4 ms·

I find it endlessly amusing that the subset of libertarians who love to berate socialism "as never having worked" by pointing to Bolshevik Russia have limitless

I find it endlessly amusing that the subset of libertarians who love to berate socialism "as never having worked" by pointing to Bolshevik Russia have limitless patience for the at-scale failures of crypto. Obviously not all libertarians, but quite I large number that I've bickered with on HN/Reddit.

gojomo 4y ago
Cryptoeconomics has been a mix of successes & failures, among the very-privileged who can afford to take financial risks, for just the last ~13y. Everyone involved knows there's a lot of things left to solve, but sees reasons for hope. For 100+ years, the most fervently 'socialist' regimes have promised various utopias but actually delivered famines, prison camps, pathologically dishonest & oppressive police states, and even genocides on a larger scale than famous 'fascist' regimes. I can see why you might get into bickering if you find those situations analogous!
- gotaquestion 4y ago
  Thanks for proving my point with perfect irony.
  - gojomo 4y ago
    And thanks to you, for demonstrating your flimsy analogy can only be defended with attitude, not reasoning!
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      The point I think the parent was making is not that they are analogous situations, but that in the reasoning they've encountered (and you helpfully provided to illustrate their point), one could literally just swap the positive aspects for negative aspects, and it would read as supportive of socialism and against crypto. Here: Socialist governments have been a mix of successes & failures, among the very-privileged who can afford to take risks, for just the last ~100y. Everyone involved knows there's a lot of things left to solve, but sees reasons for hope. For 13+ years, the most fervently 'crypto' fanboys have promised various utopias but actually delivered scams, fraud, pathologically dishonest companies, and even financial ruin on a larger scale than other technologies. It's the same exact logic. (please note I am not comparing genocide and financial ruin as being analogous)
      - gojomo 4y ago
        Thanks for at least trying to explain! Of course you can always do a MadLibs-style search and replace on rhetoric. But are the resulting linguistic similarities relevant in the real world? Isn’t all the real impact on people - who aren’t mere language models - dependent on the relevant magnitudes, & other salient distinctions? We real people suffer financial losses, or bleed, or starve, or die in revolutionary purges & prison camps. Of those 4 outcomes, only the 1st one can be blamed on some subsets of the 13yo cryptoeconomics movement. For the last three, you've got to wage a "socialist" war on other traditional economic arrangements over decades. Crypto believers don't have "limitless patience". If after 100y, the fiercest crypto zealots have killed tens or hundreds of millions, they'll update their beliefs. (Probably, much sooner.)
        gotaquestion 4y ago
        The reason I didn't try to engage with you is your awful and misinformed reasoning in your original reply, and your post history, which indicates you aren't worth the time. If you had a history of intelligent comments and not trolls, you would be worth engaging with. Maybe clean up your act a little and people will take you more seriously?
        gojomo 4y ago
        I'm quite comfortable with my 15+ year comment history, associated with my real name – especially as compared to a 55-day-old anon account that just expresses peeved attitude, above as here, instead of reasoning. But hey, thanks for at least describing Zcash's privacy-protecting-qualities accurately in a sibling thread.
- DFHippie 4y ago
  The phrase "most fervently" is carrying a lot of weight in your argument. ETA to make my point clear, it's an inverted "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
  - gojomo 4y ago
    Yes, but I do think it's valid to include such a qualifier to draw a distinction between people who apply a very mild "socialism" to enhance a welfare state – while leaving most traditional freedoms and private property intact, and most of the economy operating by capitalistic principles (like the 'Nordic model') – and those who endorse full nationalizations & revolutionary socialism. Many of us still have hope in crypto because in 13y, it's made amazing progress & hasn't yet done mass murder – and we're suspicious of those who rally under a banner of "socialism", without reservations, because there's now a long history of that having a large body count. If 100y from now, those patterns reverse, check with me then. YMMV.
betwixthewires 4y ago
There's a big difference here: they're both experiments, one that's already over and failed, the other that's ongoing. We have the power of hindsight with one, the other is still actively being explored. We may find one day soon that it was also a failed experiment and bad idea, but we aren't there yet.
krzyk 4y ago
I'm amazed how many Westerners still thinks socialism is "cool". It is not, because people are not angels. Everyone has their own goals and wants to have something only for themselves. Soviet Russia and Maos China are great examples of cool idea that has no possibility to work in reality. Because people are people, not because they "did it wrong".

gojomo 4y ago

Cryptoeconomics has been a mix of successes & failures, among the very-privileged who can afford to take financial risks, for just the last ~13y. Everyone involved knows there's a lot of things left to solve, but sees reasons for hope. For 100+ years, the most fervently 'socialist' regimes have promised various utopias but actually delivered famines, prison camps, pathologically dishonest & oppressive police states, and even genocides on a larger scale than famous 'fascist' regimes. I can see why you might get into bickering if you find those situations analogous!

gotaquestion 4y ago
Thanks for proving my point with perfect irony.
- gojomo 4y ago
  And thanks to you, for demonstrating your flimsy analogy can only be defended with attitude, not reasoning!
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    The point I think the parent was making is not that they are analogous situations, but that in the reasoning they've encountered (and you helpfully provided to illustrate their point), one could literally just swap the positive aspects for negative aspects, and it would read as supportive of socialism and against crypto. Here: Socialist governments have been a mix of successes & failures, among the very-privileged who can afford to take risks, for just the last ~100y. Everyone involved knows there's a lot of things left to solve, but sees reasons for hope. For 13+ years, the most fervently 'crypto' fanboys have promised various utopias but actually delivered scams, fraud, pathologically dishonest companies, and even financial ruin on a larger scale than other technologies. It's the same exact logic. (please note I am not comparing genocide and financial ruin as being analogous)
    - gojomo 4y ago
      Thanks for at least trying to explain! Of course you can always do a MadLibs-style search and replace on rhetoric. But are the resulting linguistic similarities relevant in the real world? Isn’t all the real impact on people - who aren’t mere language models - dependent on the relevant magnitudes, & other salient distinctions? We real people suffer financial losses, or bleed, or starve, or die in revolutionary purges & prison camps. Of those 4 outcomes, only the 1st one can be blamed on some subsets of the 13yo cryptoeconomics movement. For the last three, you've got to wage a "socialist" war on other traditional economic arrangements over decades. Crypto believers don't have "limitless patience". If after 100y, the fiercest crypto zealots have killed tens or hundreds of millions, they'll update their beliefs. (Probably, much sooner.)
      - gotaquestion 4y ago
        The reason I didn't try to engage with you is your awful and misinformed reasoning in your original reply, and your post history, which indicates you aren't worth the time. If you had a history of intelligent comments and not trolls, you would be worth engaging with. Maybe clean up your act a little and people will take you more seriously?
        gojomo 4y ago
        I'm quite comfortable with my 15+ year comment history, associated with my real name – especially as compared to a 55-day-old anon account that just expresses peeved attitude, above as here, instead of reasoning. But hey, thanks for at least describing Zcash's privacy-protecting-qualities accurately in a sibling thread.
DFHippie 4y ago
The phrase "most fervently" is carrying a lot of weight in your argument. ETA to make my point clear, it's an inverted "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
- gojomo 4y ago
  Yes, but I do think it's valid to include such a qualifier to draw a distinction between people who apply a very mild "socialism" to enhance a welfare state – while leaving most traditional freedoms and private property intact, and most of the economy operating by capitalistic principles (like the 'Nordic model') – and those who endorse full nationalizations & revolutionary socialism. Many of us still have hope in crypto because in 13y, it's made amazing progress & hasn't yet done mass murder – and we're suspicious of those who rally under a banner of "socialism", without reservations, because there's now a long history of that having a large body count. If 100y from now, those patterns reverse, check with me then. YMMV.

betwixthewires 4y ago

There's a big difference here: they're both experiments, one that's already over and failed, the other that's ongoing. We have the power of hindsight with one, the other is still actively being explored. We may find one day soon that it was also a failed experiment and bad idea, but we aren't there yet.

krzyk 4y ago

I'm amazed how many Westerners still thinks socialism is "cool". It is not, because people are not angels. Everyone has their own goals and wants to have something only for themselves. Soviet Russia and Maos China are great examples of cool idea that has no possibility to work in reality. Because people are people, not because they "did it wrong".