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

91–100 of 168 posts

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#91

Post by c0nducktr »

lopmotr wrote: post #89
c0nducktr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I've never heard the term resource scarcity used to refer to something like software, music, or televisions.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#92

Post by cbnotfromthere »

Miner49er wrote: post #55
systematical wrote: post #51

The Spanish Civil War happens to be one of my favorite historical events. In no small part because I once was really into anarcho-syndicalist beliefs. Not so much anymore, but I still enjoy it from a historical perspective. I highly recommend the Spanish Civil War tour in Barcelona by Nick Lloyd ( https://twitter.com/Civil_War_Spain ). Unfortunately, the war is still a touchy subject in Spain, so his tour is the best…

Out of curiosity, why are you no longer into anarcho-syndicalism?

Out of curiosity, why would ANYONE think anarcho-syndicalism is something to stay into?

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#93

Post by aalleavitch »

lopmotr wrote: post #88
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…

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 wher…

Cultural replacement is a bullshit concept. Not everyone is as selfish as you, some people just want to eat. The lie that people are inherently self-interested in a system that doesn’t directly incentivize self-interest is exactly the sort of thing you would want to spread if you were one of the people on top in such a system.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#94

Post by Gibbon1 »

weirdstuff wrote: post #15
wait-a-minute wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because communism is inherently a violent and paranoid ideology. It's blatantly obvious even in the foundational literature from Marx. Marx openly advocated violence and threatened violence against anyone who was opposed to the proletariat. Not only that, but he construed a framework in which anything opposing the proletariat, including "class antagonisms" that could be literally anything, should be opposed with forc…

It’s amazing how controversial Marx is 150 years later, and I’ve only ever met one actual “authority” on the matter outside Marx’s actual writings. (And I’m in economics!) Makes me think there’s something very lasting about his ideas, moral interpretations aside.

I think that Marx's observations about the exploitative power structures and inherent problems with naked capitalism weren't wrong and they haven't been solved either.

It's fairly easy to sense problems. Harder to identify and analyze the nature of a problem. Yet harder to come up with practical solutions that aren't worse.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#95

Post by cbnotfromthere »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #42
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 sort of people who might secretly incite and then stage a successful armed revolution and coup are probably expecting a coup, or at least a few revolutionaries in every party meeting. Not restricted to the left though. Stalin got there by being a violent thug, he would stay there by being a violent thug. Ditto Franco in Spain, for at least a decade or so after the end of the civil war. Repression of scientists, a…

[dead]

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#96

Post by aalleavitch »

DuskStar wrote: post #79
SequoiaHope wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re presuming I’m not arguing in good faith. I actually do deeply believe that capitalism, being a system where a minority can accrue great wealth and therefore have significant motivation to do so regardless of the costs, is a system that directly promotes environmental destruction. Anarcho socialism or Anarcho communism are instead systems that have no privileged class willing to destroy for their own benefit. I…

And why would the members of such a society not choose to damage the global environment if the local benefits outweighed the losses? That's the carbon emissions problem, after all. Regarding 'good faith' - I think you might be arguing in good faith, but I don't see how you'd think that argument is the best path to take to convince people to either support the environment or to abandon our current economic systems for…

The people ruining the planet will be dead before they have to live through the consequences of what they’ve done. Good ‘ol self-interest.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#97

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dragonwriter wrote: post #14
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All authoritarian movements and governments are. By their nature, they rule by power , not by "consent of the governed". Those at the top always are few, and rule through others. And they know that if those others stop obeying their orders, it's all over. They fear that someone - anyone - will cause people to stop obeying and instead turn against them. Thus purges, paranoia, and violence. As I said, it isn't just com…

> But the political theory question might be: Why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been authoritarian? All communist governments (not all communist movements, and this is actually the source of many breaches between communist movements that aren't governments, particularly in the West, and communist governments and the movements aligned with them) are rooted in Leninist vanguardism, a specific a…

Excellent post.

One nit: The American Revolution was led by elites, if by "elite" you mean "wealthy and influential". But it was not led by elites, if by "elite" you mean "nobility". In that sense, it was quite anti-elite.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#98

Post by aalleavitch »

systematical wrote: post #74
aalleavitch wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism doesn't wither away, it imposes artificial scarcity to allow its uneven power dynamic to continue. At some point the cruelty itself becomes the point. I would argue we're already past the point where we have to deny resources to anyone, we could feed and shelter everyone if we had the will to do it. Actually I think that right now, when we are facing the potential reality of AGI not many decades away, is w…

Humans aren't very good at managing things. Just take a look around your co-workers some time and you'll see mismanagement. We're really bad at managing! You could say, scarcity is a management issue. If systems are managed by inefficient beings, well then the system doesn't really matter be it socialism or capitalism. I'll take my chances with capitalism and hope the best managers naturally rise to the top. Maybe AI…

We’re bad at managing because none of us want to be doing what we’re doing and all of us are thinking about how we can maximize our own benefit. But the truth is we don’t even have to do an amazing job of managing, we have to just want to route enough resources to everyone that they can survive. Technology will continue to increase with or without capitalism. In fact, the claim that capitalism is responsible for scientific or technological advancement is mostly false. It’s responsible for wide-scale mass industry, but scientists would exist and push forward the boundaries of knowledge with or without it.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#99

Post by aalleavitch »

c0nducktr wrote: post #91
lopmotr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've never heard the term resource scarcity used to refer to something like software, music, or televisions.

Hilariously, software and music are inherently non-scarce. In fact, we do a massive amount of detriment to everyone by not allowing a piece of infinitely replicable media to be instantly available to everyone. And yet despite the fact we could benefit everyone at once we can’t seem to figure out a way to allow creators to live comfortably without inventing arcane and artificial IP laws?

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#100

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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.

> The scientific community is an anarchy.

No? It's a meritocracy, with elite gatekeepers. How is it an anarchy?

Post reply on HN