Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

orwell.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 273 posts

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#41

Post by n4r9 »

projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

> Utopia is about letting people live in a manner that they would want

One of the lessons I learnt from Huxley's Brave New World is that this phrasing is very ambiguous and the meaning of utopia is more complicated, if the word is indeed meaningful. The people in BNW live in the manner that they desire, but not many would call it a utopia. Sure, those desires themselves are the result of genetic and environmental conditioning, but so are ours!

It seems to me that Huxley is saying that some element of struggle and overcoming of adversity is necessary for human flourishing.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#42

Post by smacktoward »

At the dances I was one of the most untiring and gayest. One evening a cousin of Sasha [Alexander Berkman], a young boy, took me aside. With a grave face, as if he were about to announce the death of a dear comrade, he whispered to me that it did not behoove an agitator to dance. Certainly not with such reckless abandon, anyway. It was undignified for one who was on the way to become a force in the anarchist movement. My frivolity would only hurt the Cause.

I grew furious at the impudent interference of the boy. I told him to mind his own business, I was tired of having the Cause constantly thrown into my face. I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from conventions and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy. I insisted that our Cause could not expect me to become a nun and that the movement should not be turned into a cloister. If it meant that, I did not want it. "I want freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody's right to beautiful, radiant things."

-- Emma Goldman, Living My Life (1931) http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/goldman/Features/danceswithfemin...

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#44

Post by ConceptJunkie »

n4r9 wrote: post #41
projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

> Utopia is about letting people live in a manner that they would want One of the lessons I learnt from Huxley's Brave New World is that this phrasing is very ambiguous and the meaning of utopia is more complicated, if the word is indeed meaningful. The people in BNW live in the manner that they desire, but not many would call it a utopia. Sure, those desires themselves are the result of genetic and environmental con…

Between Huxley ("Brave New World") and Orwell ("1984"), I think Huxley saw the future more accurately, although Orwell has amazing insights.

I actually thought that "Wall-E" was a good, and particularly accessible, commentary on utopia. Without the need to strive, we might all just turn into human potatoes. I'm not far from that now, which is pretty frightening.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#45

Post by ConceptJunkie »

daodedickinson wrote: post #37
apo wrote: post #6

I'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 no…

Hmm... I guess I'm not amazed that something written less than 100 years ago seems relevant when Aristophanes is still hilarious.

Yeah, the human condition, and human nature, aren't exactly changing.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#46

Post by ConceptJunkie »

petermcneeley wrote: post #39

"This Christmas Day, thousands of men will be bleeding to death in the Russian snows, or drowning in icy waters, or blowing one another to pieces on swampy islands of the Pacific; homeless children will be scrabbling for food among the wreckage of German cities." - Should be some context for how completely alien the world of the writer is to us now.

It may be alien to us, but there are millions of people for which this describes their reality.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#47

Post by stcredzero »

Here you have a picture of the world as Wells would like to see it or thinks he would like to see it. It is a world whose keynotes are enlightened hedonism and scientific curiosity. All the evils and miseries we now suffer from have vanished. Ignorance, war, poverty, dirt, disease, frustration, hunger, fear, overwork, superstition all vanished...But is there anyone who actually wants to live in a Wellsian Utopia? On the contrary, not to live in a world like that, not to wake up in a hygenic garden suburb infested by naked schoolmarms, has actually become a conscious political motive.

This is a neat summary of the ideological contradiction of the Bay Area and Silicon Valley. Everyone wants edginess with safety, but no one wants the Disnified, safe version of edginess. We want the hard-nosed meritocracy of innovation, technical prowess, and commerce, but we don't want to let our children risk even the failure of losing in sports.

All ‘favourable’ Utopias seem to be alike in postulating perfection while being unable to suggest happiness.

'Favorable' Utopias are like Mary Sue characters or fanfics without real conflict. There is no interest without real risk and real adversity. Even Iain M. Bank's Culture universe has imperfections, conflict, and death, even if there are untold trillions in it living idyllic lives of enlightened hedonism and curiosity.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#48

Post by stcredzero »

projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have

The psychological research suggests that this is how people are wired up. Just as we're wired up to consume fat and sugar whenever we come across it, we're basically wired up to start marauding our neighbors if they're way richer than we are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#49

Post by orwellsadvocate »

petermcneeley wrote: post #39

"This Christmas Day, thousands of men will be bleeding to death in the Russian snows, or drowning in icy waters, or blowing one another to pieces on swampy islands of the Pacific; homeless children will be scrabbling for food among the wreckage of German cities." - Should be some context for how completely alien the world of the writer is to us now.

"This Christmas Day, hundreds of men will be bleeding to death in the Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan sands, or blowing one another to pieces in the Mexican drug wars; homeless children will be begging in the streets of one of the wealthiest nations in history".

I know that it's not fair to compare the death rates today to that during the height of WWII, but _completely_ alien? That seems extreme to me. There's still plenty of suffering, and while it may not be quite so universal as it was during the 1940s, it's still prevalent enough that the essay should be relevant today.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#50

Post by mtberatwork »

larrydag wrote: post #29
ballenf wrote: post #9

There'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…

The U.S. founding fathers had another definition which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is very individualized. Suggests it is relevant to the one as opposed to relevant to the masses. Very anti-elitist on its own merit.

Well, individualized to the gentry and those with enough wealth to avoid labor, but certainly not the slave population.
Post reply on HN