Hacker News Reader

Comment by VMG | Hacker News Reader

Capitalism is the only system that has a proven track record of bringing people out of poverty. Many industrial nations had a garment industry phase and graduated from it.

We have had experiments with other systems than Capitalsm, and some of them are still running. Korea is split in North and South, the southern part is capitalist, was in garment manufacturing and now has an exceptional level of wealth, while the northern part is communist and has become one big concentration camp.

I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.

View on HN

North Korea is not communist. Read the book The Cleanest Race to see how U.S. analysts really see North Korea. There are no communist countries today. It's fun to talk about capitalism in the abstract like it doesn't keep monarchism in the closet, underdevelops Africa, props up lackey dictators in the Third World, depends on colonialism/imperialism to get rich, and turns to fascism when in crisis. I'm sure mafias have made life better too for people but that doesn't look at the whole picture. Where would your bought off Scotsmen be if he wasn't capitalism's shock troops who invaded South Africa,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Americas and kept police order in India, the Middle East, and Asia?

Not only that, but I don't believe there ever was a pure communist state, only the intermediate stage experiments that ended up cruel dictatorships. The only way we'd ever get one is with the help of a Portal-like AI to distribute wealth and plan the economy.

> There are no communist countries today.

What about Cuba?

There are no communist nations today because communism failed, utterly and often spectacularly, usually because some asshole came to power who was more interested in furthering his own agenda and increasing the power of himself and his friends than in doing what was actually good for the people.

This always occurs because in order to transfer to communism, an intermediate government is necessary to take power from the evil capitalists, consolidate it, and distribute it throughout the people before volunteering to dissolve. In practice, this never occurs. Where power is centralized, sociopaths will congregate, and the first stage of the transition to communism is nothing if not the centralization of power. Thus, communism has always failed under the weight of despots, and will always do so as long as that is the case. There are no benevolent governments, period.

Meanwhile, though capitalism is surely far from perfect in its implementation, every nation which has embraced it has done remarkably well relative to those which embraced its ideological opposite. No, it's not perfect, but it's obviously preferable to communism. I give those who sided with communism or socialism before 1980 or so the benefit of the doubt, as they were not privy to the vast evidence that we are today of communism's many failures. On the other hand, I immediately write anyone off who still believes communism > capitalism to be a delusional idiot who is almost certainly not worth arguing with.

Communism is not for you buddy, you're not the same class as those toiling in India or other Third World nations. With its proven track record of defeating imperialists and for those with nothing to lose and first world nation traitors, it has still proven viable.

> There are no communist nations today

I have the People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Cuba on the line, all of which would like to have a word with you.

I should have said successful communist nations. China isn't communist; it's been capitalist since Deng Xiaopeng opened it up to foreign direct investment in the early 80's. Vietnam is socialist in name only, and is following a similar trajectory to China. The DPRK is a perhaps the only true communist nation on Earth, and we all know what a hellhole it's become. It is the last holdout, and is probably in the final throes of its existence. Something's going to happen there eventually, whether revolution or invasion of a foreign power I don't know, but the world will not tolerate that much longer. Finally, Cuba is socialist, not communist, and even they are trending towards capitalism, not communism, as all nations inevitably do.

Edit: allow me to clarify what I mean by the DPRK being communist. It is not communism as in the endgame of communism on paper; it is the intermediate stage of communism when it is allowed to exist for far too long by a world that is not interested in intervening. The central authority has seized power for itself, but it will never return that power to the people and transition to communism's final stage for obvious reasons. The DPRK is the final stage of communism as it exists in reality.

> I should have said successful communist nations. China isn't communist; it's been capitalist since Deng Xiaopeng opened it up to foreign direct investment in the early 80's.

If you take an equally narrow view of "capitalism" as you necessarily must of "communism" to make this even arguably true (well, and still it wouldn't be true to say China is "capitalist", but at least "not communist"), there aren't any "successful" capitalist nations today either, they all became "socialist" sometime between the late 19th and mid-20th century.

Realistically, most of the worlds major economies are mixed economies, and certainly one can make that case with regard to China -- though its a lot closer to communism than it is to capitalism.

> Finally, Cuba is socialist, not communist, and even they are trending towards capitalism, not communism, as all nations inevitably do.

The Communist Party of Cuba would be as surprised to learn that they aren't Communist (they'd agree that they are socialist, but they'd be baffled at the idea that the two were incompatible.)

At any rate, the idea that all nations eventually trend towards capitalism is ludicrous, especially given that the advanced nations whose systems in the 19th century were the defining exemplars of the term "capitalism" have since all trended toward socialism.

I suggest you look up the definition of "capitalist" and "communist." All successful nations today are, by definition, "capitalist," as in the government respects the right of the people to own property. Yes, there are some successful mixed economies, but they are "mixed" because the government owns some of the means of production alongside the people, not the other way around. And even those few nations have been liberalizing over the last few decades, a trend which continues today.

By the actual definition of "communism" there are no communist nations today, nor were there ever any for the reasons I gave in my initial argument. The definition of communism I've used for this discussion was actually more lenient than how it is defined.

>The Communist Party of Cuba would be as surprised to learn that they aren't Communist

The Communist Party of Cuba would not be surprised at all. They're just playing the game they've been given, and to think that they don't know the score is to assume they are all idiots right off the bat.

>At any rate, the idea that all nations eventually trend towards capitalism is ludicrous

Every formerly communist/socialist nation on the planet save one has moved to liberalize their economy in the last few decades, because communism/socialism is inherently flawed. All nations do, indeed, inevitably trend towards capitalism. If they choose not to, they inevitably fail, and once they pick up the pieces, they inevitably choose the alternative, which has been proven to succeed time and time again.

If you use as weak and binary a definition of "capitalism" as you expressly state that you are, then the idea of nations inevitably trending toward capitalism is even more ludicrous than it is if you use it in a meaningful way -- as it is, even currently socialist nations are "capitalist" (not trending toward it -- which is impossible, there is no way to have a variable distance from it -- but actually capitalist.)

Yes, I've noticed that debates with those who advocate socialism over capitalism tend to devolve into arguments over semantics.

It seems that so very few of you can argue in favor of your favorite alternative to capitalism well enough to refrain from nitpicking. It becomes tiresome after a while.

Using your weak definition of capitalism, I've rarely seen anyone advocate socialism over capitalism, since all socialism that I've seen advocated is compatible with (and even require) your weak definition of capitalism, they aren't alternatives to it.

And, while there's probably some definitions of "socialism" and "capitalism" for which my preferred tuning of a modern mixed economy is more "socialism" than "capitalism", all I've been arguing in this thread is that your Marx-in-reverse arguments about the inevitability of capitalism are as ludicrous as Marxist fanatics arguments about the inevitability of Communism -- and that's not even related to advocacy about the desirability of any system.

Semantics.

>I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.

By cherry-picking North Korea as your only example as a non-capitalist experiment, and pre-disqualifying anyone who says that it isn't a representative example for all possible non-capitalist systems as someone employing a logical fallacy, you haven't really left any room for discussion.

Why not pick China, or the USSR?

Or the entire modern West, which pretty much exists as explicitly mixed socialist/capitalist economies - filled with welfare, national health services, unemployment benefits, industrial subsidies, public education, and progressive taxation?

I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.

>> We have had experiments with other systems than Capitalsm, and some of them are still running. Korea is split in North and South, the southern part is capitalist, was in garment manufacturing and now has an exceptional level of wealth, while the northern part is communist and has become one big concentration camp.

> By cherry-picking North Korea as your only example as a non-capitalist experiment, and pre-disqualifying anyone who says that it isn't a representative example for all possible non-capitalist systems as someone employing a logical fallacy, you haven't really left any room for discussion.

> Why not pick China, or the USSR?

I cannot fathom what's going on in your comment. But there are two obvious responses:

1. North Korea was called out, as mentioned in the comment you respond to, because, unlike Maoist China and the USSR, it's still going.

2. Maoist China and the USSR also fit the bill of "one big concentration camp", so if he had picked one of them instead, nothing about his comment would have changed. Both were total, unimaginable disasters for the entire population of each country. It's like you said "sure, 2 is an even number, but what about 8?"

Thanksfor suggesting USSR.

From the relevant wikipedia page: " In the wake of the spread of fascism through Europe, Stalin repressed both Communist Party members and elements of the population by creating an atmosphere of political paranoia and establishing a system of correctional labour camps."

Modern social democracy is basically capitalist-fueled redistribution of wealth, and just about every economist and policy wonk who believes in 'capitalism' is referring to this kind of government. It's an entire other world from capital-S socialism. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Even more so, social democracy was created specifically to stem the tide of actual socialism. They are two very distinct things.

Created?

Or perhaps actual sacrifices and secret rites were performed in the dark corners of Bretton Woods in order to counteract socialism? ;-)

Every philosophy was created, I'm not expressing a conspiracy.

He was referring to your typo where you wrote "cremated".

Whoops! Thanks iOS! And thanks for letting me know.

> Capitalism is the only system that has a proven track record of bringing people out of poverty.

Citation please.

It's become apparent to me that it does that until the workforce hits equilibrium at which point it divides people slowly into two classes, the lower of which is purely exploited by the upper.

NK just skipped the first bit.

The level of both classes is nevertheless much higher than the level of the earlier economy, before capitalism and its effects.

Unrestrained capitalism may of course creates huge levels of inequality. Luckily, unrestrained capitalism was largely put to rest (in the western world) after the 1900s, via unions and other similar movements.

Capitalism floats all boats, but not all equally. To ignore the fact that it floats all boats and point only add to the inequalities it creates is to miss the point.

so if "Unrestrained capitalism" exists , what is basic capitalism? hypocrisy ? Yes it is. In order to work , capitalism need slaves. wether they are 10 miles from your home or on the other side of the earth,it doesnt matter.

Capitalism got "restrained" in the West because people fought for basic rights, and many died during the process.

> Citation please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World

And I raise you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom

To back up my original point.

Capitalism is the only system that has a proven track record of bringing people out of poverty.

At one time you could say that about agrarian feudalism.

> I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.

Then use another example from your list. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. It's not exactly clear whether its woes are the result of its economic system or its form of governance.

Communism in the formal sense, which is Marxist socialism or one of its offshoots, requires state control by definition. It can't be a "true scotsman" unless it's a dictatorship. Communist theory does not allow for democratic socialism, because it proposes real "democracy" is the "dictatorship of the proletariat", Marx's words.

Which communist theory? There are now as many communist theories as there are variations on the People's Front of Judea from Life of Brian and many of them explicitly reject state control and are closer to US libertarianism than either side would really care to admit.

edit - adding 'in the formal sense' to your post doesn't really change things. Formally, communism is supposed to be a developing theory, which is part of the reason for Marx famously saying that he wasn't a Marxist. Formally, communist theory, as envisioned by Marx, was never meant to be frozen as dogma, but rather relentlessly self-critical. Whether he was right or not is a seperate issue, but you are seriously misrepresenting his ideas.

You misunderstand what 'dictatorship' means in that context. The word didn't have the same connotation it has today.

Specifically, capitalism is the 'dictatorship of the bourguise,' so it needs to be counteracted by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Within the governing body, democratic councils run things. To draw a parallel to today's concept of 'dictatorship,' think of it this way: one class has absolute, total rule of things. But a class is made up of many people...

Nope.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism. Not even for Marx. It is the state before communism, in which the proletariat makes changes in society so that communism may take place.

Nice try, but I explicitly stated I was talking about Marxist-style socialism, which is what 'communism' has come to mean. I almost never see people talk about "real" Marxist communism anyway.

You explicitly said "Communism in the formal sense". You were wrong with that.

Most ideologies and political or economic ideas have had their names subverted to mean something different by opponents (democracy, republicanism, communism, anarchism, capitalism...). That doesn't mean that if you speak in the "formal sense" you can decide to use whatever meaning you prefer.

USSR, GDR, Cuba? Of course they are all totalitarian dictatorships, but that's what you get with communism.

If the list goes on, you could have then easily picked better examples, couldn't you? When North Korean society still had any meaningful relationship to socialism (not communism) it actually had a higher GDP than South Korea. It only turned around in the 70s and 80s when NK leadership structures went completely insane.

So, what other systems? State socialism? It can only be viewed as an alternative system to liberal capitalism, not to capitalism in general sense because it still leaves the same economic relations basically intact. It's an incompetent, extremely monopolistic form of capitalism, which is why it failed so miserably.

East and West Germany.

Apologies, Go!

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my last paragraph, so I apologize to you, but I was thinking of something that didn't fundamentally had anything to do with capitalism. This example still clings to erroneous notion that state socialism is something fundamentally different. It's not really. Of course liberal capitalism outperforms state run centrally planned parody of capitalism.

"Capitalism is the only system that has a proven track record of bringing people out of poverty."

Not sure about that. Stalin may have achieved economic growth of 500% over 13 years - more than China.

The problem with socialism/communism is that you don't have a market. Besides lacking of incentives, feedback loops etc., you basically don't have a way to price goods. Not market, no prices. All these systems will fail in the long run.

This being said, a capitalistic system relies on expansion of credit (actually one point, in which good old Mises was wrong). Credit is always a ponzi scheme. If credit expansion stops, the whole system will collapse. What we currently see is the prevention of system collapse by the western government. People are maxed out and the gov, as a lender of last resort, goes into debt. This will not end good. I doubt that significant growth can be achieved anymore in western countries. So communism has failed but capitalism does not look very good either, at least in the west.

I doubt that significant growth can be achieved anymore in western countries

Then you should start an investment portfolio that broadly shorts Western bellwether stocks. You'll make a killing if you're right. Make sure you diversify your profit into non-Western countries so that you can keep those gains.

Congratulations.

shorting only works when there Is still a belief that the company being shorted is still desirable.

In other words, shorting requires a buyer. If a company goes tits up, you still lose.

> a capitalistic system relies on expansion of credit

How did you get to this generalization? Just because the most prevalent current brand of capitalism works this way, it doesn't mean it's the only way it can work, or that when "expansion of credit" will stop capitalism will collapse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com