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

161–170 of 273 posts

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

#161

Post by panarky »

smsm42 wrote: post #152
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…

> Also, there's the perennial example of Burning Man Which is a temporary outlet for a select very affluent few Westerners (non-affluent person wouldn't even be able to afford transportation and supplies, not mentioning $500 entrance fee) who drive there for a week (increasingly accompanied by air-conditioned tents and personal chefs), frolic in costumes or negligee, burn stuff down for fun and return to their regula…

Proof by example is a logical fallacy.

I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P. Therefore, membership in X causes property P.

I can play this game too.

Haiti, Ethiopia, Liberia, India, Honduras and Somalia have market economies, and they are poor. Therefore, market economies make nations poor.

There's really not much to learn from this kind of argument.

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

#162

Post by krustyburger »

panarky wrote: post #161
smsm42 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, there's the perennial example of Burning Man Which is a temporary outlet for a select very affluent few Westerners (non-affluent person wouldn't even be able to afford transportation and supplies, not mentioning $500 entrance fee) who drive there for a week (increasingly accompanied by air-conditioned tents and personal chefs), frolic in costumes or negligee, burn stuff down for fun and return to their regula…

Proof by example is a logical fallacy. I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P. Therefore, membership in X causes property P. I can play this game too. Haiti, Ethiopia, Liberia, India, Honduras and Somalia have market economies, and they are poor. Therefore, market economies make nations poor. There's really not much to learn from this kind of argument.

It seems that the phenomena the parent describes were or are present in all instances of fully implemented socialism to date, not just in the USSR.

Since you edited to add your counter-examples, I’ll edit to point out that socialism is a system that has been deliberately implemented by its instantiators in each case I’m aware of. To compare it to capitalism, but only those capitalist countries that have suffered lawlessness or other calamity, is to compare apples to oranges.

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

#163

Post by CptFribble »

smsm42 wrote: post #152
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…

> Also, there's the perennial example of Burning Man Which is a temporary outlet for a select very affluent few Westerners (non-affluent person wouldn't even be able to afford transportation and supplies, not mentioning $500 entrance fee) who drive there for a week (increasingly accompanied by air-conditioned tents and personal chefs), frolic in costumes or negligee, burn stuff down for fun and return to their regula…

Socialism is like capitalism, or democracy: there are a lot of ways to do it. It doesn't necessarily require going money-free.

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

#164

Post by panarky »

krustyburger wrote: post #162
panarky wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof by example is a logical fallacy. I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P. Therefore, membership in X causes property P. I can play this game too. Haiti, Ethiopia, Liberia, India, Honduras and Somalia have market economies, and they are poor. Therefore, market economies make nations poor. There's really not much to learn from this kind of argument.

It seems that the phenomena the parent describes were or are present in all instances of fully implemented socialism to date, not just in the USSR. Since you edited to add your counter-examples, I’ll edit to point out that socialism is a system that has been deliberately implemented by its instantiators in each case I’m aware of. To compare it to capitalism, but only those capitalist countries that have suffered lawl…

You don't need to speak Russian to understand the nomenklatura. It's a group of privileged people who are appointed to positions of power based on their personal loyalty to the leader or to the party.

Seems like a very familiar concept ripped from today's headlines, certainly not restricted to archaic economic systems.

I usually find that apples and oranges are quite easy to compare.

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

#165

Post by PeterisP »

DannyB2 wrote: post #104

Just an opinion here. The article says a number of things about the Christian Heaven. But fails to recognize the premise is that people who go there are changed. On the inside. There is peace, on the outside, because there is peace in the heart, on the inside. There is contentment, because it is on the inside. There isn't a lust for power and control over other people's lives. Nor any shortage of resources. And the b…

To that regard, there's the Serenity prayer that starts with "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, ...", and one such thing certainly is "... seeds of destruction are on our insides. It is us ..."

Yes, there are many human behaviors that hamper creating ideal kingdoms. However, these drives and motivations and everything else related is fundamentally a part of how we're built, part of what we are. An individual can change, but humanity at its core can not, there are some aspects dominated by culture but the major factors (including many of the "seeds of desctruction") are innate to almost all humans or even to almost all mammals. We can imagine many societies that would function great if humans were different; but we aren't. Perhaps we'll be able to design creatures with different minds that lack these defects, using some advanced genetic engineering or cybernetic enhancements or something else - but those creatures would not be entirely humans, homo sapiens, it wouldn't be us, they'd be something different.

Heaven or some other Utopia involving people 'changed on the inside' doesn't work for people. It works for some beings that are not people any more, even if they were once, because their core, their essence, their motivations and feelings has been substantially, fundamentally changed. Heaven is for angels; I'm not one, and I can't be one - if I'd become one, that wouldn't be me anymore.

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

#166

Post by yourbandsucks »

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.

Peterson advocates an all beef diet. Not a low carb diet, literally only. beef.

Your call whether he's a crank.

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

#167

Post by krustyburger »

panarky wrote: post #164
krustyburger wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that the phenomena the parent describes were or are present in all instances of fully implemented socialism to date, not just in the USSR. Since you edited to add your counter-examples, I’ll edit to point out that socialism is a system that has been deliberately implemented by its instantiators in each case I’m aware of. To compare it to capitalism, but only those capitalist countries that have suffered lawl…

You don't need to speak Russian to understand the nomenklatura. It's a group of privileged people who are appointed to positions of power based on their personal loyalty to the leader or to the party. Seems like a very familiar concept ripped from today's headlines, certainly not restricted to archaic economic systems. I usually find that apples and oranges are quite easy to compare.

You seem to have a habit of dramatically changing your comments after you’ve posted them, without noting that you’ve done so. In this case, you originally posted only what now seems to be your final sentence, the one about apples and oranges, then added everything that now precedes it. I have the sense that you are hoping for a political argument.

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

#168

Post by pm90 »

panarky wrote: post #164
krustyburger wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that the phenomena the parent describes were or are present in all instances of fully implemented socialism to date, not just in the USSR. Since you edited to add your counter-examples, I’ll edit to point out that socialism is a system that has been deliberately implemented by its instantiators in each case I’m aware of. To compare it to capitalism, but only those capitalist countries that have suffered lawl…

You don't need to speak Russian to understand the nomenklatura. It's a group of privileged people who are appointed to positions of power based on their personal loyalty to the leader or to the party. Seems like a very familiar concept ripped from today's headlines, certainly not restricted to archaic economic systems. I usually find that apples and oranges are quite easy to compare.

Not only are you not answering the parents genuine questions, you are trying to distract attention by attempting to be clever. You are not making an argument in good faith. Please stop.

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

#169

Post by sabarn01 »

pdonis wrote: post #149
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…

> 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…

If someone comes and robs you in and anarco-* society what remedy do you have. Not doing business with them in the future seems mild. Getting others to ostracize them will basically become a game of who has better social connections or the larger family. If I go and steal back my property am I subject to his retaliation. Can I murder his relative in retaliation.

The reason I ask these questions is we have a lot of evidence of what happens in societies with out 3rd party enforcement and it usually doesn't tend toward individual safety or security.

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

#170

Post by skookumchuck »

panarky wrote: post #161
smsm42 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, there's the perennial example of Burning Man Which is a temporary outlet for a select very affluent few Westerners (non-affluent person wouldn't even be able to afford transportation and supplies, not mentioning $500 entrance fee) who drive there for a week (increasingly accompanied by air-conditioned tents and personal chefs), frolic in costumes or negligee, burn stuff down for fun and return to their regula…

Proof by example is a logical fallacy. I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P. Therefore, membership in X causes property P. I can play this game too. Haiti, Ethiopia, Liberia, India, Honduras and Somalia have market economies, and they are poor. Therefore, market economies make nations poor. There's really not much to learn from this kind of argument.

If you want another, more benign, example, look at American military bases. You've got base housing, base grocery store, base furniture, base movie theater, base bookstore, base clothing store, base restaurants, base barber shop.

You are issued things like housing.

There's a pecking order based on rank. If ranks are equal, there is an alternative barter economy based on who owes who favors (instead of money).

Although all your needs are provided for (at massive cost to the taxpayer), it isn't a happy way to live.

Post reply on HN