Hacker News Reader

Comment by SQueeeeeL | Hacker News Reader

Sure but in capitalism, the wealth goes to individual value holders (landlords and rent seekers are derogatory terms for this). In true communism, the wealth goes to the state.

The difference to most employees is honestly pretty small, working for McDonald's versus being a janitor for the post office are functionally the same, no one really cares who the guy at the top of the chain is.

The main benefit of capitalism is the dream of being the wealthy person, if you're a janitor it's almost impossible, but the dream is there

View on HN

> The main benefit of capitalism is the dream of being the wealthy person, if you're a janitor it's almost impossible, but the dream is there

Would you prefer to be a poverty-line worker with a realistic but unlikely dream of being wealthy, or a worker who can support a 4-person family comfortably and retire at age 60 but has no chance of ever making any more money?

(This is not a rhetorical question, I think there are genuinely lots of possible answers there.)

How realistic are we talking here?

Let's say a 1% chance, and no amount of trying hard can change that percentage, it's a pure dice roll.

(This is proxy for limited opportunity, tough facts like "you have a family that relies on you so you cannot spend 5 years trying and failing at startups," discrimination, economic downturns, the fact that the world cannot sustain more than a few Bill Gateses, and all sorts of other things that are beyond your control even in a capitalist society. On the other hand, I think 1% is significantly above the number of actual janitors who actually strike it rich in real capitalist societies.)

That's the theory right? In reality, it really depends on the situation.

Does it? If you work super hard at your job, the best thing you can hope for is a bonus or promotion. They tend to offer you stock options to make you invested

Like I said it depends on the situation.

In state communism the wealth goes to the state. There is also anarcho communism which is state-less. Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin advocated for anarcho communism.

In true communism, the wealth goes to the community - the people - not to the state.

We've never seen that as a country-level organization, but that's the theory.

Isn't the main benefit of Capitalism what striving towards that dream causes? Ie, there are incitements for improving for other people.

I think it only applies in certain cases were mobility is possible. If someone is a janitor earning hourly wages, functionally their lives will be the same, poverty, no potential for advancement. If you believe the Bernie hype, under communism at least they'd get to go to the hospital, but it's a system with no real attempts

Reply on news.ycombinator.com