4 ms·

Communism and socialism were disliked primarily because they reduce freedom. Every additional unit of socialism, is one less unit of freedom. Full communism dic

Communism and socialism were disliked primarily because they reduce freedom. Every additional unit of socialism, is one less unit of freedom. Full communism dictates almost every part of your life. I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force.

petra 8y ago
It's just propagnda. Capitalism is also freedom limiting. Just ask low wage earners struggling to pay rent and afford healthcare. And on the other hand, the nordiis seem to do quite well.
- psyc 8y ago
  Capitalism is like "Enter to win a chance at freedom! Remember, you can't win if you don't play."
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    * Terms and conditions may apply.
- thinkloop 8y ago
  There's a difference between having less choices by being less wealthy than being forced by others to do things. Can you point out an example in pure capitalism where people are forced by others and not the laws of nature?
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    Is there really, though? If I can't do X, then I can't do X: whether that's from an oppressive government or my own lack of wealth as the result of a rigged economic system is a distinction without a difference.
    - thinkloop 8y ago
      From what I see labour has become less valuable now than previously, and capital (land, resources, robots, AI, etc.) has become more valuable and therefore more highly rewarded. Whereas previously you needed thousands of workers to produce something, now you can create enormous wealth with much fewer. Craigslist at one point was making hundreds of millions of dollars with just 19 employees (they had the record for revenue per employee at one point). What's a specific example of the rigged'ness?
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    There's a difference between someone physically constraining you so that you can't eat and from not having enough money to eat, but that doesn't mean the one is free in the latter case. Indeed, presumably one does not want to be physically stopped from eating because one wants to eat - i.e. substantively we want to be free to do things, and can only do things if society grants us the means to. What are 'the laws of nature'?!!?
    - thinkloop 8y ago
      The laws of nature are simply that life is inherently a struggle. Imagine being born on a planet with no-one else, if you don't gather food and build shelter you will die. You are constantly on a path of poverty and death unless you fight against it. Since humans are social creatures that love each other we don't like letting that happen to others even if they can't create enough value to sustain themselves. But once society gets big and anonymous enough, that requires force (taking something from someone else that provides greater net happiness for them both). For the record I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force and reduces freedom.
      - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
        One could just as well make the opposite argument (and many have, mostly famously Rousseau): humans originally lived in a condition of equanimity and plenty and it was the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies which you ascribe to 'the laws of nature'. IMO there is no 'neutral' description of the abstract nature of the social condition as such. All forms of social organisation require force. Capitalism is based on a particular configuration of property and contract relations established and upheld through coercion. It is not 'neutral' or 'natural'.
        thinkloop 8y ago
        > the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies Wait are you arguing for or against social cooperation? I would definitely disagree that social organization cause more harm than good. I would say that it is humanity single most important strength. Imagine a place with complete anarchy and disorganization. > property Do you think that there was never any property? I am not sure which era you are referring to but when things are infinitely abundant relative to the population there is no need or concern for making them property. No one cares who owns which land when there is endless land. If you decided to take your fellow caveman's spear tho, you would probably get a knock on the head. Have you seen children's natural reactions and jealousy when another child takes their toys? Material is fundamental to survival, and gets more pronounced when things is scarce.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Can you point to a socialists country where workers are living in palaces and live forever?
- Turing_Machine 8y ago
  > It's just propagnda. No, it isn't. You don't see people leaving Miami for Havana on rafts they've made of trash bags full of styrofoam packing peanuts. You didn't see people getting shot trying to cross the Berlin Wall into East Germany. You don't see vast numbers of South Koreans trying to sneak into North Korea (or preferring life as an illegal alien in China to living in their own country).
Semaphor 8y ago
Freedom is also a problematic word. I guess you could say that Europe has "more units of communism" than the US. But if you ask where a poor person is more free, you'd get quite different answers from different people.
- thinkloop 8y ago
  The poor person has more choices because money was forced from a rich person to them (please keep in mind that I am not against this, it is likely the better system). But these are extremely different kinds of freedom. If you have an example of how the poor person was forced to be poor it would be important here.
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    You are working with a politically loaded conception of what 'force' is. The fact that we live under a mode of production in which one class of people have a monopoly over the means of production, and everyone else is destitute and must sell themselves to access the conditions of life, is not a natural state of things which does not require force, and from which any deviation is some kind of violation of nature.
    - thinkloop 8y ago
      Ok, let's say we start over and distribute all material equally - don't you think that over time some people will be more skilled and focused at gathering material and would end up with more than others? How do we counter that?
  - Semaphor 8y ago
    That's what I mean by different definitions of freedom
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    > If you have an example of how the poor person was forced to be poor it would be important here. You are really stretching the world "forced" here. Still, a poor person that wants to survive has to choose between paying for food and rent or being arrested and imprisoned for theft. Which then implies being forced to work and therefore not having time and money to get better education and so on...
awat 8y ago
I would say it’s really a dislike based on percieved freedom. Are you really anymore free in a capitalist system if the majority of the population can only afford the cheapest {insert item} at Wal-Mart? The pending existential crisis of capitalism in the US is what good is choice if only a select few hold the ability to exercise it? Edit: spelling
- wirut 8y ago
  Nope, people dislike communism because every time it has been tried, a significant portion of the population ends up dead or in slave labor camps. Sorry, but I'll take the freedom to buy endless crap, have an virtually unlimited food supply, and have the freedom to criticize the government without ending up in the Gulag.
  - awat 8y ago
    I’m defintely not making an argument for communism. I’m simply trying to make the point that there is a stark opposition to anything but pure capitalism in the US and a lot of the position seems to be based on a percieved freedom level. Buying endless crap and having unlimited food supply is a logical reason to favor capitalism. Opposing all other market forms (either holistically or partially applied) without consideration because it violates a perceived real or unreal freedom level doesn’t make sense to me.
Emma_Goldman 8y ago
You can't make that statement independent of a pre-existing conception of what freedom is, and as such, independent of whether you have the value-set of a socialist/communist or not. So it's effectively circular as a philosophical claim. If one conceives of liberty as something positive for which one needs the conditions of its realisation - i.e. where it is not just the absence of someone physically impeding you such that you cannot live a meaningful life, but requires the substantive means by which to achieve such a life - then there is no freedom without socialism. Similarly, if you believe in economic democracy, there is no freedom with socialism. And so on. 'Full communism dictates almost every part of your life'. No it doesn't.
dang 8y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're all the same, which means they're off topic here. Repetition doesn't fit with intellectual curiosity, and the purpose of the site is the latter.
- thinkloop 8y ago
  This comment was about historical events and in direct response to parent, it does not reflect my own views or ideologies. Things that shaped the past seem relevant even if those things were ideological. This looks like censorship by users who just don't like the ideas (which are not necessarily my own). Anyway no problem.
  - dang 8y ago
    It's not a question of the particular ideas, but of the class of ideas. The opposite ideas would be just as problematic because they belong to the same class—in this case, generic ideological discussion. The problem is that those only lead to the same recycled tangents over and over, usually with a downward spiral into incivility. They're closed systems that admit no new information. That makes them off topic here.

petra 8y ago

It's just propagnda. Capitalism is also freedom limiting. Just ask low wage earners struggling to pay rent and afford healthcare. And on the other hand, the nordiis seem to do quite well.

psyc 8y ago
Capitalism is like "Enter to win a chance at freedom! Remember, you can't win if you don't play."
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  * Terms and conditions may apply.
thinkloop 8y ago
There's a difference between having less choices by being less wealthy than being forced by others to do things. Can you point out an example in pure capitalism where people are forced by others and not the laws of nature?
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  Is there really, though? If I can't do X, then I can't do X: whether that's from an oppressive government or my own lack of wealth as the result of a rigged economic system is a distinction without a difference.
  - thinkloop 8y ago
    From what I see labour has become less valuable now than previously, and capital (land, resources, robots, AI, etc.) has become more valuable and therefore more highly rewarded. Whereas previously you needed thousands of workers to produce something, now you can create enormous wealth with much fewer. Craigslist at one point was making hundreds of millions of dollars with just 19 employees (they had the record for revenue per employee at one point). What's a specific example of the rigged'ness?
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  There's a difference between someone physically constraining you so that you can't eat and from not having enough money to eat, but that doesn't mean the one is free in the latter case. Indeed, presumably one does not want to be physically stopped from eating because one wants to eat - i.e. substantively we want to be free to do things, and can only do things if society grants us the means to. What are 'the laws of nature'?!!?
  - thinkloop 8y ago
    The laws of nature are simply that life is inherently a struggle. Imagine being born on a planet with no-one else, if you don't gather food and build shelter you will die. You are constantly on a path of poverty and death unless you fight against it. Since humans are social creatures that love each other we don't like letting that happen to others even if they can't create enough value to sustain themselves. But once society gets big and anonymous enough, that requires force (taking something from someone else that provides greater net happiness for them both). For the record I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force and reduces freedom.
    - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
      One could just as well make the opposite argument (and many have, mostly famously Rousseau): humans originally lived in a condition of equanimity and plenty and it was the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies which you ascribe to 'the laws of nature'. IMO there is no 'neutral' description of the abstract nature of the social condition as such. All forms of social organisation require force. Capitalism is based on a particular configuration of property and contract relations established and upheld through coercion. It is not 'neutral' or 'natural'.
      - thinkloop 8y ago
        > the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies Wait are you arguing for or against social cooperation? I would definitely disagree that social organization cause more harm than good. I would say that it is humanity single most important strength. Imagine a place with complete anarchy and disorganization. > property Do you think that there was never any property? I am not sure which era you are referring to but when things are infinitely abundant relative to the population there is no need or concern for making them property. No one cares who owns which land when there is endless land. If you decided to take your fellow caveman's spear tho, you would probably get a knock on the head. Have you seen children's natural reactions and jealousy when another child takes their toys? Material is fundamental to survival, and gets more pronounced when things is scarce.
v_lisivka 8y ago
Can you point to a socialists country where workers are living in palaces and live forever?
Turing_Machine 8y ago
> It's just propagnda. No, it isn't. You don't see people leaving Miami for Havana on rafts they've made of trash bags full of styrofoam packing peanuts. You didn't see people getting shot trying to cross the Berlin Wall into East Germany. You don't see vast numbers of South Koreans trying to sneak into North Korea (or preferring life as an illegal alien in China to living in their own country).

Semaphor 8y ago

Freedom is also a problematic word. I guess you could say that Europe has "more units of communism" than the US. But if you ask where a poor person is more free, you'd get quite different answers from different people.

thinkloop 8y ago
The poor person has more choices because money was forced from a rich person to them (please keep in mind that I am not against this, it is likely the better system). But these are extremely different kinds of freedom. If you have an example of how the poor person was forced to be poor it would be important here.
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  You are working with a politically loaded conception of what 'force' is. The fact that we live under a mode of production in which one class of people have a monopoly over the means of production, and everyone else is destitute and must sell themselves to access the conditions of life, is not a natural state of things which does not require force, and from which any deviation is some kind of violation of nature.
  - thinkloop 8y ago
    Ok, let's say we start over and distribute all material equally - don't you think that over time some people will be more skilled and focused at gathering material and would end up with more than others? How do we counter that?
- Semaphor 8y ago
  That's what I mean by different definitions of freedom
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  > If you have an example of how the poor person was forced to be poor it would be important here. You are really stretching the world "forced" here. Still, a poor person that wants to survive has to choose between paying for food and rent or being arrested and imprisoned for theft. Which then implies being forced to work and therefore not having time and money to get better education and so on...

awat 8y ago

I would say it’s really a dislike based on percieved freedom. Are you really anymore free in a capitalist system if the majority of the population can only afford the cheapest {insert item} at Wal-Mart? The pending existential crisis of capitalism in the US is what good is choice if only a select few hold the ability to exercise it? Edit: spelling

wirut 8y ago
Nope, people dislike communism because every time it has been tried, a significant portion of the population ends up dead or in slave labor camps. Sorry, but I'll take the freedom to buy endless crap, have an virtually unlimited food supply, and have the freedom to criticize the government without ending up in the Gulag.
- awat 8y ago
  I’m defintely not making an argument for communism. I’m simply trying to make the point that there is a stark opposition to anything but pure capitalism in the US and a lot of the position seems to be based on a percieved freedom level. Buying endless crap and having unlimited food supply is a logical reason to favor capitalism. Opposing all other market forms (either holistically or partially applied) without consideration because it violates a perceived real or unreal freedom level doesn’t make sense to me.

Emma_Goldman 8y ago

You can't make that statement independent of a pre-existing conception of what freedom is, and as such, independent of whether you have the value-set of a socialist/communist or not. So it's effectively circular as a philosophical claim. If one conceives of liberty as something positive for which one needs the conditions of its realisation - i.e. where it is not just the absence of someone physically impeding you such that you cannot live a meaningful life, but requires the substantive means by which to achieve such a life - then there is no freedom without socialism. Similarly, if you believe in economic democracy, there is no freedom with socialism. And so on. 'Full communism dictates almost every part of your life'. No it doesn't.

dang 8y ago

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're all the same, which means they're off topic here. Repetition doesn't fit with intellectual curiosity, and the purpose of the site is the latter.

thinkloop 8y ago
This comment was about historical events and in direct response to parent, it does not reflect my own views or ideologies. Things that shaped the past seem relevant even if those things were ideological. This looks like censorship by users who just don't like the ideas (which are not necessarily my own). Anyway no problem.
- dang 8y ago
  It's not a question of the particular ideas, but of the class of ideas. The opposite ideas would be just as problematic because they belong to the same class—in this case, generic ideological discussion. The problem is that those only lead to the same recycled tangents over and over, usually with a downward spiral into incivility. They're closed systems that admit no new information. That makes them off topic here.