Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

JetSpiegel wrote: post #135

stcredzero wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism Plenty of people demonize capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. So you're admitting that it's a losing proposition for getting anything done? The banner of anarchy seems to be good at organizing people into bu…

If they are organized they are not Anarchists, right? That's the point.

Also, if they are violent identitarians, then they aren't for justice and equality. People fly false flags all the time. That doesn't make the toxic ones any less toxic or harmful.

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

#142

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:39 PM UTC

eseehausen wrote: post #99

otakucode wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, I think going much further down that line of reasoning, you will discover something unpleasant: The winning, for some, isn't as important as someone else losing.

Which can still happen in a simulated way that minimizes harm but maximizes perceived harm by the inflictor. The gory death of an opponent in an FPS who respawns without incident elsewhere, for instance.

Which can still happen in a simulated way that minimizes harm but maximizes perceived harm by the inflictor.

The old form of this is known as "sports."

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

#143

Post by bena » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #140

bena wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anarchists have really thought through their position or have noticed particular ironies within it. At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves. I do my thing, you do your thing, it's all good. Until the thing I want to do interferes with your thing. And yes, we could come to some agreement. But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and j…

But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you. There is a brand of "anarchist" which is doing just this in 2018. But that's a winning strategy. And don't think the assholes won't notice. Then they get groups. The history of scenes, groups, and movements of all kinds tells us that such things are started by idealists, but eventually get suborned…

That's why you need a system designed to tolerate assholes. It's not an easy problem because where there are rules, there are ways to play to the rules.

But I'm not an advocate for anarchy in any fashion. It's a situation where I can respect (some of) their desires, but don't think they've chosen the proper way to achieve those desires.

And I think it's important to clarify that I don't think anarchy is inherently evil when I'm responding to someone who is trying to say that anarchy is generally thought of as "evil". (Which to be honest I don't think it is, I think it is mostly seen as juvenile.)

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

#144

Post by discreteevent » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

adiusmus wrote: post #133

stcredzero wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can't really tell the difference between real and simulated risk. Even so, some of us have our kids play baseball-like games where they're not even allowed to strike out.

Or kids playing football with no scores shown. The mind boggles.

The mind boggles. That's a fair comment. Here's the logic: Young children are obsessed with winning and losing. If you coach a game and say it was a draw or that you didn't keep score they will insist that one or the other side lost - even if it is their side.

The problem is that they are not always able to keep some kind of perspective on this obsession unlike most adults. So they may either start playing in a very defensive way, or just always give the ball to the big guy on their team. In general this means that they fail to explore and express themselves and develop skills. In the worst case they just drop out.

So the aim of de-emphasising the winning at a young age is so that you develop winners in the long run. New Zealand, the world champions in rugby, do this. The end product is a ruthless winning machine.

Children are not small adults, mentally or physically and most coaches have to be taught this explicitly (including me)

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

#145

Post by acomar » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

JetSpiegel wrote: post #135

stcredzero wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism Plenty of people demonize capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. So you're admitting that it's a losing proposition for getting anything done? The banner of anarchy seems to be good at organizing people into bu…

If they are organized they are not Anarchists, right? That's the point.

That's nonsensical and ahistorical. Anarchism is the opposition to unjust hierarchy, those relationships that put some people over others and prioritizes their needs or whims. The liberal democratic state is one such hierarchical institution but far from the only one. Anarchists seek to replace the governance of people with the administration of things. How we ought to organize society for justice, for liberty, is the fundamental question anarchists seek to answer. That there are so many different tendencies (syndicalists, mutualists, Marxists, etc.) reveals that there are many answers.

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

#146

Post by petre » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:47 PM UTC

bena wrote: post #134

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a…

I don't think anarchists have really thought through their position or have noticed particular ironies within it. At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves. I do my thing, you do your thing, it's all good. Until the thing I want to do interferes with your thing. And yes, we could come to some agreement. But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and j…

We have assholes anyway with organized society and voting, especially in presidential republics. Because asshole psychopaths will do anything in their power to rise and rule over others. Just look at Erdogan. The only solution to that is direct democracy backed up by people bearing arms. Maybe Switzerland is the closest modern equivalent. With anarchism you'd probably end up with factions fighthing amongst each other and then one faction rising over them and assuming control. You just have to look at the history of medieval Japan to see that: civil war, factions fighting amongst each other, then the reunification followed by the peaceful Edo period.

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

#147

Post by pokemongoaway » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #47

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…

Agreed!

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

#148

Post by 0x2a » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:53 PM UTC

Presquare wrote: post #137

cultus wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For people not aware of Peterson, I want you not to take the parent comment seriously. Peterson is a highly polarizing figure, and people tend to have very strong positive/negative opinions about him. Thus the parent comment is an example of someone feeling very negatively about him, and not an accurate representation of him or his ideas.

It’s not though. What was stated is pretty well documented: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

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

#149

Post by pdonis » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 9:57 PM UTC

bena wrote: post #134

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a…

I don't think anarchists have really thought through their position or have noticed particular ironies within it. At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves. I do my thing, you do your thing, it's all good. Until the thing I want to do interferes with your thing. And yes, we could come to some agreement. But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and j…

> At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves.

No, it isn't. Anarchists can cooperate; in fact, rational anarchists will certainly cooperate with each other, to reap the benefits of specialization and trade and comparative advantage.

What anarchists object to is being forced to cooperate when, if left to themselves, they would choose not to.

> there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you.

These people exist whether society is an anarchy or not. The difference is, in an anarchy, they have no way to capture more resources and power by, for example, becoming politicians or regulators or lobbyists or heads of corporations getting government favors. Whereas, in the system we have now...

In other words, anarchists are basically pointing out that trying to "fix" the problem of assholes by having a government is a "cure" that is worse than the disease.

> Someone needs to enforce the social contract.

You enforce the social contract socially: by refusing to deal with people who do not respect it. In an anarchy, everyone has that option; and therefore people who do not respect the social contract quickly find themselves ostracized and powerless.

Whereas, in the system we have now, people can break the social contract with impunity without losing anything, if they can get themselves into certain privileged positions.

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

#150

Post by tormeh » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

Someguywhatever wrote: post #125

bitwize wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also Banks culture is run by omniscient AI's, and not by humans, this removes the problem of human corruption, greed etc. I don't think any post scarcity society can exist that is run by humans.

I mean, we have enough food for everyone now. We are post scarcity right now with regards to food. Yet people starve. Usually due to war and conflict, not corruption, but still.