5 ms·

I believe it’s a good thing if the HN crowd steps out of their bubble and inform themselves a bit more on topics of capitalism, socialism and communism. I feel

I believe it’s a good thing if the HN crowd steps out of their bubble and inform themselves a bit more on topics of capitalism, socialism and communism. I feel more and more that those in power - the capitalists - have done a tremendous job of conditioning us from birth in the last 100+ years that capitalism is “the only way”. Yet if you read a book like “Debt: the first 5000 years” by David Graeber, it put things into perspective. And there is so much more to read.

hackeraccount 3y ago
Graeber's book was easily one of the most annoying books I've read in the last 10 years. It's worth reading though in the same way that some bad movies are worth watching - it will give you the chance to figure out just what's wrong with the world view it espouses and you can't really appreciate the critiques of it unless you know the source.
aa1234556 3y ago
[dead]
notacoward 3y ago
For those who say things like "what about USSR or North Korea": the problem there is/was not the socialism (or communism) but the authoritarianism. They're different axes on the political compass. Authoritarian state socialism is but one of many forms. Social democracy is structurally anti-authoritarian. "Laissez-faire" policies - the pseudo-populist alternative - actually gravitate toward government/industry collusion, often in the form of faux privatization of government functions. That's a cornerstone of fascism, which has its own sordid history and also seems to be where we're headed. Also, learn the difference between a political system and an economic one. Of course they're related (see "collusion" above), but it's a mistake to act as though they're the same thing.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  I agree, it's ridiculous that the majority of comments about socialism or communism end wit comments about authoritarian leadership. I do think we've been heavily trained to do this however.
- pharmakom 3y ago
  How can a socialist system exist that is not inherently authoritarian? If someone refuses to follow the coordinated economic plan (e.g. contributing to a welfare state) then ultimately the state will have to punish them somehow.
  - notacoward 3y ago
    How can a capitalist system exist that is not inherently authoritarian? If someone refuses to follow the rules ... you get the idea. The only difference is that they become the authority instead of being punished by it, but the practical effect on the vast majority is the same. See: Stalin's USSR vs. Putin's Russia. Different in theory, but both authoritarian and both imperialist and both (not coincidentally) very oppressive toward any kind of minority. Again, this issue is orthogonal to the economic model. Authoritarianism can and does exist in every economic system. The antidote IMO is institutions which define and enforce rules without bestowing permanent favor on any one group. Democracy, federalism, checks and balances, yadda yadda. I even mentioned social democracy already. But don't take my word for it. I suggest you actually study the issue for yourself, not just polemics from one side but the actual history of how these systems have developed and the theories that have been developed with them over centuries, then reach your own conclusions. They might not be the same as mine, but I guarantee they'll be even further from the laissez-faire extremists.
    - splix 3y ago
      The difference is that with communism a natural human desire is punished, while in capitalism it gets rewarded. I mean a desire to do a good for himself, and only himself, ignoring the needs of the others. Maybe we don't like it as the society, but that's the people's nature. It seems that it's more effective to leverage this natural desire (as in capitalism) rather that punish it (as in communism). The important part is "natural", i.e., people are born with it, as well as animals, and you cannot prevent it. That's not a minority at all. So the only way for communism is to constantly fight it on a great scale, which is possibly with turning into a authoritarian government.
      - 3y ago

hackeraccount 3y ago

Graeber's book was easily one of the most annoying books I've read in the last 10 years. It's worth reading though in the same way that some bad movies are worth watching - it will give you the chance to figure out just what's wrong with the world view it espouses and you can't really appreciate the critiques of it unless you know the source.

aa1234556 3y ago

[dead]

notacoward 3y ago

For those who say things like "what about USSR or North Korea": the problem there is/was not the socialism (or communism) but the authoritarianism. They're different axes on the political compass. Authoritarian state socialism is but one of many forms. Social democracy is structurally anti-authoritarian. "Laissez-faire" policies - the pseudo-populist alternative - actually gravitate toward government/industry collusion, often in the form of faux privatization of government functions. That's a cornerstone of fascism, which has its own sordid history and also seems to be where we're headed. Also, learn the difference between a political system and an economic one. Of course they're related (see "collusion" above), but it's a mistake to act as though they're the same thing.

ChatGTP 3y ago
I agree, it's ridiculous that the majority of comments about socialism or communism end wit comments about authoritarian leadership. I do think we've been heavily trained to do this however.
pharmakom 3y ago
How can a socialist system exist that is not inherently authoritarian? If someone refuses to follow the coordinated economic plan (e.g. contributing to a welfare state) then ultimately the state will have to punish them somehow.
- notacoward 3y ago
  How can a capitalist system exist that is not inherently authoritarian? If someone refuses to follow the rules ... you get the idea. The only difference is that they become the authority instead of being punished by it, but the practical effect on the vast majority is the same. See: Stalin's USSR vs. Putin's Russia. Different in theory, but both authoritarian and both imperialist and both (not coincidentally) very oppressive toward any kind of minority. Again, this issue is orthogonal to the economic model. Authoritarianism can and does exist in every economic system. The antidote IMO is institutions which define and enforce rules without bestowing permanent favor on any one group. Democracy, federalism, checks and balances, yadda yadda. I even mentioned social democracy already. But don't take my word for it. I suggest you actually study the issue for yourself, not just polemics from one side but the actual history of how these systems have developed and the theories that have been developed with them over centuries, then reach your own conclusions. They might not be the same as mine, but I guarantee they'll be even further from the laissez-faire extremists.
  - splix 3y ago
    The difference is that with communism a natural human desire is punished, while in capitalism it gets rewarded. I mean a desire to do a good for himself, and only himself, ignoring the needs of the others. Maybe we don't like it as the society, but that's the people's nature. It seems that it's more effective to leverage this natural desire (as in capitalism) rather that punish it (as in communism). The important part is "natural", i.e., people are born with it, as well as animals, and you cannot prevent it. That's not a minority at all. So the only way for communism is to constantly fight it on a great scale, which is possibly with turning into a authoritarian government.
    - 3y ago