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

Socialism, American-Style

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#71

Post by PopeOfNope »

dghf wrote: post #62
PopeOfNope wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good' That's your own projection, not mine. I clearly stated in my comment that socialism was unamerican because it goes against the founding principles of the country. I don't deny the current system is broken. It has been for a long, long time. But, if you think socialism is the solution, you haven't been paying attention to history. Socialism always…

> Socialism always results in tyranny. Anarchist Catalonia? (Admittedly, it didn't last long, thanks chiefly to a different bunch of socialists, who were in turn defeated by fascists.)

I remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror they inflicted on Barcelona in his book the spanish cockpit.

Interestingly enough, he was also one of the pioneers of the totalitarianism theory. He argued that Vladimir Lenin created the first totalitarian dictatorship and that nearly all communist and fascist states were totalitarian in nature.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#72

Post by unprepare »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #68
nightcracker wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Socialism always results in tyranny. ?! Firstly, the countries you listed identified themselves with communism, not socialism. Secondly, they never implemented actual communism - there was still an upper class and immense amounts of corruption. Lastly and more importantly, those systems were put in place by the tyrants, not the other way around.

Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy. I hear that one a lot. It's an oldie, but a goodie. Communism is a subset of socialism; the share they same root philosophy. They never actually implemented true communism because it's not possible. Humans will always create a hierarchy. Where no official hierarchy exists, they will create unofficial ones.

Let me get this straight:

>Communism is a subset of socialism

and

> Socialism always results in tyranny.

but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes.

Does that mean that:

> Square is a subset of rectangle

so

>rectangle always results in four right angles

given that my only examples of rectangles are squares?

Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subset of socialism is plainly incorrect.

By your own admission:

>Humans will always create a hierarchy

Socialism could not have been tested, because it would require social ownership of the production of goods, and co-operative management of those resources. Hierarchy means they did not have co-operative management of resources, they had hierarchical management of resources.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#73

Post by PopeOfNope »

unprepare wrote: post #72
PopeOfNope wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy. I hear that one a lot. It's an oldie, but a goodie. Communism is a subset of socialism; the share they same root philosophy. They never actually implemented true communism because it's not possible. Humans will always create a hierarchy. Where no official hierarchy exists, they will create unofficial ones.

Let me get this straight: >Communism is a subset of socialism and > Socialism always results in tyranny. but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes. Does that mean that: > Square is a subset of rectangle so >rectangle always results in four right angles given that my only examples of rectangles are squares? Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subse…

Your attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#74

Post by TheBeardKing »

x5n1 wrote: post #54
afsina wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it is state funded I see no difference. I bet if it would have been developed by the `state engineers` it would even fail worse.

If it was State run then you could say hey the State failed to deliver. This was a private company which failed to deliver. And the private company, if you actually look it up subcontracted it, so you can't say hey there was no private Capitalist oversight over the project, you know greed to make things run efficiently.

But even subcontractors on government projects are subject to the same limitations as the prime contractor. So many limitations and increased overhead are imposed on government contractors, it's not surprising government projects fail in ways a similar private project would not with similar funding.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#75

Post by dghf »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #71
dghf wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Socialism always results in tyranny. Anarchist Catalonia? (Admittedly, it didn't last long, thanks chiefly to a different bunch of socialists, who were in turn defeated by fascists.)

I remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror they inflicted on Barcelona in his book the spanish cockpit . Interestingly enough, he was also one of the pioneers of the totalitarianism theory. He argued that Vladimir Lenin created the first totalitarian dictatorship and that nearly all communist and fascist states were…

> I remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror they inflicted on Barcelona in his book the spanish cockpit.

Are you referring to the Stalinist oppression that began with the Barcelona May Days in 1937, or to anarchist atrocities in the city before then?

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#76

Post by igonvalue »

allendoerfer wrote: post #39

Commodities without an alternative (e.g. water) and natural monopolies (e.g. networks) should be owned by the public. There is no point in having a market, when only one option makes sense or it is irrelevant which option you choose. There is no point in having competition, when it cannot improve the product or any process of its making. In these cases private ownership just leads to cartels or innovation in marketin…

> Commodities without an alternative (e.g. water) and natural monopolies (e.g. networks) should be owned by the public.

Why do you think there's a water shortage in California right now?

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#77

Post by bakhy »

abrgr wrote: post #64
nightcracker wrote: post #41

Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it. I'm from the Netherlands, an…

Socialism is a "bogeyman" in the US because it has contributed nothing to the success of our country and capitalism and private property, its antithesis, has been responsible for our rise as the greatest economic power the world has ever seen. Half of the comments on here are extolling Elon Musk and this forum exists precisely because of the advancements of similar private tech pioneers. The Netherlands is a great pl…

it's not really that simple. the US had enormous untapped natural resources, and is still well-off in that respect. and the two world wars were not fought on its territory. of course, i do not want to say that's all, the US model is respectable and its success deserves respect. i just don't think it can be completely attributed to anti-socialism, nor that a bit of socialism would destroy it. (which, btw, we can see now, or? US does have a pretty big social apparatus, and is still doing very well.)

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#78

Post by eevilspock »

abrgr wrote: post #64
nightcracker wrote: post #41

Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it. I'm from the Netherlands, an…

Socialism is a "bogeyman" in the US because it has contributed nothing to the success of our country and capitalism and private property, its antithesis, has been responsible for our rise as the greatest economic power the world has ever seen. Half of the comments on here are extolling Elon Musk and this forum exists precisely because of the advancements of similar private tech pioneers. The Netherlands is a great pl…

Have you considered how much American innovation happened as a result of:

- Government programs, the huge military budget, and the once huge space budget (which can be argued was really an extension of the military budget). Can you say for certain that the Internet and would have come about in the U.S. first if it weren't for DARPA? The advancement of computers if it weren't for NASA?

- Non capitalist or profit seeking scientists (Many if not most of whom are funded by the government or philanthropies).

- Luck. The U.S. has an immense natural resources to population ratio, perhaps the highest. It has, at present, virtually limitless land. It doesn't have to worry much about its borders or invasion. Our one border "worry" is actually a benefit to exploitive capitalism: a super cheap black-market labor.

Since you mention "private property", do you realize it is entirely antithetical to free market principles? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9942313.

Since you mention Elon Musk, could he have achieved what he achieved without $4.9 billion in government subsidies? (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015...)

I could easily extend this list and make a more powerful argument, but I have work to do. The point I'm really making is to be objective about your analysis of what is behind American innovation and success.

We won't even get into things that we call innovation but have not made the world a better place.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#79

Post by wfo »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #73
unprepare wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me get this straight: >Communism is a subset of socialism and > Socialism always results in tyranny. but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes. Does that mean that: > Square is a subset of rectangle so >rectangle always results in four right angles given that my only examples of rectangles are squares? Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subse…

Your attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.

The poster you're responding to is trying to show you that your "argument" is nonsensical mindless garbage and has no basis in rational thought. And being very polite about it to boot.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#80

Post by eevilspock »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #67
x5n1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I recall the Obama Healthcare Website was not developed by the government. It was developed by a private company. The front end was developed by Development Seed and the backend was developed by a multi-national. That's what I mean about propaganda. To say this is the doing of socialism is pure propaganda.

Government IT has a huge impedance mismatch in the interface from the government agency to the contractors. Specific to "Obamacare"/the ACA, America missed the move to "socialized medicine" immediately post-WWII. Europe had significant disruption because of seven years of tanks and bombers. There was during the Truman Administration a "wage and price freeze" in place to avoid a phantom anticipated inflation. Employer…

It's amazing how libertarians and others who see free market and the invisible hand as sacrosanct principles don't see how rent-seeking[1] including the private ownership of land is antithetical to those very principles.

Libertarians claim far too much as "the product of their labor." Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them. Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense (exclusive ownership in perpetuity until sold, zero property or inheritance tax). The later point is conceded by Geolibertarians[2][3] and Georgists[4].

The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.

-

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

[2] http://geolib.com/welcome.html

[3] Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632

[4] http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-s...

Post reply on HN