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

261–270 of 273 posts

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

#261

Post by everybodyknows »

all_usernames wrote: post #21

This site is blocked by openDNS for malware distribution :-/

umatrix tells me the site, orwell.ru, wants to load a script from yandex.ru.

When Orwell wrote the essay he may still have been feeling his combat wounds from the Spanish Civil War, where he took a bullet in the neck from one of Franco's snipers. He also spent some days manning barricades in the streets of Barcelona, futilely resisting a coup within the Republican government, instigated by a Soviet-backed faction.

Something ironic in that, with the page here coming from a .ru TLD.

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

#262

Post by sabarn01 »

pdonis wrote: post #260
sabarn01 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can't shake the notion that this is based upon Utopian concepts. The cost in terms of lives attempting to implement Utopian visions in the 20th century can be measured in the 10s of millions. Even if we could pay the upfront cost there is zero assurance that it would be stable or that it would produce better outcomes then what we have now.

> I just can't shake the notion that this is based upon Utopian concepts. So is the idea that governments can solve all problems. And all of the Utopian visions you speak of that cost upwards of 100 million lives in the 20th century were visions of government solving all problems, not of abolishing government.

I don't think governments can solve all problems they can only solve cretin categories of problems.

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

#263

Post by bena »

pdonis wrote: post #249
bena wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, coercion is not a requirement for government.

That's another definition you're trying to overload.

Also, what happens if I don't agree with a rule. And then I break it? If there is some sort of punishment, then there is coercion. Fear of punishment is a coercive device.

Then what happens. Tell us that. "Nuh uh" is not a coherent defense. The period of Iceland mentioned in that book was a federation headed by a monarchy. That's a government.

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

#264

Post by bena »

pdonis wrote: post #251
bena wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It is the very definition You can't make reality be the way you want it to be by defining words. Nobody has absolute freedom in reality. > Knowing there are repercussions for breaking that trust allows us to treat. There are repercussions for breaking trust whether there is government or not. If your claim is that governments do better at enabling trust relationships to develop than a society without government (I'…

No, you can't, so I suggest you stop trying to do that.

I'm using the common, accepted definitions. You're trying to define "thug" to mean "can't engage in productive endeavors" and "government" to include a coercive element. Neither is commonly accepted.

I nobody has absolute freedom in reality, then by your admission, anarchy is impossible and what you want isn't anarchy.

Yeah, if we agree on something and I break that agreement, the repercussion is you don't like me. Whoop de shit. I can fleece you as hard as I want until that point.

Once you envision a body that will recover your property, you have envisioned a type of government. The problem is you have a very narrow definition of "government". You only see it as a bunch of people "in charge" in a central building making laws by fiat (even though that's pretty reductionist, but then again, you are). It's not always that.

Even an ad hoc, informal system of rules and enforcement is a government.

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

#265

Post by smsm42 »

GabrielBen wrote: post #187
dtoma wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is profoundly sad that after all that happened in 20th century it's still a debate. The biggest history's lesson seems to be that nobody ever learns from history.

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

#266

Post by ConceptJunkie »

beat wrote: post #87
ConceptJunkie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be alien to us, but there are millions of people for which this describes their reality.

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…

I'm not denying things have improved significantly and that we aren't making great progress, but there's still a long, long way to go.

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

#267

Post by pdonis »

bena wrote: post #263
pdonis wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No, coercion is not a requirement for government. That's another definition you're trying to overload. Also, what happens if I don't agree with a rule. And then I break it? If there is some sort of punishment, then there is coercion. Fear of punishment is a coercive device. Then what happens. Tell us that. "Nuh uh" is not a coherent defense. The period of Iceland mentioned in that book was a federation headed by a mo…

> coercion is not a requirement for government

Then you and I are defining the word "government" differently. What I am arguing against is coercive enforcement of rules. You can call it whatever you want; if you don't want to call it "government", then let's just avoid using that word at all so we at least know what we're talking about.

> what happens if I don't agree with a rule. And then I break it? If there is some sort of punishment, then there is coercion

Then, once again, you are giving different meanings to words than I am. "Coercion" as I am using the term means forcing people to do things they would not voluntarily choose to do. Letting people voluntarily choose to do something, in the full knowledge that they will suffer consequences, and then imposing those consequences, is not coercion.

Also, you use the word "punishment", but I haven't used that word. I have not talked about throwing people in jail. I have only talked about things like refusing to interact with someone. Unless you are going to claim that you have a right to have other people interact with you, no matter how much of an asshole you are, then I don't see how you can call it "coercion" when people refuse to interact with you because you refuse to regulate your behavior in order to facilitate cooperation.

Violent consequences are a more complicated matter, yes, but (as is discussed, for example, in Friedman's book) there is still a key difference between violent consequences from private entities (who have to weigh the possibility that they will in turn be targeted by violent consequences from other private entities) and violent consequences from governments (which do not suffer any consequences in turn, because they are allowed to do things that would be considered crimes, at least on their face, if private entities did them--in fact, this is how Friedman defines a government).

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

#268

Post by pdonis »

bena wrote: post #264
pdonis wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is the very definition You can't make reality be the way you want it to be by defining words. Nobody has absolute freedom in reality. > Knowing there are repercussions for breaking that trust allows us to treat. There are repercussions for breaking trust whether there is government or not. If your claim is that governments do better at enabling trust relationships to develop than a society without government (I'…

No, you can't, so I suggest you stop trying to do that. I'm using the common, accepted definitions. You're trying to define "thug" to mean "can't engage in productive endeavors" and "government" to include a coercive element. Neither is commonly accepted. I nobody has absolute freedom in reality, then by your admission, anarchy is impossible and what you want isn't anarchy. Yeah, if we agree on something and I break…

> I'm using the common, accepted definitions

I strongly disagree, but at this point I don't think further argument will help. You and I are simply speaking different languages, and I don't have the time or the inclination to try to learn yours, and I get the idea you feel the same about mine.

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

#269

Post by pdonis »

bena wrote: post #263
pdonis wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No, coercion is not a requirement for government. That's another definition you're trying to overload. Also, what happens if I don't agree with a rule. And then I break it? If there is some sort of punishment, then there is coercion. Fear of punishment is a coercive device. Then what happens. Tell us that. "Nuh uh" is not a coherent defense. The period of Iceland mentioned in that book was a federation headed by a mo…

> Then what happens. Tell us that.

As I've already said, that's way too complicated for an HN comment. Which is why I've referred, multiple times now, to a book-length treatment of the subject.

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

#270

Post by pdonis »

sabarn01 wrote: post #262
pdonis wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just can't shake the notion that this is based upon Utopian concepts. So is the idea that governments can solve all problems. And all of the Utopian visions you speak of that cost upwards of 100 million lives in the 20th century were visions of government solving all problems, not of abolishing government.

I don't think governments can solve all problems they can only solve cretin categories of problems.

That doesn't change the substance of what I said. All of those 20th-century Utopian visions that killed so many people were of government solving problems that it can't solve. Even if there are some problems governments can solve (one example David Friedman gives as a possibility in his book is national defense), trying to keep governments limited to just solving those problems has never worked.
Post reply on HN