4 ms·

Given the nearly hundred million people murdered by their own communist governments, people would be wise to be afraid of that word.

GavinMcG 9y ago
The idea that atrocity is aligned with ideology, rather than orthogonal to it, needs significant defense before being trotted out like that.
- wrycoder 9y ago
  But it seems to work out that way, doesn't it. It's not a matter of logic, but of human experience.
  - GavinMcG 9y ago
    No, not really. Genghis Khan killed more people than Stalin did, for example. Famines in British India did as well. The conquest of America by Europe exterminated millions of native Americans. As our population grows, we have more opportunities to kill massive numbers of people. And at various times throughout history, atrocity has been directed both inwards and outwards. The fact that you learned about more recent upheavals in school, or even lived through them, doesn't make them definitive.
    - wrycoder 9y ago
      Common definitions of atrocity associate it with intention. That leaves Genghis Khan, another totalitarian.
      - GavinMcG 9y ago
        Ahh, but now we're talking about totalitarianism. That probably is better supported, historically, than what had been posited. (Also, I'd argue, totalitarianism is largely orthogonal to political organization.) In terms of data points for drawing these sorts of conclusions, our history as a species isn't all that long.
        CamperBob2 9y ago
        There's a very strong correlation, isn't there? Unlike communism, you don't have to hold a gun to peoples' heads to get them to practice capitalism.
        GavinMcG 9y ago
        Well, not exactly. Two of the examples above still hold; some others include the US Civil War, the Crusades and other religious conflicts, and genocides such as those in Pakistan, Armenia, and Rwanda. Sorry to be inconvenient, but I keep coming back to this: you need a better theory than these ham-fisted ones.
        klez 9y ago
        Well, try NOT to practice capitalism or protesting it. You're in for a lot of nuisances at best and to jail at worst. The point is, capitalism seems to do a wonderful job of looking like "the good system", as soon as you stay within the boundaries. And I'm not talking about rioting. I'm talking about groups doing perfectly legal stuff getting infiltated (if they're doing nothing wrong why would you try to entrap them?) or peaceful protests broke out by force by the police. The fact that you're not stepping out of the boundaries is what gives you the impression that no-one is pointing a gun at you to practice capitalism. I'm sure plenty of people in a communist, fascist or whatever regime stayed within those boundaries and lived a happy life without guns pointed at their heads. Just witness how many people in Italy (for example) want a fascist government to come back.
kefka 9y ago
Each one of those governments were dictatorships with communism as a name. If they were communist, then there would no political party, no "more equal" military apparatus, and egalitarian spread of goods. It would also be a democracy, given that all are equal and have equal right to the means of production. Robots could be the shifting value for this, when looking at this and Universal Basic Income. It too is a form of communist thought which many economists believe to be necessary. Edit Those pesky Communists, like the USSR - United States of Socialist Republics..
- niceperson 9y ago
  Except perfect communism has always been the motto and the rallying point for every communist government in the world. """""True"""""" Communism will never come to pass because humans don't work like that, Communism has been implemented, and has failed, multiple times. It's use as a system of any kind has been thoroughly negated by real-world examples. The definition of communism that you cite is for useful idiots, who are there to do the bidding of yet another dictator who "rules in peace". Nazi Germany was very close to communism, too.
dang 9y ago
Please keep generic ideological arguments off Hacker News. They're always the same, which is the opposite of gratifying intellectual curiosity, which is what this site is for. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14333800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14333800 and marked it off-topic.
- merpnderp 9y ago
  So someone can say "You shouldn't in general be afraid of communism" but if I give a reason why they might be afraid, I'm being generally ideological? That is an interesting double standard you have there.
  - niceperson 9y ago
    This.
  - dang 9y ago
    That's not what he said, actually. You can't conclude a double standard from an isolated comment, though (for obvious reasons) people often try. Anyone who cares to look at the history will find plenty of users on all sides being chided or banned for breaking the rules. Does it all add up equally? I have no idea.
MarkMc 9y ago
What word?

GavinMcG 9y ago

The idea that atrocity is aligned with ideology, rather than orthogonal to it, needs significant defense before being trotted out like that.

wrycoder 9y ago
But it seems to work out that way, doesn't it. It's not a matter of logic, but of human experience.
- GavinMcG 9y ago
  No, not really. Genghis Khan killed more people than Stalin did, for example. Famines in British India did as well. The conquest of America by Europe exterminated millions of native Americans. As our population grows, we have more opportunities to kill massive numbers of people. And at various times throughout history, atrocity has been directed both inwards and outwards. The fact that you learned about more recent upheavals in school, or even lived through them, doesn't make them definitive.
  - wrycoder 9y ago
    Common definitions of atrocity associate it with intention. That leaves Genghis Khan, another totalitarian.
    - GavinMcG 9y ago
      Ahh, but now we're talking about totalitarianism. That probably is better supported, historically, than what had been posited. (Also, I'd argue, totalitarianism is largely orthogonal to political organization.) In terms of data points for drawing these sorts of conclusions, our history as a species isn't all that long.
      - CamperBob2 9y ago
        There's a very strong correlation, isn't there? Unlike communism, you don't have to hold a gun to peoples' heads to get them to practice capitalism.
        GavinMcG 9y ago
        Well, not exactly. Two of the examples above still hold; some others include the US Civil War, the Crusades and other religious conflicts, and genocides such as those in Pakistan, Armenia, and Rwanda. Sorry to be inconvenient, but I keep coming back to this: you need a better theory than these ham-fisted ones.
        klez 9y ago
        Well, try NOT to practice capitalism or protesting it. You're in for a lot of nuisances at best and to jail at worst. The point is, capitalism seems to do a wonderful job of looking like "the good system", as soon as you stay within the boundaries. And I'm not talking about rioting. I'm talking about groups doing perfectly legal stuff getting infiltated (if they're doing nothing wrong why would you try to entrap them?) or peaceful protests broke out by force by the police. The fact that you're not stepping out of the boundaries is what gives you the impression that no-one is pointing a gun at you to practice capitalism. I'm sure plenty of people in a communist, fascist or whatever regime stayed within those boundaries and lived a happy life without guns pointed at their heads. Just witness how many people in Italy (for example) want a fascist government to come back.

kefka 9y ago

Each one of those governments were dictatorships with communism as a name. If they were communist, then there would no political party, no "more equal" military apparatus, and egalitarian spread of goods. It would also be a democracy, given that all are equal and have equal right to the means of production. Robots could be the shifting value for this, when looking at this and Universal Basic Income. It too is a form of communist thought which many economists believe to be necessary. Edit Those pesky Communists, like the USSR - United States of Socialist Republics..

niceperson 9y ago
Except perfect communism has always been the motto and the rallying point for every communist government in the world. """""True"""""" Communism will never come to pass because humans don't work like that, Communism has been implemented, and has failed, multiple times. It's use as a system of any kind has been thoroughly negated by real-world examples. The definition of communism that you cite is for useful idiots, who are there to do the bidding of yet another dictator who "rules in peace". Nazi Germany was very close to communism, too.

dang 9y ago

Please keep generic ideological arguments off Hacker News. They're always the same, which is the opposite of gratifying intellectual curiosity, which is what this site is for. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14333800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14333800 and marked it off-topic.

merpnderp 9y ago
So someone can say "You shouldn't in general be afraid of communism" but if I give a reason why they might be afraid, I'm being generally ideological? That is an interesting double standard you have there.
- niceperson 9y ago
  This.
- dang 9y ago
  That's not what he said, actually. You can't conclude a double standard from an isolated comment, though (for obvious reasons) people often try. Anyone who cares to look at the history will find plenty of users on all sides being chided or banned for breaking the rules. Does it all add up equally? I have no idea.

MarkMc 9y ago

What word?