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

191–200 of 273 posts

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

#191

Post by PinkMilkshake »

stcredzero wrote: post #117
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Soci…

> I have friends who claim to be "anarcho-" something, who at the same time espouse state socialist politics.

I think we have the same friends. I've never met a true anarchist. I've found that when pushed enough, they tend to be authoritarians in disguise, and they are only shout "Down with the system!" as a generalization of "Down with the system I don't like!".

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

#192

Post by byproxy »

pdonis wrote: post #177
sabarn01 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom goes into detail about these kinds of scenarios. There is far too much there to summarize here. 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 terribl…

Wouldn't you say humanity started out in an anarchistic state? It seems that the "workable solutions" tended towards more and more governing until we ended up where we're at. Sure, there were imperialist powers that forced their wills and ways upon other regions, but those powers were still a product of the same initial government-deficient base state. If we we were to start tabula rasa why wouldn't we end up as we are now? Maybe by crafting stories of how bad things are now as some sort of morality tales/warning (religion?), though that'd require hindsight of humanity as a bureaucratic mess which means we'd have to go through this current state anyway.

I hope I made a bit of sense.

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

#193

Post by psandersen »

stcredzero wrote: post #89
psandersen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great comment, and I just wanted to add that imagining what a fictional high tech utopia would look like was what inspired Iain M. Banks to write the culture series. For anyone interested in tech and the far future its a must read.

But even there, there is conflict, unrequited desire, and death. Even among beings we could regard as godlike in comparison to ourselves. Even among super-people who lack for nothing, who can even choose genders, and who can live hundreds of years or many millennia if so chosen.

Absolutely, its a novel and there are around 50 trillion 'baseline' humans not that different from us. Banks himself has said he has focused on writing more about people who are edge cases or less normal in the culture to keep things interesting, and at that scale there will be a lot of people at the tale ends of the distribution.

IMHO the culture novel is as close to a far out tech utopia as you can write without making humanity completely unrecognizable while creating interesting stories that have general scifi appeal. It deliberately breaks tropes such as the machines having more personality than the humans and adds a good dose of British humor.

I see it as inspiration for what our AI & other tech could lead to, a bit of a thought experiment and less as a verbatim ideal.

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

#194

Post by haihaibye »

ballenf wrote: post #9

There's a fundamental conflict between conceptual Utopia/Heaven and the law of supply and demand. All literary conceptions of a utopia rely on abundance of some good that is scarce in the author's time. Usually ignoring that its ubiquity makes it tend toward zero value. Here's my stab at Utopia, but it requires a belief that Knowledge is infinite: Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen…

The internet contains information on almost every topic for free. Most people spend their time watching cat videos.

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

#195

Post by CryptoPunk »

13415 wrote: post #79
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #7

Judging by the list of "Ignorance, war, poverty, dirt, disease, frustration, hunger, fear, overwork, superstition all vanished." it seems many of us are living in a utopia yet we still aren't satisfied.

Fear is everywhere nowadays, it seems to power capitalism or at least is encouraged by it. I suspect the reason is that actual capitalism (as opposed to the ideal construct) is more based on Social Darwinism and capital accumulation than on trading for the mutual benefit of all market participants.

>>I suspect the reason is that actual capitalism (as opposed to the ideal construct) is more based on Social Darwinism and capital accumulation than on trading for the mutual benefit of all market participants.

The ideal construct of a market economy is not based on "trading for the mutual benefit of all market participants".

As Adam Smith so sagely put it 250 years ago:

>>It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

The mutual benefit is an emergent outcome, not a conscious intent of any particular participant.

Advocacy of market economics is largely based on a sober outlook on the nature of man, and a pragmatic plan for improving its condition.

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

#197

Post by TimTheTinker »

rcoveson wrote: post #153
jmawesome wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of peace in the heart in Christian Heaven is an idea entirely absent in the New Testament. Peace, in the NT, is always interpersonal--and it's this very thing that causes conceptions of heaven to fail. To describe it as peaceful, as tranquil is not the point. To describe it as peaceful, where all have been reconciled and relationships have been restored starts to capture an essence of what the purpose is.

Would it be fair to describe it as a place where nothing ever happens?

Actually, there's a lot of activity, responsibility, and work to be done once heaven arrives. A few thoughts:

In the final state, there will be new heavens and a new earth (i.e. a very physical Earth like we know it now, with mountains, trees, grass, animals) -- a sort of Eden restored, but better, since God's throne and presence will be on the earth, instead of in a separate place (Revelation 22, Isaiah 11). There will be cities to rule, a lot of responsibility and work to do, many "ages to come" in which things will change (scripture references provided on request).

Imagine the grandeur of Tolkien's and Lewis's fantasy novels -- the ages upon ages of interesting history and characters. I honestly don't understand how the narrative will work without any antagonists present, because we presently understand narratives via conflict and resolution. The "they lived happily ever after" seems rather bereft of content, and is kept for the very end of stories. I suspect that's because we have yet to see what the great, true "happily ever after" looks like.

However, the boredom with eternity that Orwell alludes to will not be present, simply because of the person of God. He is full of infinite love, creativity, power, etc... and he will be the delight of all who are there -- that sort of ever-flowing fountain of life and "newness". Indeed, without God himself, everything would get incredibly dull after a while. Jesus says as much in his prayer to the Father in John 17: ".. and this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." The "life" here is love, joy, and peace, not merely length of days.

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

#198

Post by jpatokal »

merdreubu wrote: post #139
beat wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But millions less than there were even a few decades ago. The world is making progress toward peace, health, safety, and a decent standard of living at an extraordinary pace right now. This is not to say everything is hunky-dory. But it is to say that this is no longer World War II. edit: Where do you think all the Syrian and Lebanese restaurants in America came from? Refugees from the collapse of the Ottoman empire…

>If Sweden can evolve from an impoverished hellhole to being the epitome of modern civilization in a century, why can't the same thing happen to Syria? Or Sudan? Or Myanmar? I think it can, and it will. Except Sweden one hundred years ago was not an impoverished hellhole. In fact, it was one of the richest (maybe the richest) countries on earth, smack in the middle of the most developed, richest and urbanized part of…

Sweden in the 1920s was indeed in a comparatively sweet spot, but so was much of Western world before the Great Depression and WW2 hit. However, by modern standards, Sweden was still quite poor and agrarian: life expectancy for both men and women was under 50 years until the 1890s, and it was the last nation in Europe to experience a major natural famine in 1867-9, with ~15% of the population dying.

http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subjec...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_famine_of_1867%E2%80%9...

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

#199

Post by perilunar »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #31
ballenf wrote: post #9

There's a fundamental conflict between conceptual Utopia/Heaven and the law of supply and demand. All literary conceptions of a utopia rely on abundance of some good that is scarce in the author's time. Usually ignoring that its ubiquity makes it tend toward zero value. Here's my stab at Utopia, but it requires a belief that Knowledge is infinite: Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen…

"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…

> Remember in Abrahamic terms were 'cast out of Eden/Heaven' literally for eating from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'

No they weren't. They were expelled to prevent them eating from the tree of life:

"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." (Genesis 3:22-23)

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

#200

Post by TimTheTinker »

ballenf wrote: post #9

There's a fundamental conflict between conceptual Utopia/Heaven and the law of supply and demand. All literary conceptions of a utopia rely on abundance of some good that is scarce in the author's time. Usually ignoring that its ubiquity makes it tend toward zero value. Here's my stab at Utopia, but it requires a belief that Knowledge is infinite: Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen…

> Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen pace.

That's pretty darn close to a solid Christian perspective on heaven, where God himself is the one whose infinite love, creativity, and power bring unending joy to his people -- and knowing more about him (there's infinite content to be taken in) becomes the pursuit that never gets old. He's the only reason heaven won't be dull after 10^x years -- both knowing him personally and enjoying and learning about (via science, etc.) the new things he will do.

Post reply on HN