Hacker News Reader

Comment by wsxcde | Hacker News Reader

Honest question, what's the point being made here? Are you attempting to imply that because Stalin presided over a terrible famine his political ideals must be flawed?

Churchill and friends presided over the Bengal famine of the 1940s. Six million people died in a famine during which food was exported out of Bengal to aid the British war effort. Or what about the British East India company raising land taxes from 10% to 50% during the great Bengal famine of the 1770s. A famine which killed 1/3rd of the population of Bengal. Also a famine which saw the British East India company's profits increase from 15 million to 30 million (non-inflation adjusted) rupees.

Do you think any of this counts against capitalism or do you have any reasons why we should disregard these anecdotes but count the Ukrainian famine against socialism?

View on HN

There's no part of capitalism that requires the oppression of others, except in maybe some metaphorical economic sense. In communism the ability to oppress is a necessary feature of the system (and if you don't think so, read Marx). The world has seen many implementations of capitalism that don't involve forcing large numbers of people to starve. The same cannot be said of communism.

I think it depends on what you mean by capitalism.

A common notion of it is the "increase shareholder value" version, where the only thing that matters to executives is profit. There, I don't think oppression is a necessary precondition, but it is a necessary outcome. You can see that in the company stores of yore, and the eternal reemergence of monopolies and oligopolies that will treat treat both their workers and their customers exactly as poorly as they can get away with.

There are other approaches to capitalism, of course.

It also depends on what you mean by 'oppression.' To make an analogy, Marxists also consider externalities oppressive, because they're talking about the system as a whole. Libertarian/liberal ethical systems tend to focus on individual actions. A transaction between two parties where one isn't pointing a gun at each other is categorically not oppressive to libertarians/liberals, but may still be an oppressive action to a Marxist.

"the ability to oppress is a necessary feature of the system (and if you don't think so, read Marx)."

That's not been in any of the Marx I've read, to my recollection, though that's nowhere near exhaustive and my recollection could certainly be flawed. Do you have something specific to point to?

Tell me where in the world people did not live communistically prior to 10,000 years ago.

So according to you, the entire world lived under a system that required the oppression of others prior to 10,000 years ago, when everyone lived in migrating hunter-gatherer bands where all wealth was shared. This was a system that forced people to starve, according to you.

Don't be naieve, you tell me that a band of hunter gatherers would hesitate to kill/oppress another tribe if they were strapped for resources?

"According to you", the entire world lived in a system where everyone was picking daisies and being sweet to each other prior to 10,000 years ago?

Also, how is communism like how people lived prior to 10,000 years ago?

What resources does a highly migratory hunter-gatherer band actually have to take? The whole point is there is no surplus production. Also, how exactly would one band of hunter gatherers continually oppress another band of hunter gatherers over a period of time? It's not really possible, for a variety of reasons.

How is communism like how people lived 10,000+ years ago? Communism is how all people lived 10,000+ years ago.

> What resources does a highly migratory hunter-gatherer band actually have to take?

Food.

> how exactly would one band of hunter gatherers continually oppress another band of hunter gatherers over a period of time?

They wouldn't, they'd just kill them before the need arises. But if they really wanted to, out of greed or laziness, they'd do what humans have done for thousands of years. Establish a hierarchy based on power and violence, and extort taxes.

You need surplus to establish a hierarchy. A migratory hunter-gatherer band has no surplus - people collect enough food to feed themselves, their children, and perhaps some older people, and that's it.

Once there is a hierarchy with taxes and such you no longer have a migratory hunter-gatherer band. So you're talking about what happened during the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago. I am talking about what happened before that.

You don't need a surplus to establish a hierarchy, you need a deficit. Deficit creates the need for structuring. If you're in a band and you can't get enough food to survive, there's going to be some tough decisions to be made. Who gets a cut and who doesn't is decided by those in power.

Besides that, I don't think it's absolutely necessary for a hunter gatherer band to be migrationary, that's only when a tribe becomes too big and exploits its territory faster than the territory can recover.

No - my point (as I mention below) was that I was surprised that Wells didn't ask anything about it even though he almost certainly had seen reports. My criticism is directed at Wells in this case.

steve_benjamins points out below that this really wasn't that kind of interview, which is a good point.

Your description of the Bengal famine differs in many regards from that given in the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) If you have sources, can you update the wikipedia entry. (Honest question - I know very little of this famine so don't know which is the more accurate description.)

You might find the following to be a valuable starting point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/soutikbiswas/...

> Churchill and friends presided over the Bengal famine of the 1940s.

I don't see this as condemning capitalism but rather Imperialism.

The Ukrainian famine was partially caused by forced Collectivization of farms and Dekulakization. I'm guessing that imperialism greatly contributed to the Bengali famine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com