Hacker News Reader

Comment by feedforward | Hacker News Reader

> The workers of the world may think the chains were made to bind them, but in truth the chains bind the military and security apparatus.

The last quarter millenia of history stands in contradiction to this. The country with the most extensive security apparatus in 1916 was Russia, and that did not help the czar and his family in the end.

Among the young in the US, socialism is now as popular as capitalism ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capita... ). As Marx predicted, short sighted big business functionaries yet press ahead with removing the few scraps they toss from the table in response. It is not the working people who have to fear, but the aristocracy. Besides, the enlisted soldiers abandoning the front and marching back to St. Petersburg and Moscow is what really ignited the revolution.

View on HN

I have my doubts that the socialism that is popular with genz/millenials has much to do with the actual economic system. The same poll showed free enterprise still wildly popular with the same group after all.

Rather I think it more likely that the concerted effort to brand welfare and regulated capitalism as socialism for decades has finally succeeded.

I mean, that's a weird example to pick. Tzarist Russia is the second best police state in 20th century Russia. That doesn't make it very notable, except by the standards of pre-WWI Europe. And the fact that soldiers abandoned the tzar only serves to demonstrate he didn't use this lever of power. If the tzar had plundered the workers and peasants to pay his soldiers, he would have undoubtedly survived.

When Ukrainian pleasants were starving in 1932, did it cause any sort of disturbance? No. Why? Because the soft and pathetic Okhrana was replaced by the effective and ruthless Checka.

The young are simply told that socialism is the cure for their problems, when it isn't. In fact our problems with "capitalism" are general problems with corruption and competition with other countries. Not capitalism in and of itself.

Prosperity requires hard work, and capitalism encourages that push for excellence more than socialism ever could. Socialism tends to degrade into communism and authoritarianism, with lots of corruption, because the notion of giving away everything to the state goes against human nature.

What even is socialism and capitalism except overloaded labels to throw around? Show me policies! :-)

Bruh, it's not the place for a dissertation. But it suffices to say that capitalism in this context is a tendency toward free market, and socialism is a tendency for the government to provide everything (after taking it from workers and businesses, of course). I think we need a little of both but putting the government in charge of anything warrants a thorough examination of any viable alternatives.

Have you read Burnham's The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World?

I often wonder if what we have today is really capitalism or rather it is something much worse.

We have Oligarchy marching around in capitalist skin suits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com