17 ms·
G.K. Chesterton: The fallacy of success (1909)
- losethos 13y agoChinese proverb: Goliath will beat David unless David is clever.
- EdwCoady 13y agoPerfection
- Pitarou 13y agoG. K. Chesterton nails it every time.
- skidoo 13y agoI think I have been silently screaming to read something like this for ages and ages. Capitalism, the godless religion. Thank you for that link.
- mustapha 13y agoYou're welcome. :)
- notdonspaulding 13y agoI'm not sure I understand your remark about Capitalism. Are you saying you think the article draws some sort of parallel between the success books of the time and Capitalism? Are you now drawing that parallel in today's world? I can't tell what you're getting at.
- skidoo 13y agoI think parallels are blatant. Such money-worship is exactly what most persons today equate with success, and that same religious fervency is precisely what is destroying the world at large. I think real success entails principles that Capitalism will always be oblivious to. The pursuit of money is not at all what life is about.
- sp332 13y agoCapitalism is just private ownership of goods + a market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism I think you're describing something a lot more specific.
- pnathan 13y agoThere's a conflation of the precise economic definition of capitalism with the thought processes and gestalt that has grown up around it. You're using the precise definition, the grandparent is using the looser definition.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Capitalism is just private ownership of goods + a market. That's neither the definition used by the critics of the system who coined the term to refer to the complex system by which 19th Century developed countries directed the rewards of economic productivity to the owners of capital, nor a sufficient description of what is proposed by the modern proponents of "capitalism". And that Wikipedia article is confused -- accurately portraying the "mixed economy" the dominant economic form of the modern developed world, but inaccurately painting it as a form of capitalism (when it is called a mixed economy because it draws elements from both capitalism and socialism, and is distinct from both.) It also refers to state capitalism as a form of capitalism (which is accurate by the original definition, as state capitalism shares the features that were originally criticized in capitalism -- which isn't surprising since both the original definition and the term "state capitalism" come from socialist critics -- but not by the definition in the article.)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- nzp 13y agoPrivate ownership of means of production, or "capital assets" in that article (it's just terminology). Neither private ownership of goods nor the existence of markets are specific to capitalism.
- gavinpc 13y ago
- bgilroy26 13y agoFor anyone who might be interested, the greater part of Chesterton's work is available for free online. The essay quoted in the blog post above is from this collection: http://archive.org/details/allthings00chesuoft http://archive.org/details/allthings00chesuoft Many volunteers have shared recordings of themsevles reading Chesterton's writings aloud http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22G%20K%20Chesterton%22%20AND%20collection%3Aaudio_bookspoetry http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22G%20K%20Che...
- mustapha 13y agoThis is excellent. I'll add this to the article so everyone can read it all. Thanks for taking the time out to search for and put it up.
- aaronem 13y agoIf these writers, for instance, said anything about success in jumping it would be something like this: “The jumper must have a clear aim before him. He must desire definitely to jump higher than the other men who are in for the same competition. He must let no feeble feelings of mercy (sneaked from the sickening Little Englanders and Pro-Boers) prevent him from trying to do his best. He must remember that a competition in jumping is distinctly competitive, and that, as Darwin has gloriously demonstrated, THE WEAKEST GO TO THE WALL.” Yeah, that Chesterton, what an anti-capitalist.
- aspensmonster 13y agoMaybe I'm reading it wrong, but I took that as Chesterton taking a jab at the "Success" books and their authors.
- jholman 13y agoI don't know what Chesterton thought of capitalism, or wealth, or success, but that piece doesn't condemn any of them, as I understood it. That piece is about bad writing, and vapid self-help books. Chesterton appears, in this essay, to be fully in favour of getting ahead in the world (though he does take time to suggest that Mr Vanderbilt might not be a deity, so we may conclude that he thinks that getting ahead in the world is not the only valuable thing). Notice the bits about "if you want to be succeed at whist, great; either learn to be good at whist, or learn to cheat".
- jawns 13y agoChesterton was a fan of distributism, a "third way" economic system that is neither capitalism (which favors Big Business) nor socialism (which favors Big Government). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
- zt 13y agoThere are three ways to make a living in this business: be first, be smarter, or cheat. Now I don't cheat. And although I like to think that we have some pretty smart people in this building...it sure is a hell of a lot easier to just be first.
- phreanix 13y agoWhat happened to "be better"?
- aspensmonster 13y agoIt's a quote from the movie Margin Call, IIRC.
- jdmitch 13y agoA hundred years ago we had the ideal of the Industrious Apprentice; boys were told that by thrift and work they would all become Lord Mayors. This was fallacious, but it was manly, and had a minimum of moral truth...The Industrious Apprentice rose by virtues few and narrow indeed, but still virtues. But what shall we say of the gospel preached to the new Industrious Apprentice; the Apprentice who rises not by his virtues, but avowedly by his vices? So who are the new new Industrious Apprentices? Growth Hackers? ;)
- nikatwork 13y agoGraduate nerds being exploited in web dev sweatshops.
- jcromartie 13y agoThe kids who are told that if you just go to college and stick with the education system, doing all your homework, you'll get a high-paying job and be a CEO or president some day.
- informatimago 13y agoSuccess is in the eyes of the beholder. Take two millionaires. On that had the objective of having by now one million bucks, has them, reached his objective, success! The other had the objective of having by now two million bucks, has only one million: failure. Not even close. Now what if the later changes his objective after the fact? IMO still a failure :-) So success is not defined by what you have are or archive, but by the goals you set for yourself. I am a big failure: I'm not 500 light years from here exploring the stars. :-(
- bostonpete 13y agoSo your advice to kids who want to succeed in life would be to aim low?
- singlow 13y agoSet your goals such that their ends will be fulfilling to you. Do not set out with success as your end, else it is meaningless. If success only means to accomplish what you have set out to do, then set out to do something worthwhile, that in success you will have achieved something greater than success itself.
- dalek_cannes 13y ago"Low" by whose standards and compared to what? Those who mistake success for happiness usually end up losing both. We recently had a wealthy corporate CFO in these parts who had pretty much everything everybody else wants jump off a bridge because... I don't even know why.
- 001sky 13y agoIt is perfectly obvious that in any decent occupation (such as bricklaying or writing books) there are only two ways (in any special sense) of succeeding. One is by doing very good work, the other is by cheating. Both are much too simple to require any literary explanation.
- dalek_cannes 13y agoBertrand Russell once said that all work falls into one of two basic categories: moving objects on or near the surface of the Earth, and telling other people to do so.
- nrmilstein 13y agoThat's a great quote. Do you have a source? I can't find it online from him.
- thelettere 13y agoIt's from "In Praise of Idleness"
- jhickner 13y ago> First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two organized bodies of men; this is called politics.
- invalidOrTaken 13y agoWe've progressed! Now we tell computers to do so.
- kazagistar 13y ago
- Debugreality 13y agoSuccess is easy to sell as it is most often what someone believes they need. Perhaps it masks a flaw in their character. The example in the article relates to money but success to a lonely man may be love. Perhaps success means only that which we most feel we need to be complete.
- devgutt 13y agoThe days of idealism and superstition are over. We live in a time of science and hard common sense... Unfortunately, it wasn't true in 1909, and still not true at all today
- bitserf 13y agoDid you miss the quotes?
- hyperpape 13y agoI don't know if it's a browser issue or something else, but I actually don't see any quotation marks, or italics, or anything else. I spent a good while figuring out where one of the quotes ended.
- aspensmonster 13y agoSame here. No actual quotes or other indication of quoted text, but context was enough to figure out when the quote began and ended.
- devgutt 13y agosorry about that, but it appears in italic for me. with quotes: "The days of idealism and superstition are over. We live in a time of science and hard common sense..."
- Camillo 13y agoChesterton is a great writer that ought to be better known.
- bloaf 13y agoNot only are his works worth reading, he is endlessly quotable.
- a3voices 13y ago"The world has become an idolator of this god called money." - Pope Francis
- nrmilstein 13y agoWow, what fantastic writing. I often find tech entrepreneurs and HN readers are too obsessed with success and wealth, often explaining away any accusations of greed by claiming it's their "passion" and talking in mystic terms of the tech revolution they're a part of. The biggest thing I would call a "success" in my life is the joy I've received from good friends and family, and the experiences I've had with them. Things that take a long time to cultivate and over which I often have little control.
- mustapha 13y agoYou're lucky.
- ekanes 13y agoValue is created when both sides want what the other side is offering more than what they have. There is a case to be made that your wealth is a reflection of the value you have created in the world. Do Big Things in the world, and you may find yourself wealthy. It's not necessarily greed. When you speak of success, and friends and family, most people on HN would agree, but put them on a parallel track to wealth. They are more to do with happiness imho. Rock on.
- _delirium 13y ago> There is a case to be made that your wealth is a reflection of the value you have created in the world. Not a good case, though.
- ktran03 13y agoWhy not? I think the previous posters assertion was legitimate. It actually got me thinking.
- _delirium 13y agoCreating value isn't necessary or sufficient for capturing revenue streams. When a new technology is invented, for example, there are usually many people involved: there is basic science and mathematics research laying the groundwork, applied research, manufacturing, commercialization, design, marketing, etc. Typically the revenues do not go to these players proportionally to their contribution. For example, a scientific breakthrough may produce considerable value, but it is not typically possible for the scientist(s) making the breakthrough to personally capture the value, because one cannot own scientific breakthroughs. Instead, the value accrues to society generally, including people who did not create it—it might form a major contribution to an upcoming product of mine, for example. If the product is successful, I'll gain wealth, but the scientist whose work enabled the product won't. (Patents are an attempt to provide an accounting mechanism for owning at least those kinds of breakthroughs classed as "inventions", but have their own set of problems, and at least in principle don't apply to basic math/science discoveries anyway.) And some people simply make money by capturing economic rent.
- npalli 13y agoWowza, that was some Inception style mind bender out there. At the top you have a rookie author using an early 21st century platform (svbtle) to dispense bon mots about life and ingratiate himself with his readers who are turned off by current social mores by --- Aligning himself with the words of a rookie author in the early 20th century platform (books) who dispensed bon mots about life at the turn of the 20th century who in turn ingratiates himself with his readers who are turned off by then current social mores by --- Invoking the words of puritans of the early 19th century who in turn … well the trail ends since we don’t know what they thought. Plus we live in a puritan culture so I suppose we are stuck with whatever they thought and that is foundational. Three level inception. Nice. “Medium” guys take note, svtble is using a three level inception to gain readership. The game is on. You need a four level inception to convince me. Otherwise, I ain’t clicking on your ads. Seriously though, I’m reminded of the foreword of another early 20th century book as noted by Oscar Wilde In old days books were written by men of letters and read by the public. Nowadays books are written by the public and read by nobody.
- mistermcgruff 13y agoG. K. Chesterton was a great mind and certainly not a "rookie author." I hope I'm reading you wrong there. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't mean he's a rookie. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton American Chesterton Society: http://www.chesterton.org/ http://www.chesterton.org/
- npalli 13y agoSure, he was a great mind. However he was getting started by the time of All things considered, published 1908. Let's put it this way, he published far more after this essay than before, so on a relative level he was rookie author when he wrote the essay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton_bibliography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton_bibliography
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- markost 13y agoIn a chat with one of my older friends who I respect very much, he lent this advice: Mark, the first thing you need to do to be successful is make a decision on what you want to accomplish, and then commit all your resources to that goal.
- F_J_H 13y agoNot on topic as far as the article is concerned, but in regards to G.K. Chesterton, my favorite quote of his is: "Never take down a fence until you understand why it was put up." I used to use that one a lot with developers trying to improve on a predecessor's code...
- arethuza 13y agoI remember just such an occasion a few years back where someone working for me did exactly that. When asked why he hadn't noticed the associated unit tests were failing the reply was "those weren't compiling so I commented them out".
- norswap 13y agoWhat do you do if the man that put up the fence does not know why he put it up himself, or if he put it up for all the wrong reasons but is not there to explain them to you?
- rahoulb 13y agoThe point is not to do it blind. "I don't know why this is here and I've tried to find out but hit a dead end so I'm getting rid anyway" is better than "I don't know why this is here so I'm just getting rid".
- ctdonath 13y agoHence the proper usage of "question authority": with all due respect[1], investigate the reasoning behind the authority's action and either be enlightened as to the reasons or confirm that the decision makers were, in fact, ignorant/idiots. Alas, the term got misconstrued to validating "ignore those who likely know better, and act confidently in your own impulsive ignorance." [1] - "all due respect" has also been stripped of proper meaning, relegated to a barely-veiled insult.
- ctdonath 13y agoThat's the basis for "conservatism": recognize that many processes, rules, barriers, morals, norms, etc. have been hard-won and hard-learned at great cost (money, lives, time), that we may not remember/understand quite why they're in place but they're there for good reason nonetheless, and abandoning/destroying them out of ignorance may doom generations to suffer until they re-discover why those were enacted in the first place. That's also why rebuilding systems from scratch (the old "just rip it all out and do it again") usually doesn't work: there is a great deal of wisdom, however poorly implemented or documented, buried within that system. Starting over abandons those minute but critical bits, and must be re-discovered the hard way.
- EGreg 13y agoI wonder if Chesterton ever read Dale Carnegie :)
- josephjrobison 13y agoHaha well put, I've read both and Chesterton is good for having a deep understanding of how humans behave and I come away feeling smarter and more interested in the world. I enjoy Carnegie at the same time and get a rush of optimism after reading, but they are more general tactics. What's even more amazing is that writing from these authors from the early 1900s and 1930s is clearer and stronger writing than a lot of stuff today - well at least compared to blogs.
- Ygg2 13y agoThat's not strange/amazing/weird. They passed through filter of time. For every Chesterton/Carnegie there are thousand really bad contemporary writers, prostitutes aspiring to be writers etc. If you lived in their time, you'd probably say same about people from 1850. And saying all those news articles are pretty mundane and bad. And that the thing people scribble on walls are very rude. Technology changes, people don't.
- numeromancer 13y agoThat's not strange/amazing/weird. They passed through filter of time. For every Chesterton/Carnegie there are thousand really bad contemporary writers, prostitutes aspiring to be writers etc. Indeed, the subject of the article was the abundance of such writers at the time.
- josephjrobison 13y agoYes I do completely agree with you there, they are just the ones that floated to the top, and I'm sure many writers of today will end up being revered like we do with Chesterton and Carnegie. I guess my hope would be that we were more inundated with this type of reading everyday than what we currently are inundated with
- rajivtiru 13y agoFor those interested, you don't have to flip through the images to read. All Things Considered is free on the kindle store. Or download ebook here: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13992463M/All_things_considered http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13992463M/All_things_consider...
- tehwalrus 13y agoI loved this article - anything which dismantles an ideology (especially one as ancient and terrible as money-worship) always gives me a smile.
- SeanDav 13y agoAlthough the author is trying to make some good points, he succeeds only in attempting to tear down. He does not appear to offer any reasonable alternatives. I came away from this article feeling slightly unclean, as if wanting to improve myself is both pointless and somehow wrong. It appears that I should have no goals, aiming only for mediocrity.
- huxley 13y agoI think you may be misreading him, Chesterton isn't saying you should stop improving yourself, but that you can't hope to find that improvement in a book detailing the supposed habits of the wealthy and successful (or the one weird trick that makes everyone a millionaire). Your goal shouldn't be to become Cornelius Vanderbilt, it should be to take advantage of your abilities and circumstances to find your own path to success.
- chernevik 13y agoFriend, if something so well written and argued leaves you feeling out of place, perhaps you'd do better to examine yourself for faults, rather than the essay.
- sp332 13y agoIt's not about actual advice, but books (or maybe TED talks) full of "advice" like this: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=206 http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=206
- hownottowrite 13y agohttp://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11505 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11505
- tokenadult 13y agoA website post, "Saint Chesterton?" commenting on recent discussion of proposals for canonization of G.K. Chesterton (declaring him to be a saint): http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/saint-chesterton/ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/saint-che...
- slurry 13y agoReally a charitable understatement of the case against.
- BigChiefSmokem 13y agoIt's like Chesterton is describing every other marketing post on HN. Fascinating!
- rogerthis 13y agoWow. The good old fat catholic Chesterton (though not fully catholic in 1909, but 95%).