Is HN now against western capitalism? I'm confused...

That comment may have been overly preachy, tone deaf[0], and out of place, but it doesn't seem wrong, per se. Or am I missing something?

[0] e.g. elections themselves are so prone to manipulation (exhibit a: Dominion voting machines), previously trusted institutions now lack integrity, the insane power of well-funded NGO networks, etc.

▲

BatFastard 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I fear western capitalism has lost its guide rails. We are seeing more and more centralization of wealth, along with unlimited election spending. Its a dark path.

▲

mrandish 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Is HN now against western capitalism?

I think that's a (very) vocal minority.

Over my ~9 years reading HN daily, I'd say most of the HN community broadly accepts there is no perfect system, just different sets of trade offs, but that history has shown generally democratic systems based on enlightenment values (uniform rule of law, respect for individual civil & property rights, free markets, etc) usually net a better average outcome over the long-run - despite still being very far from perfect.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it's the worst system... except for all the others (which are even worse). :-)

▲

psadauskas 2 hours ago | parent [-]

In my almost 20 years on HN, for a long time the groupthink was basically standard libertarian-capitalism, worshipping billionaires and big tech companies, and skeptical of anything that could be construed as "socialism".

The last few years, though, while anything "anti-capitalist" or overly critical of some big tech companies that hits the front page gets flagged by bots pretty quickly, the overall feeling I get from the comments is much more skeptical of big tech and is pro-socialism.

Speaking for myself, I think we've become jaded after the constant barrage of big companies spying on us, charging more for less, enshitifying their products, and so on. I used to be optimistic about the future and my prospects, now I'm just hoping I can hold on and keep my health insurance until I retire. I worry about what my school-age kids are going to have to deal with in 5-10 years.

	▲	mrandish 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I agree that most are much more skeptical of big tech (and mega corps in general), as am I. I think there's also a growing sense the two-party duopoly is increasingly a 'managed democracy' primarily interested in perpetuating itself vs any real alternatives. I disagree that most here are pro-socialism, that's a (very) vocal minority. Our democracy has entered a failure mode (two-party stage managed hegemony) and it's being tacitly supported by mega-corps because it's easier to game than a functioning free market democracy. Every complex system has failure modes, that doesn't mean free markets aren't long-term far better on average than socialism (although some redefine socialism so vaguely it seems conceptually little different). I've seen two flavors of socialism up close. Never want to again. > I worry about what my school-age kids are going to have to deal with in 5-10 years. Having a teenager, I share your concerns but I'm also a bit more optimistic about the longer term. It's easy to forget that our parents had similar concerns for us and their parents did before them. We've had an historically long period of broad systemic stability, really since the depression and WWII. While I don't think that level of upheaval is at all likely, I think we're overdue for a disruptive correction bigger than 2008, maybe something more on the order of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Era trust-busting to reset the two-party duopoly and crony corperatists both perpetuating each other's hold on power. It may get rougher and more uncertain for a while, but the worst thing would be to lose the ethos of 'free minds, free markets, free choice' by falling into socialism, communism or totalitarianism. That's the only outcome that turns worry for my teenager into fear for my (still-theoretical) grandkids.

▲

willguest 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

first of all, I cannot claim to speak for HN.

if you lookup playback as a concept, as it relates to the intelligence services, you will understand better what I meant.

my point was only that this is perfect description of the ideology behind western capitalism. there is (so) much more that could be said, but i'm not sure this comment section is the right place for a proper dissection of the very many ways in which this ideal is misconstrued, misdirected and coerced in order to serve interests that are far from ideal, to put it mildly.

since you have taken the time to ask a question, albeit a rather weak one, i will attempt a brief synopsis of my perspective on the parent comment:

a mortal danger is hyperbole, since shielding oneself from bodily harm is much easier with money. it is the poor, especially in the US, who cannot afford healthcare, as a first-line example

people regularly vote against their best interests. while the ideal might have been true for a while, behavioural influence on both a widespread and personal level is now a mature science.

i am not anti-election, not anti-democracy. claiming the opposite in the face of opposition is a sign of a polarised mindset, which cannot accept nuance, either because it is not used to it, or because it doesn't suit an vested interest, or because dissonance is simply too uncomfortable

the "there's nothing better" argument is usually used in ignorance, but in fact there are lots of system-level adjustments that have been shown historically to mitigate the corruption of incentives and the exploitation of systemic forces that, although initially unintentional, create emergent positive feedback situations that lead to a state that it counter to the utilitarian perspective that is contained within the western capitalist model.

the reading above is a very narrow view of Adam Smith Wealth of Nations, ignores the fact that human interests can be subverted and ignores the devil in the details

	▲	aftbit an hour ago \| parent [-]
		reductionist paths are never truly correct. the world is complicated. true: the one thing that every government - no matter how totalitarian - must fear is an angry mob. also true: there are many tools available to the ruling class for dealing with this angry mob, often before it forms. many work by redirecting the mob inward rather than outwards. these tools work whether you live in a totalitarian fascist state or a egalitarian liberal utopia, albeit in somewhat different ways.

▲

hnhg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would guess it seems very naïve to the overly cynical. And in 2026, being overly cynical is rather mainstream (understandably so).

▲

senordevnyc 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Bingo. There’s a certain type who confuses cynicism with intelligence, probably because they fear nothing so much as appearing naive or gullible.

	▲	willguest an hour ago \| parent [-]
		There is another type who confuse ideology with reality. I wonder if you one of those, oh bingo-loving senior dev. Do you also cut people down for being idealists, when the reality of the situation serves you more than the ideal?