History shows us that slave labor cannot compete with free labor. It's the reason the Confederacy seceded from the Union - to protect their slave economy which was becoming increasingly unprofitable from the competition. It's also the reason why communist forced labor failed to compete with free markets.
Ya know, employing people who hate you just isn't going to get them to work very effectively.
Only in response to posts that extol the virtues of collectivism and/or how bad freedom is. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it :-)
> Tell me your secrets Walter
Too bad it seems to be a secret that free markets are far more successful. My dad was a finance professor at a college in his later years. He said students would tell him from time to time that they had never heard of a case for free markets before. Isn't that amazing for people that lived their whole life in a free market country?
I remember one person complained to me that I was "ramming freedom down his throat!" It boggles the mind.
Be that as it may, ideological crusades such as this are explicitly disallowed on here. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity."
Dang has been very clear on that, many times - whatever he "knows about you".
You really think it's "impossible" for a corporation with Star Trek replicator tech to profit from starving people? ... And that was the right time to fight "the virtues of collectivism"? You are trampling curiousity, and have admitted as much, and now you really ought to consider giving it a rest.
That goes for both sides, every time someone repeats the meme "capitalism bad!" they are perpetuating their own crusade, at that time the gloves are off and it is free to engage with them. You can see it in this thread where people started out by trash talking capitalism, at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines even if you do it in every thread where people start attacking capitalism.
Its those who start attacking capitalism everywhere that needs to stop if this happens too often, since they are almost always the instigators.
That's called 'false equivalence'. Discussions about economic systems can be had without being crusades.
> at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines
No, I don't think the spirit of the guidelines is to permit "ideological battles" as long as "someone else starts it". The clear intent of the guidelines is to discourage ideological crusade altogether.
> Its those who start attacking capitalism everywhere that needs to stop if this happens too often
'Selective enforcement'. Your argument suggests that it's okay to defend capitalism in response to criticism, but doesn't extend the same courtesy to those criticizing capitalism.
> since they are almost always the instigators.
A generalization without any evidence. Also, capitalism is currently the dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of economic systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism.
I think your comment shows severe bias and an adversarial approach to discussion. Maybe you could form an appreciation for the spirit of fostering curiosity and constructive dialogue that is promoted here.
I had no idea when I started this thread with a throwaway quip about future historians and Star Trek that (besides being one of my highest voted comments) it would veer off into this 70+ reply monstrosity about slavery and communism. HN commenters take things in wild directions, and I seem to have violated the no-flamewar rule unintentionally. For that I am sorry.
It would be nice to be able to discuss the multitude of possible economic power structures unlike the ones we have today, without someone always barreling in on a crusade against communism (which I never even mentioned nor support myself). This discussion doesn't seem possible when people insist on a false dilemma.
If someone made the same remark about non-democratic political systems, would you say the same thing? "Democracy is the current dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of political systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism." I doubt it. I think some honesty is useful: you want to criticize capitalism but you don't want someone to defend it, you want a space to criticize it. I think if you're going to criticize capitalism then you need to be willing to fend with someone willing to defend it. It's fair game. It may seem unfair, but just like we hold onto our values of democracy tightly so some hold onto their values of capitalism.
If you want a space specifically to criticize capitalism, there are plenty on the internet, and HN isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure you can throw a pebble randomly at literally any Bluesky English poster or Mastodon instance and you'll find one though.
It's neither political nor ideological, any more than science is political or ideological. It's factual backed up with an endless panoply of history.
I also never start those threads. Maybe your complaint should be directed at who initiated them?
Then there are the genocidal militias employed by US companies to keep people from unionising, the genocidal treatment of indonesians, and so on.
Maybe you can cite examples of it working?
It's legal to start a commune in the US. Why not give it a try? Report back to us how it goes!
> conflates collectivism with being “anti freedom” (lol)
I do, because collectivism means you do not own the fruits of your labor. I bet you'd be outraged if I helped myself to some of your stuff that I decided you didn't need.
Feel free to downvote me all you like, Taylor!
Anarcho-communism advocates for a stateless, classless society where resources are shared equally, and decisions are made collectively. It emphasizes freedom from hierarchical structures and promotes it is the very good website for info . http://cabinetrystock.com/ direct democracy. This contrasts with the common portrayal of communism as authoritarian, a view largely stemming from the practices of historical states that identified as communist.
History shows us that you can build Pyramids and the Chinese wall with slave labor, probably not affordable with "free labor". But maybe we should also look at "modern slavery" that is "free labor" but without any chance to get another job or get reported to the police.
>it's about forcible slave labor, forced with guns and whips.
Worked incredible well for Belgium, and works incredible well for every warlord in west-Africa...and for us (>bloody< cheap raw-materials for our phones)
I know what you want to say with it, forcing specialized people with whips isn't going to give you good results in the long run, however if you just need their joules it's shockingly effective.
Does it?
Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t slaves who built the pyramids. We know this because archaeologists have located the remains of a purpose-built village for the thousands of workers who built the famous Giza pyramids, nearly 4,500 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt#Great...
>Slaves were a constant presence in ancient Egypt. Starting with the Old Kingdom (2613 - 2181 BC), slaves took on different roles. Some became soldiers, others scribes.
https://www.worldatlas.com/ancient-world/were-slaves-used-to...
>Does it?
Yes it does, or do you have another argument against the Chinese wall or Belgium for example? Do you really want to argue against the fact that slaves did (and do) the hardest, most back-breaking jobs?
In terms of quality you are right, in terms of quantity you are wrong (in the past), but in this day and age replacing people (slaves) with machines changes the whole thing again.
So yes, free labor with specialized people and specialized machines and cheap energy is the most competitive.
That's not free labor. It's government coercion, again.
> Worked incredible well for Belgium
???
> works incredible well for every warlord in west-Africa
None of them have been able to compete in the free market.
That was the definition of "modern slaves", HOW you force people to be slaves is really not important.
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
>???
Rubber -> Car-tires from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
>None of them have been able to compete in the free market.
If you can sell your good's at the cheapest prices you compete very well in the "free market", there is also coltan in Brazil, Australia and China, but DRC sells the cheapest.
https://globalforestcoalition.org/the-dark-side-of-technolog...
History shows us that if you want to force starving people to work for you, you also need to shoot the people who refuse. See the Soviet gulags, and the Nazi slave labor camps.