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

The deep roots of modern resentment

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#91

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

ue_ wrote: post #78
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First point, yes on propaganda, but the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism. That doesn't mean communism is a broken ideology, but rather that by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path, instead of envisioning a new model for a community-focused ideology (in a way different from capita…

There are various new approaches to central planning that may be of interest, such as those in Towards a New Socialism by W. Paul Cockshott. I don't think central planning is necessarily something bad, and there are certainly sufficient alternatives from both inside and outside Communism. Many Communists such as myself are not attached to one method or another. The idea that some period of authoritarianism is require…

I agree on the second paragraph. In general, one cannot decree a better world. It must be a conscious decision for people to work towards their ideals. Authoritarianism cannot fix that and even a benevolent AI overlord would be limited in its ability to manage production and allocate resources as a means to make life better for all people.

In general I am dismal at the ability for overthrow to enact lasting change. It often descends into a brutal struggle to keep newfound power, which becomes more important than the ideals themselves. The American Revolution ("All men are created equal") failed to end slavery, among other shortcomings. The French Revolution was a bloody mess that was only pacified by dictatorship and monarchy. Haiti, most tragic of all, was the only successful slave rebellion and they've been paying for it ever since, both as a result of foreign meddling as well as by greed and power-lust from their own leaders.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#92

Post by tim333 »

EekSnakePond wrote: post #13
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How, exactly, does Western liberalism absolutely require cheap brown people?

Every single thing you touched (And every single thing connected to what you touched) to type that statement was made overseas. Welcome to the international system of currency and labor arbitrage, a core prerequisite for any democratic experiment. Democracy has ALWAYS and WILL always require slaves.

Trade which is popular these days is not the same as slavery which is thankfully rare. The Chinese who make much of the stuff have done pretty well over the last few decades.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#93

Post by infinite8s »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #22
beat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. Western liberalism has, at times, relied on cheap white people, too. But the need for unskilled labor has dropped precipitously, while demand for skilled labor has spiked. See, for example, the IT industry's need for "cheap brown people" (from India, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Asia). They're only marginally cheaper than white citizen labor, and a lot more expensive than unskilled labor. This has been offs…

"the need for unskilled labor has dropped precipitously" here, the need for unskilled labor has dropped precipitously here

That's only because unskilled labor has become much more expensive here (unions, safety regulations, overtime, etc).

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#94

Post by narag »

steamer25 wrote: post #88
dandare wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have actually illustrated 90% of the problem - none of the the above represents liberal behaviour but rather the very opposite. Liberal fight such behaviour, these things happen DESPITE OF liberalism. You have just validate my post.

Depends on your definition of 'liberalism'. Classical liberalism was synonymous with libertarianism, minarchy, etc. The modern colloquial usage is closer to meaning left-wing statism (as distinguished from 'conservative' or right-wing statism).

Please replace "modern colloquial" with "USA". Outside your country "liberalism" is not ambiguous at all.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#95

Post by mac01021 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #80
bduerst wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coincidentally, housing prices (buy/rent) are income-elastic and one of the criticisms of a blanket UBI, not just minimum wage.

Did anyone compile a list of ways to handle this problem? I'm all for UBI, but this feels like a show-stopper, and I don't know of any workaround.

The market will solve it if the number of housing units is large enough compared to the number of families, provided no one vendor owns too large a fraction of them.

It seems pretty wasteful, though.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#96

Post by ue_ »

camikazeg wrote: post #85
ue_ wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are various new approaches to central planning that may be of interest, such as those in Towards a New Socialism by W. Paul Cockshott. I don't think central planning is necessarily something bad, and there are certainly sufficient alternatives from both inside and outside Communism. Many Communists such as myself are not attached to one method or another. The idea that some period of authoritarianism is require…

If communism could just be boiled down to "laborers own the means of production" then what stops that from happening within capitalism? What prevents people from banding together to create factories that they then work in, for example?

These factories must compete with others which value profit as the highest motive. So because there is still a profit motive, the co-op factory must optimise on two fronts: money in order to keep itself afloat and still purchase the required capital (and labour power), and further to operate by "ethical" principles toward the workers (whatever those may be).

Thus co-ops will have a tendency to fail within capitalism, because they usually cannot compete sufficiently. In addition, unless everyone worked in co-ops, there would still be worker exploitation, and thus still need for Communism (in the eyes of Socialists). This is especially true in developing countries.

Exploitation happens at a class level, not an individual level, nor the co-op level. It is pervasive.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#97

Post by dwaltrip »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #83
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First point, yes on propaganda, but the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism. That doesn't mean communism is a broken ideology, but rather that by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path, instead of envisioning a new model for a community-focused ideology (in a way different from capita…

> inherent limitations of central planning I wonder about those. I have this thought on the back of my head - now that we have ubiquitous light-speed communication and a big surplus of computing power, couldn't doing central planning via algorithms and automated systems offset some of the "inherent limitations" you mention? (Honest question, I'm not advocating for communist revolution or anything; just looking for vi…

Your line of thinking, though (as you noted) easily misconstrued by ideologists, seems quite reasonable and interesting.

I would guess that current AI tech is many orders of magnitude away, competency-wise, from being able to improve on the efficiency and agility of loosely connected networks of generally autonomous humans.

Even so, ignoring such technical limitations, the issues of control and individual agency are incredibly thorny. How are preferences aggregated? And how does a completely centralized system continually update itself to best serve all participants? Perhaps the competing AI systems can campaign every 4 years :)

Perhaps some sort of AI-human hybrid governmental system could offer a more modest path forwards. We are arguably already beginning to take first steps in that direction.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#98

Post by discreteevent »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #81
stinkytaco wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps part of the problem is our desire to bundle solutions into grand theories, like supply-side economics or Marxism? I agree that we can beat a horse over and over again until there's nothing left to see, but small changes are how the world actually works. I can say "lowering taxes on producers of x can stimulate growth" or "increased public investment in industry y will resolve the problems it currently experie…

Yes, I think it's a big part of the problem. Packaging things together and discussing them as ideologies , instead of stripping them to components and evaluating each component on its merits.

This is exactly it. It's also a good approach when constructively criticising technical solutions. But we tend to like silver bullets too much.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#99

Post by peterashford »

I think the problem isn't liberalism, per se, but neo liberalism. The fact that the market hasn't made for an egalitarian society, but one that is markedly lopsided in terms of distribution of wealth. THAT is a problem, but not necessarily one that requires demolishing liberalism, democracy nor capitalism.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#100

Post by [deleted] »

crdoconnor wrote: post #61
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First point, yes on propaganda, but the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism. That doesn't mean communism is a broken ideology, but rather that by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path, instead of envisioning a new model for a community-focused ideology (in a way different from capita…

>the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism Between 1917 and 1950 they grew at a staggering pace. From agricultural backwater to first space power. That isn't an economic failure in any way. After the 1950s they tried to re-gear the economy to producing things like fridges and, of course, for consumer items it wasn't nearly as effective. In…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN