Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjkeddo199 | Hacker News Reader

I apologize for editing my comment to remove that context in trying to create clarity about my point. I had actually meant to reply to a different (similar) thread. I will reply to your point while acknowledging I edited my original point hoping nobody replied yet.

Sure. There could be a racist judge, corrupt cop, or absurd law oppressing people in any government system ever. But that does not meet the bar required justify totally "tearing society down and rebuilding everything from scratch" as a Marxist might suggest.

There is no evidence that any alternative system would be better. There is much evidence that alternative systems end up worse. Why not fix problems where you find them instead of throwing the baby away with the bathwater?

View on HN

>Sure. There could be a racist judge, corrupt cop, or absurd law oppressing people in any government system ever.

That is not systemic racism. That is a racist in a system. Systemic racism is, for example, redlining.

> There is no evidence that any alternative system would be better.

Bull roar. The Haudenosaunee had a collectivist, shared-ownership, woman-led society that thrived for hundreds of years if not longer, and became something of an empire in what is now the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada.

This is what inspired Engels to consider collectivist approaches to society building as an alternative approach to the intrinsic oppression of capitalism.

My reading of wiki does not match your "collectivist, shared-ownership, woman-led society" claim.

I read that they had a matrilineal kinship system that treated women as equal, not women led.

As for the collectivist, shared-ownership: Then they destroyed other Iroquoian-language tribes, including the Erie, to the west, in 1654, over competition for the fur trade.

No other Indigenous nation or confederacy had ever reached so far, conducted such an ambitious foreign policy, or commanded such fear and respect. The Five Nations blended diplomacy, intimidation, and violence as the circumstances dictated, creating a measured instability that only they could navigate. Their guiding principle was to avoid becoming attached to any single colony, which would restrict their options and risk exposure to external manipulation."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com