Remix clone Hacker News

It's amazing to me that on a startup-oriented forum like this one you see these kinds of socialist comments when it comes to something that is harmful to startup founders and the entire ecosystem. Honestly curious to see what people who are hostile to entrepreneurship are even doing here.

▲

devjab 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’m not sure why you think a wealth tax is related to entrepreneurship ship. I get that you’ll find a lot of people who like the author don’t want to pay taxes, but you’re going to find quite a lot who do. Especially here in Scandinavia. Of course it’s less of a problem when you have a non-crypto product which actually makes money or gives you the opportunity to take out a loan based on your assets.

I agree that there will be an ideologically divide, but I don’t think it’s related to entrepreneurship as much as it is to greed. Especially because those crypto “billionaires” were moving to Switzerland anyway. Personally I can see why you would think it was anti-business because it is. You have to keep in mind that not everyone thinks “businesses” which can’t make money, and likely never will, are always a benefit to society.

▲

no_wizard 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s amazing to me that people think this is what socialism is. This isn’t seizing the means of production.

▲

barbazoo 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wouldn't that be more communism than socialism?

▲

no_wizard 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The unpolluted definition of socialism is about public (e.g. social) ownership of the means of production. Technically, it’s not mutually exclusive of market systems, simply that participants are socially owned in some form. To be more specific about what I said, the roots of socialism called for the “seizing of the means of production” if governments and capital would not voluntarily convert to some form of social ownership

Communism differs in that it takes this a step further advocating not only for social ownership but also the dissolution of of all private property ownership and its corresponding economic role, and distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.

For the record, I think communism is a dead end as it flys in the face of human nature. Market socialism might have legs though.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek but taxes aren’t inherently socialism. Taxation has been levied under multiple periods of economic philosophy like in feudal Europe or during the age of mercantilism for example. Seems to be a hallmark of highly organized civilizations

Something like an employee owned co-op is a valid socialist concept, for example. Social doesn’t automatically mean government.

Though communists like Marx believed in revolutionary uprising and those tend to be inherently violent. It’s a shame that the only exposure people have to any form of socialist ideas is via Marx.

▲

psd1 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Very nicely put.

If you have an innovation fixation and only give a shit about unicorns, you aren't going to even perceive the cooperatives and mutuals that have survived six monarchs. Especially if they are mostly outside your country and you're congenitally parochial.

▲

JeffL 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree with and appreciate your comment, but I do think there is some validity in the more broad usage of "socialism" that has come to be. To steel man the other sides argument, if you have to pay taxes on an asset, be that the means of production or real estate, or else the government will come and take it away from you, it feels more like renting than owning, and the only thing you "own" is the right to pay rent on the governments asset.

I do definitely think that just labeling every government overreach that one dislikes as "socialism" is not the most useful.

	▲	no_wizard 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I do think we need some disambiguation of things. For example, I have (in what I realize is largely futile) advocated for a return to using more accurate political terms for describing philosophies. Left and right are terrible terms to use for this. Liberal, Progressive are Conservative are much better, but still lack some depth for range. Terms like fascism, neoliberal, neoconservative etc are much better and better represent ideas in discourse. Folks who seriously think about socialism as a real economic philosophy often also have accompanying liberal and/or progressive ideas attached to it, like higher taxes to fund social safety nets and better schools, for example. They however aren’t the same thing. Taxes are a political act with economic consequences, regardless of what those consequences are. Where as social ownership of the economy can have more diversity in practical implementation and thus should not be lumped together like it is. I realize this isn’t a common discussion point, particularly in the US where these philosophies were never given equal footing to capitalism[0]. Frankly I sincerely believe most Americans, even educated folks who should know better, don’t differentiate socialism from communism and use the terms at least somewhat interchangeably and often incorrectly. [0]: free markets aren’t inherent to only capitalism either. They absolutely exist in a market socialist economy. Remember the origins of corporations were chartered with expectation they would serve a purpose that demonstrably benefited the public good

▲

sandeepthroat 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]