Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 311 posts

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#241

Post by valval »

flir wrote: post #229
tomp wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to enforce meritocracy. That's the beauty of it, it's based only on mutual consensus and transparency of information (a.k.a. free market). Would you rather go to a doctor who's good at surgeries or one that's bad at surgeries? One that got into medical school because of affirmative action, or one that was discriminated against and still got in (e.g. Asian doctors in the US)? Would you rather go to a ca…

> You don't need to enforce meritocracy So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you? Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit.

> So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you?

No, stealing is immoral.

> Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit.

The system itself doesn’t give anyone anything, the market is free to determine that. A doctor who helps more patients (your arbitrary definition) will face higher demand than one who doesn’t help many patients, since people are free to place the value they see fit on their personal health.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#242

Post by alexvoda »

kerkeslager wrote: post #148
llamaLord wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But don't worry guys... When it's ME given absolute power it will be different... Just trust me. Not even a single Gulag...

What you're describing is authoritarianism, not communism. Authoritarian communists certainly exist, but there are plenty of anarcho-communists who directly oppose anyone having absolute power, including themselves.

It's a shame GP decided to miss the point so badly. They do indeed describe authoritarianism not communism.

I think there are very good reasons that every time some regime self branded as communism it very quickly devolved into dictatorship. Reasons that many of the solutions proposed were unworkable and naive. And I am not sure those reasons can be overcome.

Communism should maybe be more of an ideal to be strived for but impossible to ever achieve.

I think it is fair to at the same time accept the self labeling of historical regimes as communist when discussing history yet also recognize that none of them ever achieved the communist ideal and became dictatorships instead when discussing philosophy.

The values of communism are aligned with democracy yet a democratic communist regime has never been implemented.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#243

Post by alexvoda »

actuallymaybeez wrote: post #201
Rury wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I think communism sounds great, but the problem is that it simply doesn't work in practice. In other words, it has been tried, it just doesn't work. To see why, you can categorize the forms of government as so: - Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority - Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority - Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority…

Actually Yugoslavia and Pre 1978 Romania were not that bad. They produced a lot of their own things. Yugoslavia had a strong economy with lots of industry. Same for Romania and their prospects for oil development. The issue came in because the US wanted to break up the soviet bloc so the World Bank went to town and made sure that happened. We will never know what would have happened if Tito and Ceausescu would not ha…

I do not know about Yugoslavia but it is certain that the Ceausescu regime would have ended up in misery either way. Having as a ruler an idiot who is capable of playing opponents against each other and who was enthralled by the prospect of having a personality cult ensures things will never end well for the people.

I would argue that China and Viet Nam aren't good examples either.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#244

Post by zb1plus »

Rury wrote: post #195
alexvoda wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While communism does have it's flaws, i would argue it has in fact never been tried.

Look, I think communism sounds great, but the problem is that it simply doesn't work in practice. In other words, it has been tried, it just doesn't work. To see why, you can categorize the forms of government as so: - Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority - Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority - Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority…

"In reality, society only works when there's a power hierarchy; it's the natural order of things. The more you equally distribute power amongst people, the more dysfunctional/less orderly/more bureaucratic society becomes." That's a pretty bold claim to make without and real evidence, perhaps humans have been conditioned to operate within a power hierarchy and attempts to realize a just society without a centralized authority holding monopoly on violence is simply due to material conditions being such that people cannot transition to a free lifestyle without a power hierarchy. Communism/Anarchist societies based on voluntary association are possible if humans are healed from the collective mental trauma of generations of systematic oppression by the power hungry oppressing them under the guise of Hobbesian necessity or sheer selfish personal interest. TLDR: Don't assume Hobbes without first providing an actual argument against Rousseau.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#245

Post by me_me_me »

Rury wrote: post #195
alexvoda wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While communism does have it's flaws, i would argue it has in fact never been tried.

Look, I think communism sounds great, but the problem is that it simply doesn't work in practice. In other words, it has been tried, it just doesn't work. To see why, you can categorize the forms of government as so: - Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority - Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority - Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority…

disclaimer, i dont think communism could ever work on current humans (there will always be people who will exploit system), it works great on paper or for ants etc.

That said can you give me an example of the communism you described as

"Power in everyone's hands, everyone is equal in authority"

The best example i can think of is a 'proto' communist fraction in Spanish civil war as Orwell described in Homage to Catalonia.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#246

Post by alexvoda »

kerkeslager wrote: post #150
megalord wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism has never been tried? Could you explain a little bit more? I don't know if you are joking or lacking knowledge. Or maybe I lack some knowledge you know about

I don't agree with the poster--I think communism has been tried, sometimes even successfully (i.e. kibbutzim). However, the examples of communism which capitalists like to point at as failures, such as Stalinism or Maoism, didn't ever actually distribute wealth, instead merely changing the concentration of wealth. This points to a failure to actually achieve communism, rather than a failure of communism to work. Unfo…

I will read up on what you posted. But to answer GP, I basically agree with what you posted.

From a philosophical pov, the well known regimes (Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, Varsovia pact regimes, DPRK) were dictatorships and they were failed attempts at communism.

From a historical point of view it is fine to call them communist.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#248

Post by alexvoda »

lobf wrote: post #129
megalord wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism has never been tried? Could you explain a little bit more? I don't know if you are joking or lacking knowledge. Or maybe I lack some knowledge you know about

It’s a “no true Scotsman” fallacy that communists trot out to defend their failed ideology.

I did not argue that communist regimes didn't fail. I even think that was inevitable. And I even think that it was inevitable that the communist ideal would be immediately abandoned by every single regime once they gain power.

That doesn't change that none of the well known historical regimes under the communist brand ever came close to the communist ideals. The betrayal of their original ideals was decried by communists themselves very early on.

My argument is actually that there are good reasons that humanity as it was 100 years ago and as it is now is incapable of achieving the communist ideal and therefore we need better philosophical theory on how to get closer to that ideal. I think the idea that revolution can bring about the communist ideal was naive.

There are comments here about smaller scale communist social systems claimed to have worked I did not know about and about which I will read.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#249

Post by Balgair »

Outside of the 'tech' realm: China's path in International Relations.

The next decade is decisive for China's future. She must make her moves soon or is very likely to be shut out of any path to hegemony for the century. What will be the response of the NATO+ countries to Chinese moves? Essentially, are we finally, for really-real-reals this time, going to see the 'end of history'?

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#250

Post by flir »

valval wrote: post #241
flir wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need to enforce meritocracy So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you? Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit.

> So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you? No, stealing is immoral. > Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit. The system itself doesn’t give anyone anything, the market is free to determine that. A doctor who helps more patients (your arbitrary definition) will face higher demand than one who doesn’t h…

> No, stealing is immoral.

a) So is stockpiling resources that other people need. b) Who's going to stop me?

> the market is free to determine that

So we don't drag this out any further, I'm going to explain the place I'm trying to get to, as best I can: markets aren't physical laws of the universe, they're human constructs that are defined, regulated and policed by governments (I'm using a very wide definition of government here, think "governance").

If you think the market is the fairest way to allocate resources, you have to accept that people who "cheat" the market (inside traders, muggers, etc) are subject to state-sanctioned violence. That's the violence that a "free" market, and your vision of meritocracy, requires.

Post reply on HN