Hacker News Reader

Comment by trasz | Hacker News Reader

It’s not even in the same scale.

Many people could become „wealthy” then, but their conscience prevented them from doing things that would be required from them in exchange.

If you want to draw a comparison - imagine that every single worker in US gets a personal „eject” button that gives them $1M to their bank account, but it requires them to do things that will be unethical and oppressive towards their friends, family and the population in general.

Kind of like joining a mob, but without the dangers that go with it.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar like this. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think you rather missed the point.

It was mostly about availability of such luxuries. Even if you were "rich", money in a controlled economy was pretty much useless. Everything was rationed (one car per family, 2 breads, 1 bottle of milk per day, etc.) unless you were in the right circle (which meant being actively part of the secret police or a snitch for them). Also, travel abroad and imported goods (unless imported from USSR or a few other select communist countries) was strictly forbidden for the plebs.

Kind of, but the big difference is getting rich (enough to afford a luxury lifestyle) in the West is more accessible. In the other system, you were either connected or not. If not, you were likely SOL.

Look at Musk. You think a communist country would tolerate a foreigner who became a billionaire and calls out politicians in a public forum? Maybe ask Jack Ma how his moderate comments were received.

I had an acquaintance from a communist country who was allowed to study in the US. One of the first ever. How did he get that privilege? His father was a high ranking party member who had a serious disagreement and was going to be expelled. The deal was “you quietly retire and we’ll let you son go to college in the US”. So he kept his mouth shut. They had total control, so using your family against you was fair game. I have no doubt Musk’s kid won’t face that same challenge.

Sure, both systems cater to the powerful, but one is a relatively open system and the other closed only to the “permanently privileged”.

Quite the opposite - in the west you won’t realistically get really rich unless your family is already rich (see Musk). In communist countries you can just become a party member and then go up the ladder; see most polish leaders from those times.

How do you define “rich”? I’m talking affording those things the elite in communist countries had - consumer goods, foreign vacations, your own house. Those are all accessible by the middle to middle-upper class in the West.

And no, party membership is not guaranteed to make you rich. And membership is not easy to get.

It surely depends on the time and the country, but for late 80s in Poland this stuff was available to regular party people, not “elite”. Party membership essentially meant you had to sign up and then avoid conflicts with the law and not get drunk too often, and that’s pretty much it. The party membership was less about party in a western, political sense, and more like being a good Boy Scout. I believe that’s also what party membership means today in China.

(Disclaimer: my grandpa was a party member, he managed local part of the polish power grid.)

Your comment gives me chills.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com