Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
1–10 of 273 posts
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#2Come on
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#3The problem, at least back then, was that fun and such “non-essential” things were considered either bourgeois or vulgar. Both of which were looked down upon because they were the opposite of work and progress and the greater good. At least to some in power.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#4The problem, at least back then, was that fun and such “non-essential” things were considered either bourgeois or vulgar. Both of which were looked down upon because they were the opposite of work and progress and the greater good. At least to some in power.
This comment looks almost entirely unrelated to the text of the linked article.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#5The problem, at least back then, was that fun and such “non-essential” things were considered either bourgeois or vulgar. Both of which were looked down upon because they were the opposite of work and progress and the greater good. At least to some in power.
> Both of which were looked down upon because they were the opposite of work and progress and the greater good. At least to some in power.
Only because their system was so fragile and wasteful that it couldn't be afforded... It's not a product of the 'times' but of the circumstances created by the community/state.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#6I'm always amazed at how readable and relevant Orwell remains. This essay is a good example.
It would seem that human beings are not able to describe, nor perhaps to imagine, happiness except in terms of contrast. ...
I wonder if this also works in reverse: humans are incapable of describing or imagining unhappiness except in terms of contrast.
This reminds me of a line that goes something like: revolutions happen not because of poverty but through the process of a society becoming poorer.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#7Judging by the list of "Ignorance, war, poverty, dirt, disease, frustration, hunger, fear, overwork, superstition all vanished." it seems many of us are living in a utopia yet we still aren't satisfied.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#8The problem, at least back then, was that fun and such “non-essential” things were considered either bourgeois or vulgar. Both of which were looked down upon because they were the opposite of work and progress and the greater good. At least to some in power.
Where exactly?
I know of a few subcultures in the United States that would have felt that way at that point in time.
It wasn't universally true in the US, is there a particular region you are referring to?
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#9There's a fundamental conflict between conceptual Utopia/Heaven and the law of supply and demand. All literary conceptions of a utopia rely on abundance of some good that is scarce in the author's time. Usually ignoring that its ubiquity makes it tend toward zero value.
Here's my stab at Utopia, but it requires a belief that Knowledge is infinite:
Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen pace.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#10This article focuses on a utopia of worldy pleasures, and goes on to explain why such a place would be a pretty boring place to live. But that’s just human nature: we’re never permently satisfied with what we have. The only way that we feel happiness from these things is if we get more of whatever it is, and that’s kind of impossible in a utopia. However, I still think there’s a way to get satisfaction out of a world like this: through learning. Even if we, at some point, discover everything there is to know, I think it’s still possible to find joy, since there people will be born unaware of this knowledge. Perhaps we might even mark a lifetime by the amount of time it takes to learn everything.