11 ms·
Socialism, Capitalism Seen in New Light by Younger Americans
- Clubber 9y agoRegulation is designed to save capitalism, but lack of regulation and a fair chance at success will destroy it. I'm afraid many people are so disheartened by capitalism in the US that they are willing to abandon it without thinking about a replacement.
- KarlMarxIsDaddy 9y agoThere is one. It's called communism. HTH
- systematical 9y agoIts the best means of managing resource scarcity, unfortunately our best isn't very good for many people. In the very distant future when we can eliminate scarcity, we will be able to move away from capitalism.
- QAPereo 9y agoThat’s an almost psychotic level of unfounded optimism, all founded on being a relatively rare “winner” in the system you describe. That of course probably goes some way to explaining your equanimity with its indefinite continuation a the expense of billions of others.
- systematical 9y agoI believe in the very distant future when we tap into the energy of the sun through something like a Dyson sphere then energy markets will eventually crash once the investment is recouped. With unlimited energy that opens the door for a lot potential like rearranging protons, neutrons, electrons to create any elements we want. From there gold markets etc... crash. It keeps going. I don't believe we'll see this in my lifetime or even 200 or 300 hundred years, but I believe it could happen one day. And when that happens, capitalism will be rendered useless, and we'll go towards something more like communism or socialism. As for today, show me something else that works better at managing resources than capitalism. It's shitty, I'll entertain hypotheticals and theories, but capitalism is the only thing thats worked so far. In the distant future I root for its demise.
- unknown_apostle 9y agoLack of skin in the game is killing capitalism. We've had 20-30 years of ever escalating bailouts. Heads: you win. Tails: the public looses. "Capitalism", or rather the free market, works by moving from failure to failure. Without "Tails: you get taken to the woodshed", failure doesn't lead to learning and improvement. No amount of regulation will change that. Quite the opposite: most modern regulation is so complex that lawyers can't get enough of it. Not to mention the revolving doors between regulators and their targets. Same thing put differently: we already have socialism. It's just socialism for the rich.
- jnordwick 9y ago"It is moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it."
- danschumann 9y agoMore regulation is not always better. If there are too many regulations, only companies that can afford an army of lawyers survive. Too little regulation is also bad.
- astine 9y agoI think that it's less the quantity of the regulations that matters and more the quality of the regulations. Poorly designed regulations and create big problems even if they're really brief.
- danschumann 9y agoProhibition, for example, gave rise to the mafia. Marijuana prohibition is another example of over-regulation, imo.
- matt4077 9y agoIf only someone had come up with a reasonable middle ground. Like something that treats the market economy as a tool that works rather well to maximise production, but doesn't mistake it for an end itself. If only...
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoMarket Socialism?
- erikj 9y agoIt's a shame they don't have parents who actually lived in the Soviet Union.
- danharaj 9y agoIs every attempt to establish communism going to end up like the Soviet Union?
- systematical 9y agoNo, it could end up like China, Cuba, Vietnam, or Cambodia.
- bryanlarsen 9y agoOr it could end up like Sweden or Denmark. (Referring to socialism as the article does, not communism as the comment does. It's Denmark that Bernie & his supporters want to emulate, not communism)
- systematical 9y agoFair. I still view those countries as capitalist though, its still how most of their markets operate. They are just huge welfare states with a vast social safety net. Not disagreeing with what they do, just my 2 cents on what they actually are.
- arka2147483647 9y agoWell, Nordic countries are usually called Social Democracies, though Americans usually don't make the distinction.
- danschumann 9y agoThose are very homogeneous cultures. America is perhaps one of the least homogeneous cultures. Everyone does not value the same things, so having a state enforce that everyone values the same things would only be the result of too much force.
- gwbas1c 9y agoAs I look at how the US, China, Russia, and Japan run themselves and their economies; I start to think that the distinctions aren't what we think they are. The life of a Japanese salaryman sounds like a communist distopia, even though Japan is fiercely capitalistic. China is a single-party "communist" state, but their economy looks and acts like capitalism.
- SauciestGNU 9y agoChina abandoned communism with Deng Xiaoping's reforms. They are fiercely capitalist, with strong authoritarian political structure.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoAt different levels, right? There's still a party; they still run things. So at the local level its capitalist, but not at the city or federal planning level?
- SauciestGNU 9y agoIt's murky because they call themselves communist, but it's in name only. If anything I'd call it state capitalism, where the government is the biggest player in the market, but it's a market nonetheless.
- mistermann 9y agoWith benevolent and competent leaders, I believe this is the optimum approach, which is one of the main reasons China will be the undisputed global leader very soon. Obviously this requires ongoing benevolence and competency though.
- ameister14 9y agoWith benevolent and competent leadership, it's the most efficient approach. Unfortunately, benevolent and competent leadership has never lasted in the history of human civilization. Sooner or later, usually sooner, someone really nasty or incompetent takes over.
- AzzieElbab 9y agoIt has been observed time over time that over regulating and over complicating a large and complex economy ends up in either run-away corruption to the point of modern feudalism or some form of totalitarianism
- benmw333 9y agoGovernment has chosen winners and losers through legislation. Government is the problem.
- jnordwick 9y agoI think people in America vastly over generalize when speaking of the nordic social democracies. They have a very outdated notion of how socialistic they are and the direction they are headed. All the exemplar social democracies have been making large market strides in the last 20+ years. This is just as true of China too. These economies are going well now because they are becoming more market based (and American). China would still be struggling without market reforms. Planned economies can be excellent at going in a straight line or when everybody is the same. That is why they look good on paper and seduce technocrats and academics who think they can plan something as big and complex as the economy. However they are horrible at adapting to new situations because of everything from bureaucracy to new technology to balancing competing goals. So planned economies tend to do well now but fail as the world they were built for changes. Capitalism requires some amount of faith in that we believe solutions will come but don't know what they are yet. Capitalism is said to harness the power of necessity and imagination, and those are impossible to predict. The nordic countries had to change or fail and they have adopted market based changes. The jury is still out on China and what will happen when the world changes underneath it - become more market oriented or wither. There has been pushback from the nordic leaders for calling them socialism: https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/ https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-...
- mistermann 9y ago> The jury is still out on China and what will happen when the world changes underneath it - become more market oriented or wither. My gut tells me that the sheer size and competency of China plus their authoritarian political system will be such a juggernaut that it won't matter what anyone else does, they are near unbeatable. They can still fail on their own though.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoHuh? They are failing right now - their unsustainable bubble will burst within a year or two, to the horror of everybody. Their money is in so many places, everything will turn to shit.
- PrimalDual 9y agoSeeing young americans accept communism is terrifying to me. They are showing the same level of historical ignorance that Bernie Sanders showed when he claimed the american dream was more alive in plces like Venezuela. It really sounds like young Americans haven’t seen enough of history not to take the fruits of capitalism for granted. It’s like they have forgotten how bad things can get if you let political ideologies like communism run amok. It’s even alive here on HN with a commenter claiming the life of a Japanese Salaryman is somehow equivalent to a communist distopia. You really need to be judicious when deciding to change a system that works as well as the US does for its people. There are plenty of injustices and grievances that we must address but It’s truly hartbreaking seeing young amricans turning on the ideals that made America into the great country it is today.
- ameister14 9y ago>It’s like they have forgotten how bad things can get if you let political ideologies like communism run amok. They haven't forgotten. They grew up in a world where the US was hegemon.
- awinder 9y agoTo play devil's advocate, young americans have also seen the worst of capitalism run amok in America, coupled with tax policies that are skewed towards age cohorts differently. I'm not saying things would be better under socialism, but people really need to understand that A) the current system has failed young people and B) it's on capitalism to either correct these failings or people will seek alternatives. This just boils down to basic human psychology, adapt or die.
- ivcha 9y agoIt seems to me you presented zero arguments why socialism is bad and capitalism is good (and why people should keep believing in it).
- cjalmeida 9y agoTo quote some famous developer, talk is cheap. I recommend you talking to your average Joe (or Pablo, or Petr) living (or that lived) in places like Venezuela, Cuba, the hole Eastern Bloc, Albania, Cambodia, Mao's China, or any sub Sahara African state (except Botswana and RSA) that actively pursued the Marxist dream.
- dennis_jeeves 9y agoThe lesson from history is that not many people learn from history. History repeats. Other points: - All countries including USA are significantly socialist. They just vary to the degree to which it is socialist. - Socialism statistically appeals to a low IQ/juvenile/female/low intellect/low earning individuals. Trying to reason with them is futile. A truly capitalist system can potentially have within it, _voluntary_ sub-socialist systems. Every staunch socialist fails to recognize this because of his low IQ . - The primary way out for people of capitalism leaning for there betterment is to band together with other capitalists to help one another. Activities like spreading awareness, education etc. have marginal effect on people of socialist leanings.
- 0xcde4c3db 9y agoAs far as I can tell, the traditional American litanies about capitalism and communism pretty much require accepting that every bad thing that happens under socialism and communism is because of lack of capitalism, while every bad thing that happens under capitalism is in spite of capitalism. In other words, it's the classic "X can't fail, it can only be failed" pattern of thought. I think that's a hard sell if you didn't grow up with a lot of propaganda about how being American means being capitalist and being socialist or communist means being anti-American. It's an even a harder sell looking at post-Soviet Russia and seeing political repression and corruption that appears to be no better at a fundamental level, rather than being less severe due to being less systematic. So it falls to more general arguments evaluated in light of our current context, which is inherently messy because we don't have the answer sheet yet.
- clarkevans 9y agoTo some exuberant commenters in this thread: Young Americans are NOT accepting Communism. Most wish a slightly more socialist direction, not the full blown state ownership of the means of production. For example, many would like to see is single payer medicine; that's not the same thing as the government running the hospitals and employing the doctors. Many would like to see municipal broadband. They'd like to see a bit more consumer protection. Many would like to see more water systems remain under municipal control rather than being sold to a private, for-profit entity. In short, they'd like to see a bit more community works. I've yet seen anyone seriously advocate for government seizure of the means of production. If you must think in terms of duality, state or privately controlled, there is perhaps a good rubric: If the industry is inherently monopolistic due to it controlling a singular resource (like a central park, or water), then the resource should be owned democratically by its community of users. In contrast, if the field can be competitive, then government should only be regulating the fair competition within that market. Note that even within a singular, monopolistic market there are always subordinate markets that are, in fact, competitive (e.g. parts & labour). Democratic control need not imply centralized control. Even in the singular resource case, a democratically-controlled user or consumer cooperative specific to that resource is often a better organization structure than making it operated by an arm of a governmental entity. For example, rural electric companies are consumer cooperatives that serve their local area; often times they own & operate only the power lines and transmission (the monopoly part) and leave power generation (the competitive market part) to independent for-profit entities. Regional electric companies are not really part of a centralized government, yet they are democratically controlled by the subscribers who purchase electric service from them.
- AstralStorm 9y agoThe problem is the old one: who watches the watchers? Who ensures the regulators are doing the job instead of perverting the system for gains? Systems can be built based on mutual trust (actual communism) or distrust (rule by jury law), distributed (like marxism or democracy) or centralized (oligarchy, autocracy and monarchy). A hybrid tends to get dominated by one or another extreme or gets unwieldy. Currently centralization is winning despite what is a sham of a de jure republic.
- Grue3 9y agoPeople who never had to live under socialism think that it works. News at 11.