43 ms·

This story is typically seen as a critique of socialism, but it's more likely that Vonnegut intended it as a critique of critiques of socialism [1]. Vonnegut hi

This story is typically seen as a critique of socialism, but it's more likely that Vonnegut intended it as a critique of critiques of socialism [1]. Vonnegut himself was a socialist [2], and the absurdist tone of the story reinforces this idea. [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/197545/03882696bfa8a19df975946fa70f142c.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/197545/03882696bf... [2] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/04/kurt-vonneguts-socialism-from-outer-space https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/04/kurt-vonneguts-socialism-fr...

mistrial9 4y ago
thanks so much for reducing this emotional work of art to a political check box?
- danso 4y ago
  Seems reductionist to think that Kurt Vonnegut was writing only/mostly from emotion, and that he didn't intend for it be political commentary/satire.
- golemotron 4y ago
  We're talking about a guy who reduced all story telling to a set of 8 graphs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ
- fullshark 4y ago
  I'm not sure I should like it until I learn what side of the current cultural/political war it's on.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Vonnegut was a highly political writer, as SF writers often are. His most famous work is the extremely traumatized "Slaughterhouse 5", after all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse-Five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse-Five That doesn't mean it can or should be neatly mapped to the left/right distinction or culture wars of the current moment. Especially when people have so many bizarre ideas about what constitutes "left" or "socialism".
- tomrod 4y ago
  I admire KV. We must also recognize he lived, that he lived in a certain time, and that some of his writings deal with some of the events and attitudes that existed in a certain time.
bitshiftfaced 4y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, socialism has to do with wealth, not talent, intelligence, and good-looks.
- viridian 4y ago
  Moreover, Marx's famous slogan summarizing socialism was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Harrison Bergeron is clearly set in a world where "From each" is not taken based on the productive skill of the each, but rather the skill of the each is brought near to the lowest of the whole. To each, less obviously is also flawed in this world. Rather than to the man's needs, each is given such that he is rendered equal with the whole.
nsxwolf 4y ago
I doubt it. He deals with this theme more subtly in "Breakfast of Champions". I don't see why being a garden variety socialist would mean you couldn't possibly critique the idea of forced equality of outcomes. People don't always fit in neat boxes. It's OK if your politically aligned literary heroes occasionally challenge you.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > you couldn't possibly critique the idea of forced equality of outcomes. I suspect it's actually exactly the opposite - Vonnegut himself grew up in the 30's and 40's when socialism and communism were still untested ideas without the evidentiary baggage they carry today. The only people who are attracted to socialism in modern times are people who start with an equality of outcome mindset and can see from history that socialist societies inevitably devolve into what they (think they) want.
rufus_foreman 4y ago
"I can't be sure, but there is a possibility that my story "Harrison Bergeron" is about the envy and self-pity I felt in an over-achievers' high school in Indianapolis quite a while ago now. Some people never tame those emotions. John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman come to mind. "Handicapper Generals," if you like." - Vonnegut
- Pxtl 4y ago
  That fits. It sounds like it's not the high-minded anticommunist social criticism that conservatives want it to be, but more of just grousing about the tall-poppy problem of high-school that I think most gen-X-and-older nerds would be more than familiar with.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    It can be validly used as a criticism of socialism, even if not so intended by the author. George Orwell, also a socialist, famously noted that many of his fellow socialists were motivated more by envy and resentment toward the rich than by compassion for the poor. As others have commented, envy could certainly be attributed as the cause of many "social justice" minded policies we see today. Those on the right would argue that (barring some virtuous individual socialists) socialism is at root an ideology for justifying envy.
z7 4y ago
In literary analysis the author's intention is generally not viewed as the final word on how a story should be interpreted. There's an extensive debate around this question of authorial intent: https://www.britannica.com/art/intentional-fallacy https://www.britannica.com/art/intentional-fallacy While it's interesting to know what meaning the author might have had in mind, I personally wouldn't view it in a prescriptive sense when evaluating a story.
- absolutelynobo 4y ago
  Thanks for authoritatively clearing that up for us all, z7.
mmmpop 4y ago
I always found the story to be a bit silly and hamfisted if intepreted as a sort of a critique of government enforcement of "equity" and given Vonnegut's politics, I find this to be the most reasonable take.
photochemsyn 4y ago
Socialism provides a safety net at the bottom end of the social achievement scale so that you don't end up with large homeless populations living under bridges. The notion that socialism cuts off the heads of over-achievers to enforce a dull sameness on society is basically a straw man argument that doesn't correlate at all with how socialist governance works in practice. Some will point to higher taxes on billionaires as a counterexample, but it's equally clear that the wealthiest rely heavily on things like roads, ports, etc. (to get goods from one place to another), and since without that infrastructure they'd have little opportunity to accumulate wealth, higher taxes on that wealth are appropriate.
at_a_remove 4y ago
If it is a critique of critiques of socialism, if it is mocking "right-wing fantasies," then how unfortunate for the story when they come true.
chernevik 4y ago
It is entirely possible that Vonnegut was a socialist and that he worried about the logical end of an obsession with "equality". He may have believed that socialism applied entirely and only to economic matters. After all, Marx wrote that socialism would unleash human potential: "while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes". (There is a better quote for this, which I cannot recall/find.). So Vonnegut may have thought that envy and a resentment of excellence were entirely apart from socialism. Now, I myself detest socialism, in part because I believe it establish a stupid, reductionist and overbroad "equality" as a goal in its own right and unleashes many forces to tear down excellence, freedom and accomplishment in its pursuit. I expect if this consequence of socialism were better understood we'd have far fewer socialists. But this is by no means obvious, and of course there will be many socialists who don't agree.

mistrial9 4y ago

thanks so much for reducing this emotional work of art to a political check box?

danso 4y ago
Seems reductionist to think that Kurt Vonnegut was writing only/mostly from emotion, and that he didn't intend for it be political commentary/satire.
golemotron 4y ago
We're talking about a guy who reduced all story telling to a set of 8 graphs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ
fullshark 4y ago
I'm not sure I should like it until I learn what side of the current cultural/political war it's on.
pjc50 4y ago
Vonnegut was a highly political writer, as SF writers often are. His most famous work is the extremely traumatized "Slaughterhouse 5", after all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse-Five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse-Five That doesn't mean it can or should be neatly mapped to the left/right distinction or culture wars of the current moment. Especially when people have so many bizarre ideas about what constitutes "left" or "socialism".
tomrod 4y ago
I admire KV. We must also recognize he lived, that he lived in a certain time, and that some of his writings deal with some of the events and attitudes that existed in a certain time.

bitshiftfaced 4y ago

Unless I'm mistaken, socialism has to do with wealth, not talent, intelligence, and good-looks.

viridian 4y ago
Moreover, Marx's famous slogan summarizing socialism was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Harrison Bergeron is clearly set in a world where "From each" is not taken based on the productive skill of the each, but rather the skill of the each is brought near to the lowest of the whole. To each, less obviously is also flawed in this world. Rather than to the man's needs, each is given such that he is rendered equal with the whole.

nsxwolf 4y ago

I doubt it. He deals with this theme more subtly in "Breakfast of Champions". I don't see why being a garden variety socialist would mean you couldn't possibly critique the idea of forced equality of outcomes. People don't always fit in neat boxes. It's OK if your politically aligned literary heroes occasionally challenge you.

commandlinefan 4y ago
> you couldn't possibly critique the idea of forced equality of outcomes. I suspect it's actually exactly the opposite - Vonnegut himself grew up in the 30's and 40's when socialism and communism were still untested ideas without the evidentiary baggage they carry today. The only people who are attracted to socialism in modern times are people who start with an equality of outcome mindset and can see from history that socialist societies inevitably devolve into what they (think they) want.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

"I can't be sure, but there is a possibility that my story "Harrison Bergeron" is about the envy and self-pity I felt in an over-achievers' high school in Indianapolis quite a while ago now. Some people never tame those emotions. John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman come to mind. "Handicapper Generals," if you like." - Vonnegut

Pxtl 4y ago
That fits. It sounds like it's not the high-minded anticommunist social criticism that conservatives want it to be, but more of just grousing about the tall-poppy problem of high-school that I think most gen-X-and-older nerds would be more than familiar with.
- lliamander 4y ago
  It can be validly used as a criticism of socialism, even if not so intended by the author. George Orwell, also a socialist, famously noted that many of his fellow socialists were motivated more by envy and resentment toward the rich than by compassion for the poor. As others have commented, envy could certainly be attributed as the cause of many "social justice" minded policies we see today. Those on the right would argue that (barring some virtuous individual socialists) socialism is at root an ideology for justifying envy.

z7 4y ago

In literary analysis the author's intention is generally not viewed as the final word on how a story should be interpreted. There's an extensive debate around this question of authorial intent: https://www.britannica.com/art/intentional-fallacy https://www.britannica.com/art/intentional-fallacy While it's interesting to know what meaning the author might have had in mind, I personally wouldn't view it in a prescriptive sense when evaluating a story.

absolutelynobo 4y ago
Thanks for authoritatively clearing that up for us all, z7.

mmmpop 4y ago

I always found the story to be a bit silly and hamfisted if intepreted as a sort of a critique of government enforcement of "equity" and given Vonnegut's politics, I find this to be the most reasonable take.

photochemsyn 4y ago

Socialism provides a safety net at the bottom end of the social achievement scale so that you don't end up with large homeless populations living under bridges. The notion that socialism cuts off the heads of over-achievers to enforce a dull sameness on society is basically a straw man argument that doesn't correlate at all with how socialist governance works in practice. Some will point to higher taxes on billionaires as a counterexample, but it's equally clear that the wealthiest rely heavily on things like roads, ports, etc. (to get goods from one place to another), and since without that infrastructure they'd have little opportunity to accumulate wealth, higher taxes on that wealth are appropriate.

at_a_remove 4y ago

If it is a critique of critiques of socialism, if it is mocking "right-wing fantasies," then how unfortunate for the story when they come true.

chernevik 4y ago

It is entirely possible that Vonnegut was a socialist and that he worried about the logical end of an obsession with "equality". He may have believed that socialism applied entirely and only to economic matters. After all, Marx wrote that socialism would unleash human potential: "while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes". (There is a better quote for this, which I cannot recall/find.). So Vonnegut may have thought that envy and a resentment of excellence were entirely apart from socialism. Now, I myself detest socialism, in part because I believe it establish a stupid, reductionist and overbroad "equality" as a goal in its own right and unleashes many forces to tear down excellence, freedom and accomplishment in its pursuit. I expect if this consequence of socialism were better understood we'd have far fewer socialists. But this is by no means obvious, and of course there will be many socialists who don't agree.