[lucian1900]

McCarthyism was about class struggle. Persecuting all communists, socialists and trade unionists made it less likely the working class would rise up against the capitalist ruling class. It worked for the Nazis, after all.

You seem to have internalised this logic, since you're assuming all communists are spies for another nation.

[FredPret]

You, on the other hand, seem to have internalized a class-based worldview. I'm not sure that's healthy either

[lucian1900]

Class struggle is the engine of history. Whether that fact is healthy for myself personally or not has no bearing on its truth.

The company I work for keeps more of the value I create than they pay me. Whether I like it or not, I'm working class and in direct opposition to capitalists.

[Gormo]

All exchange is predicated upon each party gaining more utility from what they get than by retaining what they give up. The company you work for retains the goods/services you sold them and enjoys a net increase in utility, and you retain the compensation they provided in exchange, and enjoy your own net increase in utility as a result.

On top of that, the ultimate consumption utility enjoyed at the terminus of the entire chain of production is not something you are individually responsible for; you aren't creating the final value, only offering your own marginal contribution of value by selling your own goods and services to your own particular customer.

The concept of "class" does not factor into the reality of any of this.

[DenisM]

I was with you until the last sentence.

Per Marx, there is the class of people who work for a living *, and the class of people who don't because others do. This has been true since 10,000 years ago and the distinction remains relevant today. The actual classes change, but the division remains.

* Managers and executives are still workers, only their job is to drive other workers on behalf of the owners.

[FredPret]

1) I doubt you're actually working class, even if you're working for money

2) Capitalism is a decentralized system of allocating resources. By working and investing (even if just owning a retirement plan), you are taking part in it all. You may now collect your monocle and top hat.

3) Getting paid some fraction between 0 and 1 of the value you create is a fact of nature for all actors in the system. The company has to create more value for its customers than they pay for it, otherwise nobody would bother buying.

4) The system itself creates vast amounts of wealth and progress, for the entire society. You wouldn't have a good job and a good computer if it wasn't for all that extra value.

5) Don't confuse capitalists with capitalism. The people may behave badly, but the system is resilient - that's why it's been working well for centuries, through thick and thin.

[kashunstva]

> it's been working well for centuries,

It depends on one's definition of _working well_. The neoliberal economic school would wholeheartedly agree. But the disproportionate distribution of gains since the early 1980's says otherwise. Of course, that's a values-laden discussion that's probably not a great fit for HN. If the system works immeasurably well for the 0.1% and dreadfully for the bottom 20% such that on average the GDP trend is positive, is the system working well? The system has been resilient, but I'm afraid I'd don't know what the corrective forces are any longer, given the dysfunctional state of the political enterprise in much of the world.

[DenisM]

Here's my argument in favor of the system working well:

The quality of life for 99.99% of the population has increased more in the last 100 years than it did in the first 10,000 years of the human civilization. For a graphic example consider Charles Dickens *, he documented how people lived in the 19th century and it reads absolutely horrifying and unthinkable today.

Yes the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are improving their lot. However the poor's quality of life went up tremendously - housing, sanitation, hygiene, calories/nutrients, medical care, workplace safety, transportation, life expectancy, education, you name it. There is simply more wealth to go around today. Is the wealth distribution just? We can debate that **. Is the capitalist system improving lives across the board? Most certainly yes.

* or Friedrich Engels

** personally I would avoid this frame completely, but hey

[lucian1900]

Capitalism is a mode of production in which production is motivated by profit derived from the private ownership of the means of production. Those that own the means of production (factories, companies, etc.) perform no labour, but get paid from the difference between the value produced by those that do work and the value generated by that labour. This difference is called profit.

I own no significant means of production. The vast majority of my income comes from selling my labour power for a fraction of the value it generates. Thus I am working class, generating profits for capitalists.

Wealth and progress is generated by labour. I wouldn't have a good job and a computer if the forces of production hadn't been advanced so far. This advancement does happen under capitalism, but not exclusively. Worse, the mode of production can inhibit further advancement, like feudalism was inhibiting industrial advancement.

Capitalism fails all the time, it does it so often it's called the business cycle. Sometimes is fails catastrophically, like the Great Depression or 2008. It's being kept just barely functional by those that benefit from it; most of us don't.

[MadSudaca]

> made it less likely the working class would rise up against the capitalist ruling class

It would make it less likely for the country to shoot itself in the foot and radically lower the standards of living of its citizens, like happened and, unfortunately, still happens, in every country that adopted communist ideas in their government.

[lucian1900]

You mean countries that started off much poorer than the US, yet the standard of living drastically improved during the socialist period? Then drastically dropped after 89, when the imperialists won the Cold War?

Just because poor countries become socialist doesn't mean socialism makes them poor. Consider that they were kept poor and socialism is the way out.

[MadSudaca]

Socialism makes countries poor. In countries with corrupt governments, poverty is reached markedly faster. If socialist countries don’t become totally destitute, it’s because they manage not to mess up capitalism completely.

[chasd00]

"If socialist countries don’t become totally destitute, it’s because they manage not to mess up capitalism completely."

or lucky enough to have a goose laying golden eggs. i.e. the North Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil

[wizzwizz4]

I don't think “communist ideas” is well-defined. Could you explain what you mean by the phrase?

[retrac]

Not OP but it seemed unambiguous to me given "countries that have adopted". The countries that proclaimed themselves communist at some point -- the Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Angola, etc. (Most no longer exist, only Cuba, Vietnam, China and Laos are governed by self-described communist parties today.)

[p_l]

And a lot of those countries had standard of living sharply rise during communist era. People really, really under appreciate how bad conditions were in many of those countries for those who weren't creme de la creme of society, or how much for example interwar Poland history is kept silent about the squalor and poverty of huge portion of the society.

Yes, for various reasons economic systems in many of them failed (or in few cases, it was nationalistic strife that dealt the blow), but others learnt lessons from it (for example, about badly defining and strictly adhering to plans, or too high concentration in one company, etc.)

[wizzwizz4]

What about countries that only adopted two “communist ideas”? What if a country adopted hundreds of them, but didn't call itself communist? What if No True Communist Society does XYZ thing that all of the countries on your list have done?

You can't talk effectively about something until everybody agrees on what the words mean.