dept/sewer, has semi public health care in medicare.

> In practice, the Party owned everything, and its high ranking members were effectively nobility.

The concept of nobility implies hereditary transfer of privileges, which was not the case in Soviet system. It was certainly easier for children of Party bureaucrats to get their own spot, but it was not guaranteed to them, they could lose it at any time, and "commoners" could get into the ranks (and it was not something exceptional).

So Party was the ruling elite class, but it was not an estate/caste, as nobility was in feudalism.

I'll agree they were not hereditary, but that was not the point. The point is that there was a privileged upper class minority ruling over the commoners, which completely goes against a basic communist principle, the classless society. They violated one of their fundamental principles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com