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

111–120 of 273 posts

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

#111

Post by sonnyblarney »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #101
sonnyblarney wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen pace." That's a very specific view of Utopia that I suggest most regular folk would not agree with, moreover, it's a bit odds with metaphysical kind of utopias from antiquity. Knowledge is ultimately still material, not necessarily enlightening. It's part of the dualist 'trap' that keeps us focused on what's right in front of our noses, 'playing…

>That's a very specific view of Utopia that I suggest most regular folk would not agree with The pain of learning and remembering and the zero-sum nature of forgetting make me disagree with it, but you can call all of those "hindrances". If I could swell my processing speed and memory capacity to absurd levels and become one of many god-like intelligences, able of satisfying all of my curiosities with any and all fac…

From a classical view, maybe you're wanting more and more intellectual heroin.

The Eastern answer would be to 'let go' then you break the cycle of incarnation and then you 'get it'.

I think high level Abrahamic metaphysics would put 'God' far beyond any kind of acquisition of knowledge, 'states of ecstasy' etc. etc..

Once we crack the law of conservation of energy we'll be up against another boundary :)

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

#112

Post by AndrewKemendo »

smacktoward wrote: post #42

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…

Goldman wasn't the kind of socialist that Orwell is describing.

Orwell was obsessively critical of Authoritarian Socialism - namely big [S] State Socialism as represented by the Soviet Union.

That is in stark contrast with Goldman's Democratic Anarcho-Socialism which shares little relation - philosophically or sentimentally - with the State Socialism that Orwell was writing about.

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

#113

Post by RangerScience »

bitwize wrote: post #94
RangerScience wrote: post #83

Perhaps it used to be the case that people had trouble imagining a utopia, but here's two solid utopias (or near enough) I've encountered in fiction: the entirety of Ian M Bank's "Culture"; and the second chapter of Cory Doctorow's "Walkaway". Also, there's the perennial example of Burning Man (and related festivals) - here's an example of people creating happiness that has little to do with the removal of scarcities…

Banks's Culture works in particular because Banks mainly wrote about contact (friendly or otherwise) with non-Culture societies. The general thesis still holds: man is not truly content without conflict and challenge. Hard SF provides a way for utopias to not stagnate and become boring: once humans have secured long life, prosperity, and harmony for themselves, they seek adventure in the big wide universe outside the…

> The general thesis still holds: man is not truly content without conflict

This isn't accurate as it applies to the Culture: The vast majority of the Culture does not engage in conflict. It also goes undepicted for the most part; the functioning of that society is hand-waved as a product of the Minds. But, it is also depicted as neither a hedonistic free for all, or a bland, blissful meditation on coexistence.

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

#114

Post by e12e »

kazen44 wrote: post #110
e12e wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly hope Syria will rise again - but I'd say it's a big difference between being well educated, functioning civil society bombed into the stone age - and being poor. Norway followed a similar path as Sweden - being quite well on its way even before we stole (negotiated for) most of the oil rights in the north sea. And like most countries after ww2 - while the devestation was great, the rebuild was rather quic…

> And like most countries after ww2 - while the devestation was great, the rebuild was rather quick. Once there was peace. And one important part of peace, was liberation and independence. independence didn't happen for a majority of countries that fought in world war 2 however. Either they got locked behind the iron curtain after being litteraly level to the ground (poland), or had to fight a bloody long war for ind…

I was indeed considering adding a caveat that I was comparing to the regions mentioned in the quote - but I suppose even for Germany, independence took quite a while. So thank you for pointing out my hypocrisy :)

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

#115

Post by hexomancer »

otakucode wrote: post #102
saagarjha wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, although that is an interesting thought: selectively forgetting things so you can relearn them later.

It would be helpful, if still dealing with a human brain, to forget things in order to remain sane. Simulated brains which have the ability to forget removed end up acting pretty much exactly like schizophrenics brains.

Do you have a source for that?

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

#116

Post by cultus »

stcredzero wrote: post #65
0x2a wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source aside from Jordan Peterson?

Look up his. He's a widely cited psychological researcher, and regarded as an authority by other researchers. His lectures like this one are based on specific research.

He is quite far outside of the psychological mainstream. Many of the ideas in his books qualify as pseudoscience. He has only become popular because he says what far right individuals want to hear. It is all banal well-trodden ideas dressed up.

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

#117

Post by stcredzero »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #112
smacktoward wrote: post #42

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…

Goldman wasn't the kind of socialist that Orwell is describing. Orwell was obsessively critical of Authoritarian Socialism - namely big [S] State Socialism as represented by the Soviet Union. That is in stark contrast with Goldman's Democratic Anarcho-Socialism which shares little relation - philosophically or sentimentally - with the State Socialism that Orwell was writing about.

Orwell was obsessively critical of Authoritarian Socialism - namely big [S] State Socialism as represented by the Soviet Union.

I don't think George Orwell would necessarily be cotton to variations of Authoritarian Socialism implemented in very large corporations.

That is in stark contrast with Goldman's Democratic Anarcho-Socialism which shares little relation - philosophically or sentimentally - with the State Socialism that Orwell was writing about.

I have friends who claim to be "anarcho-" something, who at the same time espouse state socialist politics. Their action in aggregate is often authoritarian, and I don't see how any anarchic politics can prevent the oppressive rule of a majority. As such mechanisms play out in my private life, it seems that anarchy results in less diversity of thought and virulent oppression of minority viewpoints.

EDIT: My corollary -- Oppressive tribalism is just a later stage development of anarchy.

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

#120

Post by squarefoot »

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…

"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."

Which is probably why successful oppressive regimes (the ones that don't look as such) boil their frogs very slowly.

Post reply on HN