Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#81

Post by [deleted] »

systematical wrote: post #50
SequoiaHope wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there were a lot of socialists and communists who were against the violent tactics Lenin and Stalin. Those people got murdered by the regimes they opposed. The communists you and I learn about in school were the authoritarian communists, and they were indeed bad because authoritarianism is bad. They were violent because they were authoritarian, not because they were communist. Now Marx did advocate for some…

Do you ever find it odd that the "bad guys" always seem to subvert these movements? It seems to me that socialism has a 100% failure rate.

[deleted]

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#82

Post by uxp100 »

Symmetry wrote: post #71
cptnapalm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I see Voeglin on HN?

You've got to admit that "Immanentize the eschaton" is a great phrase. I ran into it first through Robert Anton Wilson which I'd bet is typical of HN readers who know it. But mostly I'm finishing up The House of Government so the issue is quite on my mind.

I think Robert Anton Wilson is the source of almost everyone familiar with the phrase at this point. But I think when RAW used it it was a less obscure reference than now.

It does stick with you.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#83

Post by c0nducktr »

systematical wrote: post #48
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarcho socialism hasn’t succeeded yet, but I still believe it must succeed in the future if we are ever to see real freedom for the masses and to avoid near total destruction of the Earth’s biosphere. If anyone wants to downvote me, I ask that you choose one of two alternatives. First, tell me why you want to downvote. Or, read this article by Albert Einstein talking about the necessity of socialism: https://monthly…

Capitalism will reach its end one day, long after we are gone, but that will be because of its own technologic achievements and not because of 19th-century socialist philosophy. Capitalism will become so efficient at some point that in its quest for more and more efficiency, it will end resource scarcity. Once scarcity is eliminated, capitalism "withers" away. That's my hope anyway. In the short-term, I'd like to see…

> Capitalism will become so efficient at some point that in its quest for more and more efficiency, it will end resource scarcity.

This is honestly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. I gotta admit, I do envy your optimism.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#84

Post by gmfawcett »

aalleavitch wrote: post #72
gmfawcett wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahhh, thank you. So not "Internet" as technical superproject, but "Internet" as emergent supersociety. (I don't believe that anarchists actually invented either of those things, but at least I get the reference now!) "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace." Gosh, I had forgotten what heady times the Nineties were!

The anarchists didn't need to invent it, it described what people were already participating in. Anarchy is simply the natural state of man without an imposed hierarchy. The scientific community is an anarchy.

I wouldn't have been confused to hear that anarchists were participating in online community. What confused me was because1's statement that anarchists invented the Internet.

> The scientific community is an anarchy.

The scientific community is an organism that eats government grants and excretes pay-walled research papers. I wouldn't call that an anarchy!

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#85

Post by SequoiaHope »

systematical wrote: post #50
SequoiaHope wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there were a lot of socialists and communists who were against the violent tactics Lenin and Stalin. Those people got murdered by the regimes they opposed. The communists you and I learn about in school were the authoritarian communists, and they were indeed bad because authoritarianism is bad. They were violent because they were authoritarian, not because they were communist. Now Marx did advocate for some…

Do you ever find it odd that the "bad guys" always seem to subvert these movements? It seems to me that socialism has a 100% failure rate.

I don’t follow. What bad guys? A significant effort has been put out by the United States to undermine socialism and communism. In a lot of other places socialism has been effective.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#86

Post by DubiousPusher »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #23
gedy wrote: post #5

I'm not versed enough in political theory to know myself, but why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been so riddled with purges, paranoia, and violence?

The premise and answer to your question depends on what you mean by "communist".

I have no idea why this would be downvoted. The question at hand is one of the most contentious and important in the history of the 20th century and the answer largely redounds to what you do and don't consider communism.

If you consider any wealth redistribution communism then you would have to consider most or all industrial states in part communist and the premise of the question itself becomes dubious.

If you consider any kind of far left redistributive movement communist then again the merit of the question is dubious because there have been many such movements that remained peaceful.

If you restrict the definition to only actors that call themselves communist even then the question is complicated by the fact that there have been many such actors that call themselves communist yet do not adhere to any communist doctrine. Just as there are many "Republics" which are not at all republics in reality.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#87

Post by rangibaby »

systematical wrote: post #50
SequoiaHope wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there were a lot of socialists and communists who were against the violent tactics Lenin and Stalin. Those people got murdered by the regimes they opposed. The communists you and I learn about in school were the authoritarian communists, and they were indeed bad because authoritarianism is bad. They were violent because they were authoritarian, not because they were communist. Now Marx did advocate for some…

Do you ever find it odd that the "bad guys" always seem to subvert these movements? It seems to me that socialism has a 100% failure rate.

> Do you ever find it odd that the "bad guys" always seem to subvert these movements?

I don’t think it’s odd at all. The murderous revolutionaries I can think of (Bolsheviks, Mao, Mugabe...) were won against regimes just as bloodthirsty as they were. The peaceful revolutions I can think of eg South Africa happened because both sides were willing to negotiate fairly.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

> It seems to me that socialism has a 100% failure rate

Adopting socialist policies while keeping a market economy has worked out ok for most developed nations.

Communist USSR was able to educate its population and rapidly industrialize while fighting off two invasions by forces that, on paper, should have been able to beat them without much trouble, and emerge as one of the most powerful nations in the world. I’d consider that a success

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#88

Post by lopmotr »

systematical wrote: post #48
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarcho socialism hasn’t succeeded yet, but I still believe it must succeed in the future if we are ever to see real freedom for the masses and to avoid near total destruction of the Earth’s biosphere. If anyone wants to downvote me, I ask that you choose one of two alternatives. First, tell me why you want to downvote. Or, read this article by Albert Einstein talking about the necessity of socialism: https://monthly…

Capitalism will reach its end one day, long after we are gone, but that will be because of its own technologic achievements and not because of 19th-century socialist philosophy. Capitalism will become so efficient at some point that in its quest for more and more efficiency, it will end resource scarcity. Once scarcity is eliminated, capitalism "withers" away. That's my hope anyway. In the short-term, I'd like to see…

I used to believe free labor markets between countries was a good idea until I realized that it also comes with a free social welfare "market". Nobody wants to let people in their country starve to death in the streets, so they're going to financially support whatever immigrants come in, and if it's really free entry, that's going to be cripplingly expensive eventually because the world's unemployable will go to wherever the most generous welfare is. Another problem is cultural replacement which could replace the open country with a closed one that's perhaps worse than it started off as once enough similarly-minded immigrants live there to determine the outcome of elections. They're not the idealists who started the open boarders thing, they're just normal self-interested people so eventually they'll want to keep what they've got for themselves and stop letting people they don't like in. Bye-bye to all the progressive ideas of tolerating gays and multiculturalism too.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#89

Post by lopmotr »

c0nducktr wrote: post #83
systematical wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism will reach its end one day, long after we are gone, but that will be because of its own technologic achievements and not because of 19th-century socialist philosophy. Capitalism will become so efficient at some point that in its quest for more and more efficiency, it will end resource scarcity. Once scarcity is eliminated, capitalism "withers" away. That's my hope anyway. In the short-term, I'd like to see…

> Capitalism will become so efficient at some point that in its quest for more and more efficiency, it will end resource scarcity. This is honestly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. I gotta admit, I do envy your optimism.

It's already pretty true for many types of resources. Electronics, software, music, plastic parts. All sorts of things cost practically zero today compared to, say, 100 years ago when they required much more labor to produce or didn't even exist.

I recently bought a flat-screen TV for half the price of a McDonald's meal. That's as good as free.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#90

Post by nwallin »

RangerScience wrote: post #6
gedy wrote: post #5

I'm not versed enough in political theory to know myself, but why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been so riddled with purges, paranoia, and violence?

I would hazard a guess that it has something to with most revolutions being riddle with purges, paranoia and violence, and then that most (AFAIK) modern revolutions are communist movements. In other words, AFAIK (which isn't far), it's a trait of revolutions, not of communist movements.

Venezuela? Chavez took power fair and square in an election, and then turned it into a communist authoritarian dictatorship later.

The modern revolution in Czechoslovakia turned out fairly free of violence, at it was not communist.

Post reply on HN