3 ms·

Indeed. Same here. It doesn't matter how nice a system of fluid economics the Wealth of Nations was on paper. The problem is that people will exploit them. And

Indeed. Same here. It doesn't matter how nice a system of fluid economics the Wealth of Nations was on paper. The problem is that people will exploit them. And exploitation of rules leads to exploitation of people. And where are we now? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/middle-class-americans-increasingly-rely-on-the-safety-net/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=56511256 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/middle-class-americans-increasi... "In 2014, the middle 60 percent of Americans accounted for 46.8 percent of federal aid offered to people who qualify for such help, Brookings found." Any one of us can 'fall', and not able to be self-sufficient to 'pull up by ones bootstraps'. We've given capitalism a good 300 year run. And we know its pathologies. Communism isn't necessarily the best, but it provides a converse theory to start the discussion.

saiya-jin 7y ago
> Communism isn't necessarily the best, but it provides a converse theory to start the discussion. Well, compared to capitalism its much more utopistic - I mean how far it is from reality of human nature and how much you should expect from people in the system. As history shows us numerous times, it really doesn't matter how good things look on the paper or during academic discussions. The reality is, evil, messed up, unbalanced, sociopathic etc. folks are part of society. I don't mean in insane asylums, I mean in schools, hospitals, corporations, hackernews, everywhere. And somehow, for number of reasons, when numerous factors combine these people rise to power although they shouldn't. Every communism I am aware of ended up as dictatorship very quickly. In real capitalism, they come and go much more quickly and the impact is smoothed out over time. This is the breaking point for me where the system is obviously worse - in communism, those dictators always ended up as net loss for citizens and mankind. And you gotta be brutal if you want to force millions into situations they wouldn't choose themselves. There are other obvious issues - no private ownership means nobody will work hard to maintain/enhance/create if at the end benefits are marginal at best. Better enjoy that beer. And over time, these things compound and the result is always the same. Capitalism wins through sheer efficiency and overall upper hand. When comparing similar starting systems, its pretty clear which is more beneficial. But yeah, it looks cool and very nice on the paper, or in TV like Star Trek.
- onemoresoop 7y ago
  You're spot on with evil, messed up, unbalanced, sociopaths folks being part of society, and especially sociopaths gravitate towards power. No matter what system we set up they'll corrupt it. I think once we shed some light on psychopathy and narcissism things might look better for the future. I'm following an interesting channel on youtube. The owner, Sam Vankin is a highly intelligent narcissist who has studied himself and is very open about it and even proposes ways to treat it.
arethuza 7y ago
While communism is probably incompatible with human nature, I'm beginning to suspect that capitalism may be incompatible with things that are ultimately a lot more fundamental.
- copperx 7y ago
  I used to think so, but it's not necessarily true. If, for example, we reduced our weekly work hours to 20 or even 30, and we ensured that no worker had any work responsibilities outside those hours, we could attend our more fundamental needs. Add protections so that no person goes hungry, homeless, or without medical attention and you've almost got an Utopia.
  - Konnstann 7y ago
    The problem with a Marxist Utopia is not in the ideas or in the policies, it lies with the simple fact that humans are the ones carrying those policies out. There's a good quote that sums it up: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Some group of people will be in charge, and that group of people will exploit the rest. Communism works great in small groups, but breaks down at the population level.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      You're right that statist communism (the ones from the 50's-90's) is an epic failure that turned dictator fiefdoms (companies) into a dictatorship (country). On the ground floor, there was no discernible individual ownership of society shared. And countries like the USSR were not only dictatorships, but virulent military dictatorships.
    - davidwitt415 7y ago
      Fair enough, let's test this conversely: The problem with a Capitalist Utopia is not in the ideas or in the policies, it lies with the simple fact that humans are the ones carrying those policies out. There's a good quote that sums it up: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Some group of people will be in charge, and that group of people will exploit the rest. Capitalism works great for small groups, but breaks down at the population level. Works both ways, so you are not actually proving anything with your statement except showing your ideological blind spot.
m0zg 7y ago
>> Communism isn't necessarily the best, Understatement of the century. Tens of millions of people have paid with their lives to learn this lesson. >> it provides a converse theory to start the discussion As someone who grew up in the USSR, I suggest that maybe you should spend half a year in Venezuela, with Venezuelan amounts of money for your living expenses, and then suggest whether it's a good path to take for this country.

saiya-jin 7y ago

> Communism isn't necessarily the best, but it provides a converse theory to start the discussion. Well, compared to capitalism its much more utopistic - I mean how far it is from reality of human nature and how much you should expect from people in the system. As history shows us numerous times, it really doesn't matter how good things look on the paper or during academic discussions. The reality is, evil, messed up, unbalanced, sociopathic etc. folks are part of society. I don't mean in insane asylums, I mean in schools, hospitals, corporations, hackernews, everywhere. And somehow, for number of reasons, when numerous factors combine these people rise to power although they shouldn't. Every communism I am aware of ended up as dictatorship very quickly. In real capitalism, they come and go much more quickly and the impact is smoothed out over time. This is the breaking point for me where the system is obviously worse - in communism, those dictators always ended up as net loss for citizens and mankind. And you gotta be brutal if you want to force millions into situations they wouldn't choose themselves. There are other obvious issues - no private ownership means nobody will work hard to maintain/enhance/create if at the end benefits are marginal at best. Better enjoy that beer. And over time, these things compound and the result is always the same. Capitalism wins through sheer efficiency and overall upper hand. When comparing similar starting systems, its pretty clear which is more beneficial. But yeah, it looks cool and very nice on the paper, or in TV like Star Trek.

onemoresoop 7y ago
You're spot on with evil, messed up, unbalanced, sociopaths folks being part of society, and especially sociopaths gravitate towards power. No matter what system we set up they'll corrupt it. I think once we shed some light on psychopathy and narcissism things might look better for the future. I'm following an interesting channel on youtube. The owner, Sam Vankin is a highly intelligent narcissist who has studied himself and is very open about it and even proposes ways to treat it.

arethuza 7y ago

While communism is probably incompatible with human nature, I'm beginning to suspect that capitalism may be incompatible with things that are ultimately a lot more fundamental.

copperx 7y ago
I used to think so, but it's not necessarily true. If, for example, we reduced our weekly work hours to 20 or even 30, and we ensured that no worker had any work responsibilities outside those hours, we could attend our more fundamental needs. Add protections so that no person goes hungry, homeless, or without medical attention and you've almost got an Utopia.
- Konnstann 7y ago
  The problem with a Marxist Utopia is not in the ideas or in the policies, it lies with the simple fact that humans are the ones carrying those policies out. There's a good quote that sums it up: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Some group of people will be in charge, and that group of people will exploit the rest. Communism works great in small groups, but breaks down at the population level.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    You're right that statist communism (the ones from the 50's-90's) is an epic failure that turned dictator fiefdoms (companies) into a dictatorship (country). On the ground floor, there was no discernible individual ownership of society shared. And countries like the USSR were not only dictatorships, but virulent military dictatorships.
  - davidwitt415 7y ago
    Fair enough, let's test this conversely: The problem with a Capitalist Utopia is not in the ideas or in the policies, it lies with the simple fact that humans are the ones carrying those policies out. There's a good quote that sums it up: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Some group of people will be in charge, and that group of people will exploit the rest. Capitalism works great for small groups, but breaks down at the population level. Works both ways, so you are not actually proving anything with your statement except showing your ideological blind spot.

m0zg 7y ago

>> Communism isn't necessarily the best, Understatement of the century. Tens of millions of people have paid with their lives to learn this lesson. >> it provides a converse theory to start the discussion As someone who grew up in the USSR, I suggest that maybe you should spend half a year in Venezuela, with Venezuelan amounts of money for your living expenses, and then suggest whether it's a good path to take for this country.