<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>thiagoharry</author><text>&amp;gt; Says who? The only &amp;quot;requirement of capitalism&amp;quot; is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. Outside of a few niche organizations that benefit from economic distress, I think you will find a general S&amp;amp;P 500 consensus that low employment is a good thing for their stock prices.&lt;p&gt;If unemployment did not exist, the capitalist class would have no power to make workers work harder using the threat of losing their jobs. Of course, very high unemployment is not good for capitalism, nobody was arguing this. But very low unemployment below some threshold is also bad. Marx explained this, but if you do not believe him, capitalists themselves and their theorists say exactly the same thing, but with more gentle and less direct words:  &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.investopedia.com&amp;#x2F;insights&amp;#x2F;downside-low-unemployment&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.investopedia.com&amp;#x2F;insights&amp;#x2F;downside-low-unemploym...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>legitster</author><text>&amp;gt; Well, unemployment is kind of a requirement of capitalism.&lt;p&gt;Says who? The only &amp;quot;requirement of capitalism&amp;quot; is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. Outside of a few niche organizations that benefit from economic distress, I think you will find a general S&amp;amp;P 500 consensus that low employment is a &lt;i&gt;good&lt;/i&gt; thing for their stock prices.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; There&amp;#x27;s generally a target of 5% unemployment, which means capitalism has built-in waste.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s because, in a free society, we have discovered that it&amp;#x27;s better to get people new and better jobs than be shackled to a milling machine from childhood.</text></item><item><author>mullingitover</author><text>&amp;gt; Capitalism will make people stop working and be less productive? If anything we worry about the opposite problem.&lt;p&gt;Well, unemployment is kind of a &lt;i&gt;requirement&lt;/i&gt; of capitalism. You can&amp;#x27;t have the labor force calling the shots, it eats into profits. From the article:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists.&lt;p&gt;He&amp;#x27;s being generous here, it&amp;#x27;s not just that an &amp;quot;army of the unemployed&amp;quot; almost always exists, it&amp;#x27;s a goal. Captains of industry in the current low-unemployment environment have been saying the quiet part out loud, that we need to &lt;i&gt;increase&lt;/i&gt; unemployment. There&amp;#x27;s generally a target of 5% unemployment, which means capitalism has built-in waste.</text></item><item><author>legitster</author><text>&amp;gt; Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s a pretty well written piece. I think people from all perspectives should take careful note of what he is actually advocating: discussing and figuring out the mechanisms of what a modern society should like rather than blindly following an agenda.&lt;p&gt;That said, this is a 70+ year old article, based on ideas and problems at the time. Capitalism will make people stop working and be less productive? If anything we worry about the opposite problem. College will only be a means to a career? Today academia is powerful and a political force unto itself. And we have so many welfare programs and safety nets and worker protects than Einstein was even able to dream about in 1949. In a way, we are living in a world he was advocating for.&lt;p&gt;If it was written today, I have no doubt Einstein would still care about inequality and education and politics and common &amp;quot;workers&amp;quot; enjoying life. But I also don&amp;#x27;t think I would see him caring as much about Marxism and the labor theory of value specifically as a mechanism for understanding it anymore.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Why Socialism? (1949)</title><url>https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>kmkemp</author><text>Generally speaking, low unemployment leads to the Fed raising rates, the anticipation of which, hurts stock prices.</text><parent_chain><item><author>legitster</author><text>&amp;gt; Well, unemployment is kind of a requirement of capitalism.&lt;p&gt;Says who? The only &amp;quot;requirement of capitalism&amp;quot; is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. Outside of a few niche organizations that benefit from economic distress, I think you will find a general S&amp;amp;P 500 consensus that low employment is a &lt;i&gt;good&lt;/i&gt; thing for their stock prices.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; There&amp;#x27;s generally a target of 5% unemployment, which means capitalism has built-in waste.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s because, in a free society, we have discovered that it&amp;#x27;s better to get people new and better jobs than be shackled to a milling machine from childhood.</text></item><item><author>mullingitover</author><text>&amp;gt; Capitalism will make people stop working and be less productive? If anything we worry about the opposite problem.&lt;p&gt;Well, unemployment is kind of a &lt;i&gt;requirement&lt;/i&gt; of capitalism. You can&amp;#x27;t have the labor force calling the shots, it eats into profits. From the article:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists.&lt;p&gt;He&amp;#x27;s being generous here, it&amp;#x27;s not just that an &amp;quot;army of the unemployed&amp;quot; almost always exists, it&amp;#x27;s a goal. Captains of industry in the current low-unemployment environment have been saying the quiet part out loud, that we need to &lt;i&gt;increase&lt;/i&gt; unemployment. There&amp;#x27;s generally a target of 5% unemployment, which means capitalism has built-in waste.</text></item><item><author>legitster</author><text>&amp;gt; Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s a pretty well written piece. I think people from all perspectives should take careful note of what he is actually advocating: discussing and figuring out the mechanisms of what a modern society should like rather than blindly following an agenda.&lt;p&gt;That said, this is a 70+ year old article, based on ideas and problems at the time. Capitalism will make people stop working and be less productive? If anything we worry about the opposite problem. College will only be a means to a career? Today academia is powerful and a political force unto itself. And we have so many welfare programs and safety nets and worker protects than Einstein was even able to dream about in 1949. In a way, we are living in a world he was advocating for.&lt;p&gt;If it was written today, I have no doubt Einstein would still care about inequality and education and politics and common &amp;quot;workers&amp;quot; enjoying life. But I also don&amp;#x27;t think I would see him caring as much about Marxism and the labor theory of value specifically as a mechanism for understanding it anymore.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Why Socialism? (1949)</title><url>https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/</url></story>