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

241–250 of 273 posts

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

#241

Post by pdonis »

byproxy wrote: post #235
pdonis wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't you say humanity started out in an anarchistic state? Back when all humans were hunter-gatherers, this was probably true, yes, given what we know. > It seems that the "workable solutions" tended towards more and more governing until we ended up where we're at. Only after the invention of agriculture. But the period since that invention (about 10,000 years ago) is somewhere between 10 percent and 1 percent…

Right, but when I say 'base state' I'm referring to the big-bang of humanity. Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'base state' as those who had that will imposed upon them. That is to say, Western imperialist powers weren't extraterrestrials that came from other worlds to spread capitalism (although it may have seemed that way to the colonized). I guess ultimately what I'm t…

> Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'base state' as those who had that will imposed upon them.

They were all humans, yes, and they all evolved ultimately from hunter-gatherers, yes. That doesn't change the fact that the "world powers" were societies that had had governments for centuries, if not millennia, and were only able to be imperialists because they could use the coercive power of those governments to appropriate the resources they needed to be imperialists.

> the anarchist experiment has been run

Starting with hunter-gatherer humans, who then invented agriculture, formed governments to address the issues that arose, and had no idea what they were letting themselves in for.

If we were to run the experiment again, it would be with humans who now have 10,000 years of experience with all of the problems that governments create. That experience puts us in a very different position from the humans who first formed governments. So the experiment would have very different initial conditions, which could produce different results.

> I'm curious as to how you think advancing technology would navigate around the issues of humans generally coalescing into a government-ruled state.

By providing alternate means of regulating social cooperation that do not require coercion. The Internet is, of course, the outstanding example of this; it facilitates all kinds of cooperation among large numbers of people that would have been unthinkable before it existed.

Automation is another example: much of the drudge work of society that had to be done by humans for most of human history can now be done by machines. That reduces the amount of human labor that is needed to provide necessities for everyone, and therefore improves the average bargaining position of people when they engage in voluntary cooperation and trade to obtain the things they need.

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

#242

Post by smsm42 »

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.

> France is a very socialist country (esp. compared to the US of A),

Compared to the USA - yes, compared to the USSR - no. France is largely capitalist economy with a lot of socialist policies. As long as the engine of the capitalist economy (private ownership, private initiative, private capital, substantial competition, etc.) is intact, it can bear a lot of socialist policies without breaking down (even at the cost of some slowdowns and inefficiencies). Once you break that, there's pretty much no chance.

> Aren't you talking about oligarchies rather than socialist regimes?

No, unless you choose to redefine what has been always known as socialism as "oligarchy" and what has been always known as capitalist economy with substantial government intrusions as "socialism". This would make conversation very awkward, as any non-traditional term usage tends to do, but will not change anything of the substance. USSR economy and French economy (and both societies of course) were different in principle, not in degree, and you can not ignore that while staying in the realm of reality and outside of fairy-land economics.

> The fact that some oligarchies were born under the pretense of socialism doesn't mean socialism was the cause.

USSR was one of the largest and most complete and consistent implementations of socialism ever attempted. If they didn't do it right, on your opinion, then nobody could do it right, ever.

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

#243

Post by discreteevent »

adiusmus wrote: post #155
discreteevent wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mind boggles. That's a fair comment. Here's the logic: Young children are obsessed with winning and losing. If you coach a game and say it was a draw or that you didn't keep score they will insist that one or the other side lost - even if it is their side. The problem is that they are not always able to keep some kind of perspective on this obsession unlike most adults. So they may either start playing in a very…

This is getting off topic, but here we are... I’ve seen the opposite on several occasions. I saw one kid (not mine) at a “no win” game get taken off the field for putting his hands up in the air celebrating a goal. I asked about this and was told he was “too competitive”. That kid played very differently the rest of the afternoon and I noticed he held back as did his 12yo teammates. Since I was keeping score, I notic…

Agree completely about parents. Also I think that was extreme about not celebrating a goal. We did keep score, because the kids keep score in their heads anyway, but at a young age we didn't emphasize it and there were no trophies or medals.

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

#244

Post by smsm42 »

CptFribble wrote: post #163
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…

Socialism is like capitalism, or democracy: there are a lot of ways to do it. It doesn't necessarily require going money-free.

You are confusing socialism and communism. Communism is where money is gone. Socialism is where money is very well present, but the capital, the means of production and the economic planning is controlled by the state. The workers still can get paid (and some may even have certain freedom in where to work, though that tends to shrink very fast as central planning is not possible if you can't force people to work where you want them for salary that you want to pay them) and still can buy stuff (provided the central planners thought in advance of producing this stuff in enough quantity), but the overall control of the economic processes rests firmly in the hands of the state.

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

#245

Post by bena »

pdonis wrote: post #226
bena wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> You have a very naive view of other people. You have a very naïve view of government: > Government is the enforcement of the social contract on a large scale. Government is supposed to be this, yes. But that's not how it actually works out in practice.

I'm going to respond to all three of your comments here.

Government is that. When you have something that is enforcing a social contract, that is government. Not every government requires a building, elected officials, etc. It is simply the means organizational policies are enforced. And your village is an organization. It has policies. Your system of ostracizing is the mechanism by which you punish citizens who don't follow the rules of anarchy.

So, if someone in one of those villages murdered someone else, nothing would happen? Nothing would stop them? If I want your stuff, I can just take it. Nothing will happen? Or will the entire village exact punishment? How is that any different to what we have?

Your problem is that you don't agree with all of the rules we do have. You want those rules gone. And you think that everyone thinks like you so that if we had "no rules" (aka just the rules you like), we'd all be happy.

And I never said my argument is "we can't get there from here". I never even suggested that in the slightest. Bringing it up again and again is arguing against someone who isn't here. So I don't care what you think about that one way or the other.

My point is that anarchy leads to government. Always. Because there will be rules some people want enforced and they will accept rules they're not thrilled with if it means they get most of the rules they do want.

Also. This is just straight up government. If that's your idea of the ideal anarchy, then your ideal anarchy is government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

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

#246

Post by bena »

pdonis wrote: post #234
GW150914 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have a very naive view of other people. You have a very naïve view of government: I don’t think he does, he’s just not sold on your alternative based on childlike assumptions such as 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. You keep alluding to your perfect vision of anarchy, and when people point out how im…

> I don’t think he does You don't think "Government is the eoforcement of the social contract on a large scale" is a naïve view of government? > your alternative based on childlike assumptions So you think thugs actually do work together in productive endeavors? Isn't not doing that the definition of a "thug"? Thugs might make use of things that others have already produced, but they don't produce anything themselves…

I never said thugs. That was someone else.

I said assholes.

Plus, you have defined "thug" as "people who cannot produce anything themselves" and are holding everyone to that definition even though no one else has agreed that that is an acceptable definition of thug.

Which is kind of funny considering the root of the word thug traces its roots to an order of thieves and assassins in India.

So stop focusing on the word "thug", it's a pointless diversion and doesn't really answer the question: What do you do when a stronger, organized force decides that it wants what you have?

Saying "It won't happen because thugs don't join gangs and we'll have all the guns because only good people make shit" is Platonic ideal of naivety.

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

#247

Post by bena »

pdonis wrote: post #227
bena wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> anarchy means absolute freedom No, it doesn't. It means the absence of government. Nobody has absolute freedom; even in the absence of government, everyone has to deal with other people in some ways. > In a completely anarchistic system, I can't trust you and you can't trust me. This is simply false. Do you trust your friends? If so, would you stop trusting them if there were no government? There are plenty of ways…

Yes it does. It is the very definition.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anarchy

Absolute freedom.

You do understand I'm talking about two strangers. Of course, you can build trust between people over time. But no one comes into a situation with trust. And if we can't start on a basis of trust, then we can't start. Knowing there are repercussions for breaking that trust allows us to treat.

You're the one peddling a libertarian fiction novel as the-one-true-way and not even taking half a second to consider the actual ramifications. Or if "anarchy" is what you actually want. (Hint: it isn't)

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

#248

Post by bena »

stcredzero wrote: post #240
bena wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And fictional.

And remarkably revealing of human nature, as great fiction often does.

To a degree, it's a parable.

But we can also say they weren't exactly anarchists. They've developed a system of government, leaders, factions, etc.

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

#249

Post by pdonis »

bena wrote: post #245
pdonis wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have a very naive view of other people. You have a very naïve view of government: > Government is the enforcement of the social contract on a large scale. Government is supposed to be this, yes. But that's not how it actually works out in practice.

I'm going to respond to all three of your comments here. Government is that. When you have something that is enforcing a social contract, that is government. Not every government requires a building, elected officials, etc. It is simply the means organizational policies are enforced. And your village is an organization. It has policies. Your system of ostracizing is the mechanism by which you punish citizens who don'…

> When you have something that is enforcing a social contract, that is government.

Only if the enforcement is coercive. Otherwise the term "government" is meaningless, since every social interaction can be viewed as some kind of "enforcement" of some "social contract". Enforcement by the voluntary choices of other people not to associate with you if you do things they don't like is not government.

> So, if someone in one of those villages murdered someone else, nothing would happen?

Not at all. Instead of concocting straw men, you should go read Friedman's treatment of saga period Iceland.

> I never said my argument is "we can't get there from here".

Fine. Other people have made that kind of argument, so I'll just respond to them on it from now on.

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

#250

Post by pdonis »

bena wrote: post #246
pdonis wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think he does You don't think "Government is the eoforcement of the social contract on a large scale" is a naïve view of government? > your alternative based on childlike assumptions So you think thugs actually do work together in productive endeavors? Isn't not doing that the definition of a "thug"? Thugs might make use of things that others have already produced, but they don't produce anything themselves…

I never said thugs. That was someone else. I said assholes. Plus, you have defined "thug" as "people who cannot produce anything themselves" and are holding everyone to that definition even though no one else has agreed that that is an acceptable definition of thug. Which is kind of funny considering the root of the word thug traces its roots to an order of thieves and assassins in India. So stop focusing on the word…

> I never said thugs.

I never said you did. The post of mine that you were responding to here was not in response to you; it was in response to GW150914.

> What do you do when a stronger, organized force decides that it wants what you have?

What do you do in this case in our current society? If you think the government is always protecting you from this, you need to think again.

Post reply on HN