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…
Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
171–180 of 273 posts
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#172I'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…
> revolutions happen not because of poverty but through the process of a society becoming poorer. I don't think it's the case that most of them start because the society as a whole had become poorer, but because some particular segment has, while others accumulate wealth. It's not really worth having a revolution if there's nothing of value to seize. A lot of revolutions started as tax revolts by the wealthy, in fact…
‘No taxation without representation!’
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The “pursuit of happiness” is what is being discussed, given that “life” and “liberty” are already guaranteed. The question is, how exactly to pursue happiness.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#174Earlier 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.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, JBP does have quite a persuasive song and dance that bedevils his detractors - he is a slippery one! Even so, his research is widely cited as GP stated: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en It is an inconvenient fact that scientific and scholarly study does occur whose conclusions will not agree with our deeply-held ideologies. Just take it all in and try not to take any offense when you…
> Even so, his research is widely cited as GP stated: Isn't it funny that you still can't answer the basic original question: where are JBP's sources for his extraordinary claims? Instead of giving us a song and a dance about ideologies and other nonsense why not just answer the damn question?
Before I waste my time digging up useful bibliographies and citations that JBP draws from, I'd like to know that you aren't a complete ideologue, haven't already made up your mind, and are willing to have a discussion.
Is suspect you cannot separate the agenda-driven, public showman JBP who draws his material from the legit scientist and natural philosopher, published JBP because you abhor the agenda.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#176Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ev…
The one point I will make is that, when people imagine anarchy, they imagine the society we have now, and then just take away government and all its functions, such as police. Of course what you get when you imagine that is terrible. But it's terrible not because anarchy is terrible, but because our society has evolved for centuries to (a) assume that government will always be there, and (b) gradually put more and more functions on government, even if they would actually be better done privately.
Of course what you get if you take a society like that and just remove government will be bad; but that's not a fair picture of what a society that had evolved for a long time as an anarchy--i.e., in which people understood that there was no government to "fix" all their problems, so they need to come up with workable solutions themselves--would look like. Friedman's book is an attempt to imagine that, in detail.
> we have a lot of evidence of what happens in societies with out 3rd party enforcement
No, we don't. We have a few failed states like Somalia today, but they are few; almost all societies on the planet today have governments.
However, when you start looking back at historical examples, you find much more promising cases. One that Friedman discusses in his book is saga period Iceland, which did quite well for centuries with no government. Other examples are some of the American colonies--Pennsylvania up until the 1750s or so is a good case--which, while they had entities they called governments, used them for nothing except to represent them in negotiations with other colonies and with the British government. These "governments" had no law enforcement powers and no powers of taxation, and people came up with various private means of working together and enforcing what we would call "laws" (but which were not brought into being by legislative fiat, but by contractual agreements between individuals).
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
But in an anarchistic society there is no mechanism to stop those who collectivize to monopolize the fruits of the commons. Strong-arm thugs can follow a leader to extort as desired the things they wish- ostracism is no response at all to roving pillagers.
Sure there is: citizens with guns. In an anarchy, there is no centralized power, so thugs have no advantage in that respect over armed law-abiding citizens. And thugs have a big disadvantage: they do not cooperate in productive endeavors, so they don't accumulate wealth.
> ostracism is no response at all to roving pillagers.
Sure, but it's not the only available response either. See above.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
It seems to me that this argument essentially relies on everyone being an anarchist. This is not the case for systems we have observed in reality - totalitarian regimes can function even if significant parts of population don't want to be in a totalitarian regime; democracies can function (perhaps poorly, but function) even if significant parts of population don't agree with core principles of democracy; oligarchies…
Yes, this is a fair point, and is probably the main reason anarchic societies have not been more common historically. It also doesn't help that pretty much all humans on the planet have now been conditioned for at least some centuries now, if not longer, that a society has to have a government to function, so they can't even conceive the alternative.
Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in an anarchistic society there is no mechanism to stop those who collectivize to monopolize the fruits of the commons. Strong-arm thugs can follow a leader to extort as desired the things they wish- ostracism is no response at all to roving pillagers.
> in an anarchistic society there is no mechanism to stop those who collectivize to monopolize the fruits of the commons Sure there is: citizens with guns. In an anarchy, there is no centralized power, so thugs have no advantage in that respect over armed law-abiding citizens. And thugs have a big disadvantage: they do not cooperate in productive endeavors, so they don't accumulate wealth. > ostracism is no response…
I mean, really? Thugs don’t work together? That’s basically the history of humanity in the absence of a state, it’s what knighthood and aristocracies were. Thugs, working together to the bare chaotic minimum required to keep the peasants in line.
Edit: How are you going to get the guns? Remember we're imagining an anarchy, where you can't get guns by taking over the military (there isn't any) or the government (there isn't any). You would have to either make them yourself (a productive endeavor, which thugs don't do--see below) or trade for them (which means you would have to have something worth trading, which again requires productive endeavor) or steal them (but how are you going to steal them when you don't have any weapons to begin with, but the people who make the weapons by productive endeavors do?).
Unless your anarchist society has the tech to make all existing guns and weapons evaporate then they’ll be for the taking. If not, without a government my buddies and I can get a warehouse full of CNC machines and mill assault rifles until the go out of fashion. With no oversight, no need for secrecy, weapons are easy to make. Hell, I’d be shocked if quite a few people here couldn’t make their own nuclear pile if no one was there to stop them, and work their way back to nuclear weapons. Even barring that, again, many people here on HN have the information in their heads to make napalm, explosives, and a variety of poisons including nerve agents. The reason they don’t is sanity, society, and international controls. Take that away and it would be trivial to gas your annoying neighbors.
Also, haven’t we already established that thugs can work together? See: all of human history. They just need aligned goals for however long it takes to crush dissent, then turn on each other. Even the Middle Ages has craftsmen and smiths, and they were essentially owned by thugs who used them like a resource.
Basically, as I said in response to another poster downthread, you are imagining an anarchy as just like our society, but with government and governmental law enforcement suddenly removed.
Unless you’re just entertaining a fantasy with no basis in reality and our lives, I’m thinking of anarchy at some time in the future, which means guns, bombs, aircraft carriers, ICBM’s already exist and can’t be wished away. If you propose a gradual turnover then you need every government and member of those governments to agree, sat which point you don’t actually need anarchy anymore, because you’ve already united the world. If you can conjure an anarchistic future not base on absolute fantasy, which doesn’t turn out horribly I’d be amazed.