Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahartmetz | Hacker News Reader

I think it's fair to call all attempts so far "not reall communism". But you don't have to conclude "real communism would work". You can also conclude "real communism seems unimplementable". It is, after all, a social order that was created purely on paper and from theoretical arguments, which is ridiculous. That activity gives you something to try, but certainly not a fixed solution that you just need to implement as prescribed.

View on HN

Its a typical low blow, akin to throwing all right-wing under the guise of Franco, the Weimar republic, or some other right-wing system. Communism has been implemented on small scale. One notable example in Spain [1], problem is that any large political system eventually turns out to be either authoritarian or ineffective or sabotaged (I leave the guess by whom as an exercise to the reader). Its also been applied in part in West-Europe as well as USA, just not in full.

Capitalism is a race to the bottom where the poor countries in the world are being put under the thumb. You don't have to look very far. Just look at all the CIA ops the USA has conducted in the 20th century, e.g. Allende.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#1936_Revolu...

Capitalism is actually currently ending the world hunger because trickle-down effects actually exist. Living standards are rising globally incredibly quickly. Middle-class kids in Jordan are playing Diabolo 3 on their computers despite the region having almost no natural resources, almost no water and despite it being troubled by Syrian refugees. Yes, capitalism needs regulation, but it is a lie to say that the entire approach is doomed to be a race to the bottom.

This is an experiment with 1 trial. What evidence do you have that another system with the same technological advances would not produce the same or better living standards? (none!)

East vs West Germany, North vs South Korea, even Cuba vs Florida. There have been plenty of experiments.

China vs. Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Until China went state-capitalist Hong Kong’s economy was one-sixth the size of China’s for 1/200th of the population. Now it’s 2-3%...

Another system != Statist communists, categorically

> Capitalism is actually currently ending the world hunger

There are a ton of efforts, both from state-actors[1], NGOs[2] and individuals, seeking to eradicate extreme poverty worldwide. It is not apparent that it is "fixing itself with capitalism" or that any of the previous actors think it is going to happen.

> trickle-down effects actually exist

Citation Needed because trickle-down economics has been shown to increase inequality and not increase the quality of life for those in poverty.

> Yes, capitalism needs regulation, but it is a lie to say that the entire approach is doomed to be a race to the bottom.

Why is it a lie?

[1]: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/data/oecd-internati...

[2]: https://data.oecd.org/drf/grants-by-private-agencies-and-ngo...

>> Middle-class kids in Jordan are playing Diabolo 3 on their computers despite the region having almost no natural resources, almost no water and despite it being troubled by Syrian refugees.

That's interesting, but what is the proportion of middle-class individuals to the rest of the population, in Jordan? If there's 100 kids able to play Diablo 3 in Jordan, while every other kid their age can't afford a computer, then Diablo 3 is not a very useful metric of anything.

Jordan is one of the richest countries in the region btw.

Capitalism needs all kind of patches/bandaids in order to function, and even then it won't function for all. The Kuznets Curve (as mentioned in this article [1] about the doughnut economy) shows the vast amount of inequality in rich countries. Not so much for the general readership of HN (ie. I am arguing the readership is biased).

I fundamentally disagree with a left-right x-axis; we're missing out on authoritative-liberty. Hence politicalcompass.org provides a better framework.

Some of these bandaids are authoritarian, some are liberal. For example, trademarks, patents, copyright each grant power to one or more individuals (ie. a minority) over a vast majority. Here, the free market is being regulated by the government. We consider it part of capitalism.

[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/the-new-economic-mode...

> ny large political system eventually turns out to be either authoritarian or ineffective

Your thoughts on seasteading, even as a hypothetical?

The original intention was the communist revolution would take over the whole world at once. it was never intended/feasible to be a sole communist nation surrounded by a sea of capitalist nations, but they couldn't admit that failure and pressed on anyway.

The original intention was the communist revolution would take over the whole world at once

This in and of itself speaks volumes. If it were truly a viable system it could start in one country which would quickly outstrip all others in technology, culture, industrial production, quality of life for its citizens... Then all other countries would gladly follow.

But they knew from the very beginning that people who could vote with their feet, would flee that system. Countries that restrict people from leaving know perfectly well that they are doing something evil.

Well, your 'restriction' motivation is a bit conspiracy theory / disingenuous, but yes for many reasons communism at the level of nations doesn't work. Do we really need to re-hash that the leninists' revolution model was flawed over and over again? There is no disagreement here.

Instead, following your startup idea, we should foster worker co-ops, which already exist today and are compatible within existing nations. One example is the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Reply on news.ycombinator.com