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

211–220 of 273 posts

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

#211

Post by saagarjha »

perfunctory wrote: post #121
saagarjha wrote: post #10

This article focuses on a utopia of worldy pleasures, and goes on to explain why such a place would be a pretty boring place to live. But that’s just human nature: we’re never permently satisfied with what we have. The only way that we feel happiness from these things is if we get more of whatever it is, and that’s kind of impossible in a utopia. However, I still think there’s a way to get satisfaction out of a world…

> The only way that we feel happiness from these things is if we get more of whatever it is Not sure who you mean by "we". This is certainly not the way I experience happiness. And not most of the people I know.

Do you not feel happy when you get something better than what you currently have?

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

#212

Post by skrebbel »

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.

Totally! You just described my life.

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

#213

Post by sonnyblarney »

perilunar wrote: post #199
sonnyblarney wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Your reference supports my thesis.

Because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Evil, God gave them the boot because they then might eat from the Tree of Life.

So yes, you can get me on a technicality, maybe if the Tree of Life did not exist, maybe they wouldn't have been punted ... but ... it was their 'eating from the tree' that was the action that really got the ball moving on the eviction notice.

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

#214

Post by bena »

stcredzero wrote: post #205
bena wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And fictional.

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

#215

Post by bena »

pdonis wrote: post #185
GW150914 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

You have a very naive view of other people.

You're the one basically imagining our society but with government and "governmental law enforcement" suddenly removed. Everyone will just behave because we don't have police, but for some reason we all have laws we all agree on.

But you coincidentally don't remove "laws", because those are important to keep. But we all enforce the laws because of reasons...

Assuming your opponents are weaker, less intelligent, less organized, or less determined is how you end up with your back against the wall then the time comes.

It doesn't take a group of "thugs", just a group of people with the means and motive to do it. And with nothing stopping them, they will.

Government is the enforcement of the social contract on a large scale. At some point, we agree to follow certain rules in order to ensure others also follow those rules.

It's funny, the people who most clamor for anarchy would be the ones most disadvantaged by it.

And yes, certain communes "work", but they work by extension of being a part of a larger entity that does have a government.

And you can talk all you want about "past societies", but unless you skipped half the words being said, those past societies are necessary stepping stones to what we get today. Those Icelandic villages are small-scale governments. The minute someone isn't allowed to do something, you've lost anarchy, you're building to modern government. Absolute freedom is absolute. There is no "anarchy but don't kill anyone".

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

#216

Post by bena »

PeterisP wrote: post #158
pdonis wrote: post #149

Earlier 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…

Not just anarchists, but also agree to follow a certain set of rules or laws that will be enforced by no one.

Even the "ideal" he is putting forth isn't really anarchy. Because anarchy means absolute freedom and the minute you don't allow someone something, freedom isn't absolute. And the minute you get two people living as some sort of unit, you have compromise.

Cooperation is good, systems of cooperation are better. Government is a solution to the problem of individual trust. In a completely anarchistic system, I can't trust you and you can't trust me. Either of us are allowed to break our bond at any time. We need an impartial third party to manage our interactions so that if one of us decides to screw the other, that person is appropriately admonished. Something to govern interactions of citizens, if you will. So whatever system you've set up to govern the interactions of your citizens is de facto a government. Even if you don't explicitly call it that.

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

#217

Post by goatlover »

saagarjha wrote: post #211
perfunctory wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way that we feel happiness from these things is if we get more of whatever it is Not sure who you mean by "we". This is certainly not the way I experience happiness. And not most of the people I know.

Do you not feel happy when you get something better than what you currently have?

It's a short lived kind of happiness because you quickly adjust to the new norm. This puts you on a treadmill of having to constantly upgrade, which does make advertisers happy.

There might be other forms of longer lasting happiness that don't require needing to continuously upgrade one's life.

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

#218

Post by beat »

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…

Ok, how about 150 years ago? Poverty is poverty, famine is famine, illiteracy is illiteracy. For the average Swede - not the rich - life was as bad as it is in nations we considered desperately impoverished today. That's the point. There are people living well in Syria today, too. They're just a tiny sliver of elites, while ordinary people suffer.

But back to my original point. Do you think that there are nations that can't or won't be able to modernize? Are there people or places that are just incapable of achieving peace and independence? Because I don't buy that. China has done it. Iran has done it. Syria can do it, too.

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

#219

Post by beat »

kazen44 wrote: post #110
e12e wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly hope Syria will rise again - but I'd say it's a big difference between being well educated, functioning civil society bombed into the stone age - and being poor. Norway followed a similar path as Sweden - being quite well on its way even before we stole (negotiated for) most of the oil rights in the north sea. And like most countries after ww2 - while the devestation was great, the rebuild was rather quic…

> And like most countries after ww2 - while the devestation was great, the rebuild was rather quick. Once there was peace. And one important part of peace, was liberation and independence. independence didn't happen for a majority of countries that fought in world war 2 however. Either they got locked behind the iron curtain after being litteraly level to the ground (poland), or had to fight a bloody long war for ind…

Yes, but... once some degree of peace and independence is achieved, social improvement happens at an astonishing rate. Take Iran. At the time of the Revolution in 1979, it was one of the poorest countries in the world. The birth rate was above 6 (I find birth rate is a very good proxy for economic/social progress). It dropped from above 6 to under 3 in just ten years - a feat that took England 95 years to accomplish. Today, Iran's birthrate is less than Europe. This is a result of (relative) peace and independence.

China is a particularly wild example. Per capita income there has grown about 15,000% since 1952. That's crazy, but it happened.

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

#220

Post by Kye »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #197
rcoveson wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

>> "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."

There are other ways to tell a story. For example, you've probably run into kishōtenketsu without realizing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish%C5%8Dtenketsu

Post reply on HN