3 ms·

> However, a greatly reduced disparity in living standards and material conditions does have positive social effects IMO. Consider that deaths of despair, pover

by the_af 3y ago

> However, a greatly reduced disparity in living standards and material conditions does have positive social effects IMO. Consider that deaths of despair, poverty, and desperation are much higher under the Russian Federation than the USSR. I’m not saying that communism or socialism are good by any means, but I think there are real net benefits to low inequality sometimes even if they come at the expense of overall lower living standards. It's interesting that the fear of being accused of sympathizing with Communism is so ingrained in the English speaking world that the simplest thought of claiming that inequality is bad and should be reduced must be coached in so many disclaimers of "but I'm not saying I like socialism" and "I'm sure living in that society was terrible". I don't fault you, mind you. There's good reason to fear this backlash in a world that is rapidly equating Communism to Nazism and all forms of socialism and redistribution to Stalinism. I know I'm making a mistake in posting this thought so plainly here, for example.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> I know I'm making a mistake in posting this thought so plainly here, for example. Loads of people, especially young people, talk about being communists and socialists and equity and so forth. It's extremely normalised, particularly amongst young people, whose largest percentage experience in life is one of parents giving them things. Those instincts transfer to politics, especially if encouraged to do so by university professors. > the fear of being accused of sympathizing with Communism is so ingrained in the English speaking world Most of this is not ingrained in the English speaking world, either. In the UK it's not a big thing compared to remembering Germany. Far fewer people know communism's death (and life) tolls in the 20th century than Nazi Germany's, for example, and how much worse it was even without a world war to bump the numbers up. > There's good reason to fear this backlash in a world that is rapidly equating Communism to Nazism and all forms of socialism and redistribution to Stalinism. You've decided the person does like socialism and communism, but is afraid to say so. That is not what they are saying, and while it could be what they mean, you are not able to discern that any more than anyone else is.
- the_af 3y ago
  > Far fewer people know communism's death (and life) tolls in the 20th century than Nazi Germany's Oh no. Here we go again. Sigh. My fault really, I knew what I was getting into. > You've decided the person does like socialism and communism, but is afraid to say so No, this isn't what I said. I suggest you go back and read it. > That is not what they are saying, and while it could be what they mean, you are not able to discern that any more than anyone else is Thankfully that's not what I'm saying either! I knew this was a mistake, thanks for confirming.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    This sighing, world-weary non-response isn't worth anything. I've clearly laid out what I thought your response said, and what I think about that. Why reply with zero courtesy and zero content?
    - the_af 3y ago
      My comment does have content; it rejects your interpretation and also reasserts something: that people (mostly in the English speaking world) aren't capable of rational discourse about socialism or redistribution or inequality because these are all Communism-adjacent topics, and they've been taught that there's no more evil thing than Communism, and therefore these topics are fraught with danger. Anyone wishing to discuss anything even tangentially related to the aforementioned topics must carefully coach their words with disclaimers like "well, of course socialism doesn't work" and "of course Communism is authoritarian and evil", lest anyone even thinks they are supporting Stalinism or whatever. Then you get the "history lessons" about death tolls and whatnot, and it's a really tiring topic. Or someone will mention teenagers sometimes go through a phase where they are drawn to communism because they don't understand life, or something trite like that. So it's best to avoid, in English speaking forums, mention of redistribution, income inequality, or socialism; or if you cannot help yourself, then you must add lots of disclaimers that you are not a socialist and that you know that Communism is evil, or you'll engage in.. ... I was going to say "conversations like this one", but this one is pretty mild so far, thankfully. My final thought is that what I said is very descriptive of how these topics tend to go here on HN; it was just an observation. Not a treatise.
opportune 3y ago
I think you might be inferring too much about my phrasing. I wasn't trying to add token disclaimers to pass off praise of socialism/communism - I was trying to get ahead of the reply "yeah but the cons far outweigh the pros"/"there are better ways to ensure equality than making everybody poor", which are actually positions I'd agree with. I don't know exactly how to articulate this, but I wish people were willing to consider "capitalism vs socialism" less as a black and white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and more as a vast spectrum or cluster of policies. In reality, those are the kinds of systems we live with. Even if you find yourself firmly on one side of the spectrum, or in favor of policies mostly in one cluster, I think we should be intellectually curious enough to look at the other side and see what kind of ideas they have, because some of them might be good.
- the_af 3y ago
  Thanks for the honest reply! I think we're mostly in agreement, and let me clarify I wasn't even trying to disagree with you on anything. > I wasn't trying to add token disclaimers to pass off praise of socialism/communism This wasn't what I tried to imply, but evidently I should have expressed myself better: I think you raised valid points, and my observation was regret about the fact you -- like many in forums like this -- must coach every topic like this with disclaimers about not being communist sympathizers. You had to preempt the accusation by making it explicit this is not what you're saying, which to me is a sad state of affairs for online discourse. Like you said, we should be able to examine ideas from all sides "because some of them might be good", but this becomes very difficult if one must fend off accusations of being a commie for even daring to suggest something is positive about socialism. > I don't know exactly how to articulate this, but I wish people were willing to consider "capitalism vs socialism" less as a black and white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and more as a vast spectrum or cluster of policies. In reality, those are the kinds of systems we live with. Yes, 10000000% agreed. This is also what I believe. I wish we could discuss the more "socialist" side of policies more openly and without disclaimers.

by the_af 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

> I know I'm making a mistake in posting this thought so plainly here, for example. Loads of people, especially young people, talk about being communists and socialists and equity and so forth. It's extremely normalised, particularly amongst young people, whose largest percentage experience in life is one of parents giving them things. Those instincts transfer to politics, especially if encouraged to do so by university professors. > the fear of being accused of sympathizing with Communism is so ingrained in the English speaking world Most of this is not ingrained in the English speaking world, either. In the UK it's not a big thing compared to remembering Germany. Far fewer people know communism's death (and life) tolls in the 20th century than Nazi Germany's, for example, and how much worse it was even without a world war to bump the numbers up. > There's good reason to fear this backlash in a world that is rapidly equating Communism to Nazism and all forms of socialism and redistribution to Stalinism. You've decided the person does like socialism and communism, but is afraid to say so. That is not what they are saying, and while it could be what they mean, you are not able to discern that any more than anyone else is.

the_af 3y ago
> Far fewer people know communism's death (and life) tolls in the 20th century than Nazi Germany's Oh no. Here we go again. Sigh. My fault really, I knew what I was getting into. > You've decided the person does like socialism and communism, but is afraid to say so No, this isn't what I said. I suggest you go back and read it. > That is not what they are saying, and while it could be what they mean, you are not able to discern that any more than anyone else is Thankfully that's not what I'm saying either! I knew this was a mistake, thanks for confirming.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  This sighing, world-weary non-response isn't worth anything. I've clearly laid out what I thought your response said, and what I think about that. Why reply with zero courtesy and zero content?
  - the_af 3y ago
    My comment does have content; it rejects your interpretation and also reasserts something: that people (mostly in the English speaking world) aren't capable of rational discourse about socialism or redistribution or inequality because these are all Communism-adjacent topics, and they've been taught that there's no more evil thing than Communism, and therefore these topics are fraught with danger. Anyone wishing to discuss anything even tangentially related to the aforementioned topics must carefully coach their words with disclaimers like "well, of course socialism doesn't work" and "of course Communism is authoritarian and evil", lest anyone even thinks they are supporting Stalinism or whatever. Then you get the "history lessons" about death tolls and whatnot, and it's a really tiring topic. Or someone will mention teenagers sometimes go through a phase where they are drawn to communism because they don't understand life, or something trite like that. So it's best to avoid, in English speaking forums, mention of redistribution, income inequality, or socialism; or if you cannot help yourself, then you must add lots of disclaimers that you are not a socialist and that you know that Communism is evil, or you'll engage in.. ... I was going to say "conversations like this one", but this one is pretty mild so far, thankfully. My final thought is that what I said is very descriptive of how these topics tend to go here on HN; it was just an observation. Not a treatise.

opportune 3y ago

I think you might be inferring too much about my phrasing. I wasn't trying to add token disclaimers to pass off praise of socialism/communism - I was trying to get ahead of the reply "yeah but the cons far outweigh the pros"/"there are better ways to ensure equality than making everybody poor", which are actually positions I'd agree with. I don't know exactly how to articulate this, but I wish people were willing to consider "capitalism vs socialism" less as a black and white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and more as a vast spectrum or cluster of policies. In reality, those are the kinds of systems we live with. Even if you find yourself firmly on one side of the spectrum, or in favor of policies mostly in one cluster, I think we should be intellectually curious enough to look at the other side and see what kind of ideas they have, because some of them might be good.

the_af 3y ago
Thanks for the honest reply! I think we're mostly in agreement, and let me clarify I wasn't even trying to disagree with you on anything. > I wasn't trying to add token disclaimers to pass off praise of socialism/communism This wasn't what I tried to imply, but evidently I should have expressed myself better: I think you raised valid points, and my observation was regret about the fact you -- like many in forums like this -- must coach every topic like this with disclaimers about not being communist sympathizers. You had to preempt the accusation by making it explicit this is not what you're saying, which to me is a sad state of affairs for online discourse. Like you said, we should be able to examine ideas from all sides "because some of them might be good", but this becomes very difficult if one must fend off accusations of being a commie for even daring to suggest something is positive about socialism. > I don't know exactly how to articulate this, but I wish people were willing to consider "capitalism vs socialism" less as a black and white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and more as a vast spectrum or cluster of policies. In reality, those are the kinds of systems we live with. Yes, 10000000% agreed. This is also what I believe. I wish we could discuss the more "socialist" side of policies more openly and without disclaimers.