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

I Lost My Past (2017)

glineq.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 193 posts

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#61

Post by _0ffh »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45
elurg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defending a communist regime purely on nationalist grounds ignores the whole point of communism. Today Vietnam and China having mostly-capitalist economies so what was really the purpose of their revolutions?

Self rule, just like you'd think. The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. They were a little late to get to kick out the Manchus.

The way I heard the story is more like they mostly held back and rebuilt their numbers while the Kuomintang was left doing most of the actual kicking on it's own.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#62

Post by cblconfederate »

Maybe democracy is a luxury belief of rich countries, or at least of states that have gone through all the steps of state-building and there is substantial rule of law. One of the most stupid things in the history of this century was the belief that arbitrarily "imposing" democracy in countries that have never finished their state-building was possible (e.g. arab and middle east countries).

And after 30 years of post-communism there are too few successes to call the end of history a success.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#63

Post by elurg »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45
elurg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defending a communist regime purely on nationalist grounds ignores the whole point of communism. Today Vietnam and China having mostly-capitalist economies so what was really the purpose of their revolutions?

Self rule, just like you'd think. The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. They were a little late to get to kick out the Manchus.

> Self rule, just like you'd think.

Is Vietnam in any way "more independent" today than if the north had lost? It makes sense if you claim to fight the Americans because they're evil capitalists but Vietnam turned around to adopt chinese-style reforms and is now mostly friendly towards the US.

> The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese.

The CCP is in power because they defeated the KMT, but decades later they adopted capitalism and today justify their rule through nationalism.

What's the point of a civil war if you eventually end up adopting most of the other side's policies?

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#64

Post by [deleted] »

jeroenhd wrote: post #53
anovikov wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Communism would be great if people would actually be good. It's hard to not feel enticed by a future where everyone has equal rights, where the plentiful resources of the world are shared among everyone else and where there is no need for class warfare. Sadly, time and again humanity has proven unable to do good at the scale of a country. The laudable ideals of any political system will need to resist man's evil natu…

[deleted]

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#65

Post by vidarh »

jeroenhd wrote: post #53
anovikov wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Communism would be great if people would actually be good. It's hard to not feel enticed by a future where everyone has equal rights, where the plentiful resources of the world are shared among everyone else and where there is no need for class warfare. Sadly, time and again humanity has proven unable to do good at the scale of a country. The laudable ideals of any political system will need to resist man's evil natu…

This is interesting because it's based on a view of socialism/communism that Marx mocked and ridiculed socialists for holding.

Marx argued that those who wanted to create socialism or communism through altruism were fools - his argument was that socialism was only possible once a society was well developed enough that it was in the self interest of the working class to force distribution of wealth.

He repeatedly criticised attempts to argue for equality for the sake of it rather than redistribution that would benefit those demanding it.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#66

Post by lelanthran »

jeroenhd wrote: post #53
anovikov wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Communism would be great if people would actually be good. It's hard to not feel enticed by a future where everyone has equal rights, where the plentiful resources of the world are shared among everyone else and where there is no need for class warfare. Sadly, time and again humanity has proven unable to do good at the scale of a country. The laudable ideals of any political system will need to resist man's evil natu…

> Communism would be great if people would actually be good.

That's a tautology: Anything would be great if people were actually good[1]. That you need to rely on some external force of good for Communism to look good says more about Communism than any propaganda machine ever could.

[1] Other -isms would work even better than Communism if people were good.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#67

Post by refurb »

jeroenhd wrote: post #48
luckylion wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we though? We generally consider Iraq under Saddam not to be a good place to have lived in. A terrible place if you're a Kurd and your village gets attacked with nerve gas. And a bad place if you're an ordinary citizen that isn't specifically targeted because of his ethnicity, but there's always the risk of Uday Hussein driving by and just fancying murdering you for no particular reason. And yet, of course, the up…

By extension of this way of telling a narrative, all Americans should fear for their lives the second a police officer stops their car because of the countless innocent black people murdered by the police. Stories of excessive police violence still make it to the news almost every week. However, most Americans don't need to fear for their lives by the police, and most Iraqis aren't Kurds. Most Iraqis weren't gassed o…

You’re really trying hard to draw equivalencies between two very different situations.

In the US police kill less than 1,000 per year. Most are white people, many justifiably. So let’s overestimate and say 25% of those are murder. (Clearly not, but work with me). So 250 per year in a country of 350M.

When the Kurds were gassed, a singular event, 3,000-5,000 people were killed. Random people, shelled by the Iraqi military for no reason other than living in the same place as rebellious Kurds. Iraq had a population of 16M at the time.

Those are clearly two VERY different situation you’re trying to draw a parallel between.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#68

Post by vidarh »

anovikov wrote: post #47
sofixa wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Big mistake of 1991 was to let Russia form. Russia form? Russia already existed, as the Russian socialist federal republic, a part of the Soviet Union. What would have been the alternative to letting Russia inherit the Soviet Union by being the last one remaining?

Quoted post unavailable.

Who are "they"?

Russia existed. It had nukes. Nobody were in a position to tell Russia it wasn't allowed to exist, and attempting to force it to split would have been a gross violation of international law.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#69

Post by jowdones »

xwolfi wrote: post #41

I live in China and I feel the same. I can understand the high level corruption, and media uselessness reporting nothing of substance, sure, but that's very far from how life in China seems to be perceived abroad. I guess like the author it depends also where exactly in China/Yougoslavia you live(d), as Im sure a migrant miner in the north doesnt have the same experience as an electronics trader in the south. But, I…

Communist systems are not that different from the standard democratic, US way of things. (I'm Romanian btw so used to be communist, now we're a democracy but the substance hasn't changed much).

1) US: has a two-party system, the "left" and the "right". Most democracies have the political power concentrated in just two parties - the "socialists" and the "conservatives", even though some minor contenders may exist on the scene and the main parties compete in bribing them so they can ensure majority.

The two parties hate each other's guts and compete for resources (how much they will divert to their own pocket) but both know very well that the show must go on, so don't count on anything but a shallow surface-level "competition" between them. If the system really is in danger of changing and they might lose their grip, they won't hesitate to leave aside their differences and unite in their common goal of ensuring long term self-preservation.

2) Communist system has a two-party system: the "party" and the "police". The communist party and the secret police mirror exactly the deep antagony between the two parties of the democratic two-party system and also their just as deep complicity when it comes to long term continuity.

It's just a matter of time until #2 realizes the only thing separating #1 from them is apparent legitimacy. Some level of oppressiveness is required for #2 and that's consuming resources, while #1 has the advantage that it frees those resources since they no longer have to force people in accepting the system but can tell them "you are free to make your own choice". So if and when those freely elected turn out to be the exact copy of the people they "replaced" you are free to f*k off and vote again next time, like that would change anything.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#70

Post by refurb »

vidarh wrote: post #57
xwolfi wrote: post #41

I live in China and I feel the same. I can understand the high level corruption, and media uselessness reporting nothing of substance, sure, but that's very far from how life in China seems to be perceived abroad. I guess like the author it depends also where exactly in China/Yougoslavia you live(d), as Im sure a migrant miner in the north doesnt have the same experience as an electronics trader in the south. But, I…

Mainland China has multiple parties - they don't even need to proclaim "Communist purity". The other parties just won't get more power no matter how many votes they get. The CCP is not afraid of elections, but of opposition politicians allowed to actually speak their minds, and transparent elections. EDIT: whomever downvoted might want to look up political parties in China

This is very true. China is no longer the old hardline communism of “throw dissidents up against the wall”.

You can criticize the government, as long it’s about something that doesn’t threaten their hold on power. That’s true about most “freedoms” in China. If it doesn’t threaten the CCP, you’ll likely be admonished at most, and if you acquiesce, left alone.

But I’d you cross the line (and you will be warned), you won’t be tolerated.

And for the vast majority this is fine as long as they can put food on the table and their children have a future.

Post reply on HN