Comment by grinnbearit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grinnbearit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Last time, because I really can't see why we're talking past each other.

In this entire conversation

Imagined Utopia of Perfect Markets, not mentioned once American Capitalism, not mentioned once Soviet Command Economy, not mentioned once

Lets assume for the moment that I am talking about a system and how it should allocate resources. Can there be other systems? yes, can there be better systems? also yes.

Now, based on objective vs subjective morals and values (which is a dichotomy as far as I can tell), we have two types of systems.

1) Given objective values/morals => There exists an objective best allocation of resources and laws governing people and we need to find a system to achieve this.

2) Given subjective values/morals => There is no objective best allocation of resources and laws and we need to find a way to reach consensus on what is produced and what laws are enforced.

Capitalism is a type 2 system, it might be terrible at allocating resources but it does this by reaching consensus Communism is a type 1 system, it might be terrible at allocating resources but it does this by determining the best allocation Democracy is a type 2 system, it might be terrible at determining laws but it does this by reaching consensus Dictatorship is a type 1 system, it might be terrible at determining laws but it does this by determining the best set of laws

The first step is to figure out which universe we live in.

If we live in universe 1, we need to pick type 1 systems. If we live in universe 2, type 2.

Terminological question: if you're not talking about the Soviet command economy, what do you mean by "Communism"? Because you definitely don't seem to be talking about a classless, moneyless, stateless society of nonviolent cooperation and economic democracy, which is the official definition of "communism". Likewise, you don't seem to be talking about economic democracy either, which is the official definition of "socialism".

For the conversation so far, "Communism" only refers to the system that decides and maintains how resources are allocated. (Just like how I've been using capitalism).

As I understand it, communism decides an allocation of resources to maximise a utility function which isn't driven by individual demands but by some objective ranking of value.

From my side I am curious what you mean by economic democracy.

>As I understand it, communism decides an allocation of resources to maximise a utility function which isn't driven by individual demands but by some objective ranking of value.

That is incorrect. Communism refers to the set of economic systems which involve a stateless, moneyless, classless society in which the means of production are operated by workers for human need (ie: individual and collective demands).

Or at least, that is how the term "Communism" is used by self-professed communists, as opposed to by self-professed enemies of communism, who of course use the term in their propaganda to mean "Soviet-style dictatorship". But if you use any term as its enemies imply it to be defined in their propaganda, you will of course never get the bottom of the matter.

> (Just like how I've been using capitalism).

This is very wrong, as well. "Capitalism" means the set of economic systems in which the means of production are primarily controlled by private owners (who are distinct from the state), and operated for profit (via the sale of commodities in some sort of market), by wage laborers (who survive by offering their labor in a labor market), coordinated via the exchange of currency (again, some kind of market).

Systems can vary from "textbook" capitalism in multiple directions, such as: by the state intervening to some great or small degree in the economy (social-democratic capitalism), by finance becoming the dominant economic power above and over commodities manufacturers (financialized capitalism), by raw-materials producers becoming the dominant economic power (rentier capitalism), by private rentiers merging state power into their own personal power (feudalism), by the replacement of capital-labor separation with economic democracy (socialism), by the foundational subsidization of "market" businesses by the state (state capitalism), by the complete nationalization of production and its turning towards the state's national goals (fascism), by the removal of the state and its regime of private exclusive-possession "property" titles to resources but the keeping of the market economy (mutualism), by the removal of the state and its private-property regime and the removal of markets in favor of a debt/gift economy (anarchism), etc.

>From my side I am curious what you mean by economic democracy.

The means of production are owned and ultimate decisions are made by the people who actually do the work operating those means of production. It means exactly what it sounds like: democracy in the workplace and the commons, either direct or representative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com