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

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 325 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#281

Post by quadrangle »

WalterBright wrote: post #165
quadrangle wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody made the communist countries perform mass slaughter. And communist ideas also had zero to do with those countries committing mass slaughter. Communism, even in a very flawed form, has indeed succeeded. See Cuba. The main reason they would be wealthier with capitalism is because the U.S. would have proactive economic ties instead of working to isolate them. Given their isolation and inherent lack-of-wealth re…

> kibbutzen.. ..simply do not produce enough to sustain themselves. Capitalist farmers do, with a surplus they sell. All such voluntary collectives have collapsed (unless they get subsidies from the government). > have nothing to do with mass slaughter I strongly suggest reading "The Black Book of Communism". Every advocate of communism needs to read it, if only to prepare an answer. You're right that nothing in the…

I'm not an "advocate of communism". And it's nonsense to say that capitalist farmers produce enough to feed themselves as a response to my point about internal isolation. No capitalist farmer with the same amount of resources and wealth as a kibbutz would be all that productive without utilizing the benefits of the rest of our complex market economy and what that provides to them. In other words, it's the larger context that is the factor, not the internal structure of the farm. The kibbutzen were only communist in an internal way, not living in a communist world.

"having all their property expropriated and being forced to work on collectives" is also not a principle of communism. Forced labor is not a communist value.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#282

Post by quadrangle »

4WIW wrote: post #170
quadrangle wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

National Socialism (i.e. Hitler) was based fundamentally on nationalism and racism. We can reject it because the principles themselves are unethical. We can reject it even if it had succeeded economically! If you want to make an argument that the principles of communism are unethical, that's an independent argument from the claim that certain historic attempts had various atrocities and therefore you reject the princ…

1. My argument was about "National Socialism and any other ideology out there", you focused only on the first part. Even if you filter out unethical ones (not sure how, but let's say you can), there would still be too many to try, and not sure why should we keep trying theories instead of letting the society evolve in a natural way. 2. Specifically about giving communism a fair trial despite all past failures because…

The point is that you should argue why you find "dictatorship of the proletariat" unethical and not confuse the difference between ethics and economic viability.

There's definitely philosophical problems with communism and communist thinkers of various sorts. No denying that. But the screwed up crappy attempts at something like communism simply don't invalidate all of the principles which must be considered separately.

Basically, if you run a shitty version of an experiment, you don't get to then claim you proved the null hypothesis. It's one thing to say "we can't afford to experiment" and another to say "we had [shitty] experiments and so now we can conclude things."

You could argue for no more trials and still accept the fact that we never got any good trials from which to conclude enough about the real principles.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#283

Post by turar »

crazy1van wrote: post #182
quadrangle wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

National Socialism (i.e. Hitler) was based fundamentally on nationalism and racism. We can reject it because the principles themselves are unethical. We can reject it even if it had succeeded economically! If you want to make an argument that the principles of communism are unethical, that's an independent argument from the claim that certain historic attempts had various atrocities and therefore you reject the princ…

> We can reject it because the principles [nationalism and racism] themselves are unethical I'd also contend that it's unethical for a society to reward all people the same regardless of effort and talent. Should I make as much money as a singer as Taylor Swift? I have terrible pitch. I can't write music. I can't play an instrument. I have no stage presence. Now, you might say that based on my talents, I shouldn't be…

> I'd also contend that it's unethical for a society to reward all people the same regardless of effort and talent.

That's not the premise of socialism, so it's strawman argument.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#284

Post by turar »

aminok wrote: post #202
loki49152 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism is a very specific ideology with a well-known, well-documented content and intellectual history. It isn't "just a process" for anything. Communism is evil because its ideology has no relationship with reality and will inevitably be a practical disaster anywhere it's implemented to the degree that it's implemented as a result. There's no escaping it any more than you can escape the laws of physics.

Communism is evil on a nightmarish scale because it advocates for violating an entire population's right to 1. their property, and to 2. engage in economic activity with other consenting adults.

Neither 1 or 2 are required for communism or socialism. Regarding #1, socialism distinguishes between personal private property and productive assets. Nobody is advocating for violating personal private property. And #2 is not something most mainstream socialists advocate for either, so it's mostly a strawman.

The only substantial difference between socialism and capitalism is the democratic control of the workplace. Capitalism's idea of a workplace is inherently totalitarian, socialism's is democratic. That's it.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#285

Post by dredmorbius »

darawk wrote: post #109
DarkLinkXXXX wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If deaths caused by leaders purporting to advance communist ideals can be attributed to communism, then how many have died at the hands of those purporting to advance capitalist ideals? Would it be reasonable to attribute these deaths to capitalism as well? I really don't these type of conclusions are a positive contribution to economic discourse.

Are there significant examples of that in history? I would be looking only at governments causing the deaths of their own citizens. I don't think it'd be fair to count foreign wars there. EDIT: Just to be clear, i'm not implying that they do not exist. Genuinely don't know of any and would be curious if you do.

The Irish potato famine.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#286

Post by broke_wagon »

loki49152 wrote: post #140
broke_wagon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism isn't some "radical" boogeyman, it's just a process to eliminate inequality. (Why should there be any inequality at all?) We don't need to be diminutive about relatively different ideas; that's unhelpful at best.

Communism is a very specific ideology with a well-known, well-documented content and intellectual history. It isn't "just a process" for anything. Communism is evil because its ideology has no relationship with reality and will inevitably be a practical disaster anywhere it's implemented to the degree that it's implemented as a result. There's no escaping it any more than you can escape the laws of physics.

Of course it's just a process. Capitalism is a process which centralizes surplus and power, i.e., increases inequality, and communism is a process which decentralizes surplus and power, i.e. decreases inequality. Calling communism unrealistic and disastrous is again just being diminutive.

Communists want for people who do productive work to have an equal say in how work is done and what happens to the product. Not complicated, not unrealistic, and certainly not an inevitable disaster.

In empirical terms, there's a lot more evidence for the disaster-causing tendency of capitalism than communism. At the very worst, the end result of communism is empirically unknown, since, to date, communism has not been allowed to flourish on a noteworthy scale.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#287

Post by broke_wagon »

aminok wrote: post #202
loki49152 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism is a very specific ideology with a well-known, well-documented content and intellectual history. It isn't "just a process" for anything. Communism is evil because its ideology has no relationship with reality and will inevitably be a practical disaster anywhere it's implemented to the degree that it's implemented as a result. There's no escaping it any more than you can escape the laws of physics.

Communism is evil on a nightmarish scale because it advocates for violating an entire population's right to 1. their property, and to 2. engage in economic activity with other consenting adults.

It sounds like you are confusing communism with central ownership or state ownership. Communism is only concerned with the ability of workers to have meaningful control of work activity and output.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#288

Post by broke_wagon »

turar wrote: post #284
aminok wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism is evil on a nightmarish scale because it advocates for violating an entire population's right to 1. their property, and to 2. engage in economic activity with other consenting adults.

Neither 1 or 2 are required for communism or socialism. Regarding #1, socialism distinguishes between personal private property and productive assets. Nobody is advocating for violating personal private property. And #2 is not something most mainstream socialists advocate for either, so it's mostly a strawman. The only substantial difference between socialism and capitalism is the democratic control of the workplace.…

Well said, thank you for your explanation.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#289

Post by broke_wagon »

broke_wagon wrote: post #114
hash-set wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, tell that to the millions of dead left in its wake.

Carrying a communist (or capitalist, or ...) banner around as you pillage doesn't make you a communist (or a capitalist, or ...). Attack the system, not those who usurp its name. Only then we can have a discussion.

I am painfully aware that this argument seems prone to a "no true Scotsman" defense, but really, the basic principles of communism are very much at odds with many of its famous "proponents" (usurpers).

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#290

Post by sctb »

hash-set wrote: post #96
jernfrost wrote: post #76

I wish more people could have Thomas Piketty's balanced view on capitalism. Too often it is treated as some sort of game where you have to pick sides whether you are for or against capitalism. Especially in America there seems to be a kneejerk reaction to any calls for regulations or moderations of the effects of the free market. Usually it is dismissed without further discussion with "look what happened in the east…

You sound like a rambling fool. For starters, no one alive today has even experienced capitalism. What we have in the US is a joke, a complete, miserable joke. It's a system to transfer wealth to the top while avoiding any real accountability for that act. So don't get all righteous like you know anything about regulation or any of it. You can keep your communism, too. Bunch of murderous idiots is all they ever are.

Calling another user a rambling fool is not OK on Hacker News, and even if it were true we would prefer it to such uncivil comments as this. Please stop.
Post reply on HN