4 ms·
A general problem with ideology is that people, naturally, only view themselves as the 'winners' in a system. In socialism come communism everybody is going to
by rjf72 8y ago
A general problem with ideology is that people, naturally, only view themselves as the 'winners' in a system. In socialism come communism everybody is going to be a Marx living off a metaphorical Engels writing and indulging their intellectual and philosophical curiosities with no constraints whatsoever. Of course nobody sees themselves as the ones toiling in the fields or industry giving 100% of their labor back to the state, or the 'community' should you prefer to imagine a stateless system, invariably under threat of brutal 'reeducation' to ensure everybody can be 'equal'.
The same is true of extreme laissez faire views. Everybody again sees themselves as those now freed to finally earn and achieve greatness. Nobody sees themselves as those being left trapped under oppressive and aggressively (and completely legally) entrenched forces using every single dirty trick in the book to undermine competition and coercively squeeze every penny they can out of everybody.
- claudiawerner 8y agoIt seems from the way you're writing this that you view yourself as non-ideological, but I fail to see how belief in the liberal democratic capitalist state is not also ideological. You make several mistakes about the nature of labour under socialism, for instance, it entails giving labour to the community only insofar as capitalism entails giving it to your boss - and in fact less than this, since even Marx's theory of socialism posits a great reduction in working hours. You also mistake the nature of equality, one which Lenin refuted personally more than 100 years ago[0]. You must first understand what labour means to a human and indeed man's position in relation to his society not only from a capitalist standpoint but from a pre-capitalist (using the tools historical analysis gives us) and post-capitalist viewpoint. The notion of private and individual labour is very new, as is the moral and legal system constructed around it. It's funny that your stated problem with a laissez faire view is merely the idea of competition squeezing money out of people rather than the much more fundamental one of people being unable to achieve the greatness you speak of because they are too busy working for someone else. It's not a trick to undermine competition, it's the nature of the capitalist system to be trapped so aggressively under these forces. (Is it just me or is it curious that this post has a downvote and flag within less than one minute of me posting it, which is not enough time to read and assimilate its contents? Boring reading or not, it speaks volumes that someone with 500+ karma, someone given the power by the site to downvote, would rather click the button than make even a name-call response[1] even after spending so much time on HN that the have themselves racked up "insight points".) [0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_D...
- dang 8y agoIt's likely because this generic ideological tangent stuff that you post has become tedious, and is largely off topic here. I appreciate that you've been careful to remain civil, but can you please dial this (way) back? It's not what the site is for, and has acquired the quality of a droning harangue. I was very surprised to see something else in your comment history: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348848. That's good. But the proportions are not.