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

201–210 of 273 posts

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

#201

Post by perilunar »

haihaibye wrote: post #194
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.

Cat videos, porn, and first person shooters. i.e. our 3 strongest instincts: sex, violence, and nurturing.

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

#202

Post by EdSharkey »

dnomad wrote: post #190
EdSharkey wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've never heard nor read that exact quote from JBP. Can you at least tell me where you got that from so I can get some context?

If you're paraphrasing, please just copy the full quote.

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

#203

Post by comex »

bitwize wrote: post #94
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…

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…

> The general thesis still holds: man is not truly content without conflict and challenge.

Well, a reader of fiction is not truly content without conflict and challenge.

But I’m not sure it’s fair to extrapolate from that to a principle about how real societies can operate. After all, fiction always pumps conflict and challenge up to 11 compared to the real world. Pick a popular book or movie at random: what’s the chance that somewhere in its plot, some character tries to murder another character? I’d say pretty high. In real life, the vast majority of people go through their lives without anyone ever trying to kill them, and that’s probably been true for most or all of human history. But that doesn’t make life incurably boring.

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

#204

Post by stcredzero »

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…

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.

What if people don't want your particular kind of social contract? What one sees of anarchists on the street in 2018, is that they not only ostracize, they do much worse. They enact power over those they disagree with using vandalism and violence. Over social media, they engage in toxic speculations and lies. As it plays out today, it seems to be a philosophy indistinguishable in its effects from, "Two wrongs make a right, so long as it's for us, the chosen people."

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

#205

Post by stcredzero »

bena wrote: post #143
stcredzero wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ev…

The characters in Lord of the Flies were just being juvenile.

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

#206

Post by stcredzero »

petre wrote: post #146
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…

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…

Because asshole psychopaths will do anything in their power to rise and rule over others.

I'd bet good money psychopaths and sociopaths absolutely thrive in anarchies which are engaged in "action" which includes violence.

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

#207

Post by EdSharkey »

0x2a wrote: post #148
Presquare wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This wiki page is just hater trash that can't be taken seriously.

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

#208

Post by sabarn01 »

byproxy wrote: post #192
pdonis wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Societies have always competed in there own right. The state is a more effective way to organize groups of people than the chiefdom which is more effective than the tribe.

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

#209

Post by sabarn01 »

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…

> 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.

You wouldn't call all the human societies that existed prior to the modern nation state version of this experiment If the colonies count we have enumerable examples and in all cases at a certain point of density people took it upon themselves to form governments and delegate punishment to an other power. All forms of the anarchist argument ignore the fact that governments grew out of necessity and need. weather for internal control or to protect against an external force. I view human nature as unchaining so I doubt that any theory can hold sway over it.

Pinker has this in his book but its good to reference. Also Fukiama https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Political-Order-Prehuman-Revo...

https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-e...

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

#210

Post by goatlover »

jp555 wrote: post #174
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.

You think modern global society is run by humans? Seems to be mostly algorithms already.

If the humans disappeared, how long would the algorithms run?
Post reply on HN