It's not that the terms are unpopular, it's that every system that doesn't have strong capitalist roots has lost out to more capitalist systems.
Nothing wrong with alternatives, but for that we need to let go of "let's make it just like the thing that also fails". We also need to acknowledge that socialism assumes that humans are fundamentally good, and that ignores that many are fundamentally not. We need to acknowledge that the core idea of socialism, the common good, is ill-defined. (Just like, while we're on AI, ideas of alignment on one value system suffer from that ill definition)
So, no, you don't get voted to hell for saying that the problem is capitalism. You do get downvoted for sloppy thinking if you simply propose "socialism will save us" because it's long established that in this form, the statement is not true.
Ultimately, the issue is that HN is not made for that discussion. You'd need nuanced political debate, and the internet does not seem conducive for that. That's the second reason for downvotes - HN is not interested in contentious political debate, for better or worse.
But no, it's not because we just all immediately think of the USSR/Maoist China.
> It's not that the terms are unpopular, it's that every system that doesn't have strong capitalist roots has lost out to more capitalist systems.
The system with the strongest capitalist roots (i.e., the dominant system of the industrialized West of the mid-19th century which is the system for which “capitalism” as a term was coined to describe) progressively lost out over the time since that name was coined for it by its socialist critics to a more socialist system, the modern mixed economy, through changes largely driven by socialist critics.
> We also need to acknowledge that socialism assumes that humans are fundamentally good.
Socialism does not assume this. I would even argue that the idea that “humans are fundamentally good” is even a coherent claim that can be right or wrong requires a concept of a particular kind of external mrorality that is difficult to reconcile with the premises of socialism.
> We need to acknowledge that the core idea of socialism, the common good, is ill-defined.
The core idea of socialism (like that of democracy in the political sphere, because socialism is exactly democracy without an artificial divide between political and economic spheres) is less “the common good” as it is “the common good is ill-defined, while the interests of individuals are known to the individual more than any third party, and fairness requires equal empowerment of individuals to pursue their interests.”
> It's not that the terms are unpopular, it's that every system that doesn't have strong capitalist roots has lost out to more capitalist systems.
The arch of history is long, and we are naturally biased to think of the present as the culmination of history - but it's just a point in time. I do not think "socialism will save us" - but I believe there is a breaking point where society simply will not accept a - as you put it - "more capitalist system".
Politics and economic systems go hand in hand, any economic system, practiced in extremis will be destabilizing. I posit that theoretically the "more capitalist system" wins over the less capitalist one, up to a point, where winning comes at the cost of killing the host society, and thus itself. This is simply a thought experiment, I am not making any declarations on where the US is on this axis.
Nothing wrong with alternatives, but for that we need to let go of "let's make it just like the thing that also fails". We also need to acknowledge that socialism assumes that humans are fundamentally good, and that ignores that many are fundamentally not. We need to acknowledge that the core idea of socialism, the common good, is ill-defined. (Just like, while we're on AI, ideas of alignment on one value system suffer from that ill definition)
So, no, you don't get voted to hell for saying that the problem is capitalism. You do get downvoted for sloppy thinking if you simply propose "socialism will save us" because it's long established that in this form, the statement is not true.
Ultimately, the issue is that HN is not made for that discussion. You'd need nuanced political debate, and the internet does not seem conducive for that. That's the second reason for downvotes - HN is not interested in contentious political debate, for better or worse.
But no, it's not because we just all immediately think of the USSR/Maoist China.