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

181–190 of 273 posts

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

#181

Post by briandear »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #129
stcredzero wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they use just a little less evil. From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presentin…

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…

> People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.

Bread and circuses.

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

#183

Post by Semiapies »

Seems like a good counterpoint to the silly, loaded argument of "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas", which boils down to "Can you imagine a perfect, happy, society and take that seriously?"

The answer is that few people really can, even among those people who think society can be perfected.

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

#184

Post by dtoma »

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…

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "socialism". France is a very socialist country (esp. compared to the US of A), yet we are nothing like the USSR. Same goes for many EU countries. Aren't you talking about oligarchies rather than socialist regimes? The fact that some oligarchies were born under the pretense of socialism doesn't mean socialism was the cause.

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

#185

Post by pdonis »

GW150914 wrote: post #180
pdonis wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Note to self, get biggest guns, most people with guns, dominate society, set up theocracy with me as godhead, assemble harem, make sure sure court jesters are committed ideologues who thought reinventing feudalism was smart. 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 cha…

> get biggest guns

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?).

> Thugs don’t work together?

They work together at being thugs (though even that tends to be limited). They don't work together in productive endeavors, which is what I said.

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. That's how you can imagine, for example, that there are all these guns lying around that you can just take (because previously government and law enforcement was preventing you from taking them, but that's gone now, and since government has largely disarmed citizens, they won't be able to resist you). But that's not what a functioning anarchy, in a society that had evolved to be an anarchy (as our current society has evolved to have governments doing lots and lots of things and micromanaging our lives) would be like.

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

#187

Post by GabrielBen »

dtoma wrote: post #184
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…

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "socialism". France is a very socialist country (esp. compared to the US of A), yet we are nothing like the USSR. Same goes for many EU countries. Aren't you talking about oligarchies rather than socialist regimes? The fact that some oligarchies were born under the pretense of socialism doesn't mean socialism was the cause.

It is one of the great debates of our generation wether democratic socialism will show plenitude or the road to serfdom. Although I am not as grim as classical libertarians, im not positive those organizations will last.

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

#188

Post by conanbatt »

tormeh wrote: post #150
Someguywhatever wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You still require humans to exert labor in all those steps. Post scarcity would require virtually no labor for them. We are very far away from that

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

#189

Post by stale2002 »

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 think that people need to look at the world around them.

Right now, there are tons of goods that are effectively post scarcity.

The amount of free information and entertainment (available online) is insanely higher than anything that existed even 20 years ago.

The post scarcity Utopia is being created right now, by capitalism.

Post scarcity is something that applies on a per good basis. For example nobody has ever had to pay for the air that they breath, because air isnt a scarce good. And post scarcity is being quickly applied to more and more goods.

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

#190

Post by dnomad »

EdSharkey wrote: post #175
dnomad wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't know if you and I can see eye-to-eye on the reasons for and the importance of having one's articles cited by the rest of the academic community. Citations of one's work indicates thought leadership in the academic community regardless of how much you personally disagree with those thoughts. Before I waste my time digging up useful bibliographies and citations that JBP draws from, I'd like to know that you are…

You keep making excuses.

Let's review:

> 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.

This is an extraordinary claim. JBP is irrelevant. I'd be interested in any citations to any literature that supports this claim.

I suspect you have zero reputable sources which is why you've fixated on JBP and "agenda"s etc.

Historically, massive inequality has been the norm. There's likely never been a landed society that did not exhibit severe inequality. If humans were "wired up" to commit violence in the face of inequality history would be very different. Instead massively unequal societies like Pharaonic Egypt can be stable for thousands of years. Revolts have always been rare and they don't emerge until (1) things get really bad eg biblical revolutions driven by famine and (2) the formation of a counter-elite that organizes the poor eg most modern revolutions, American, French, Russian.

Regardless of whatever nonsense JBP spouts and regardless of his academic work (absolutely none of which, on cursory glance, involve economics or history or politics) I would hope that the historical record is plain to all and "facts" that contravene the historical record are rejected prima facie.

By the way there is a strong link between poverty and violence but I think most researchers accept that this is very much a modern phenomenon.

Post reply on HN