5 ms·

I'm way too lazy while idling to read this. tl;dr?

kamaal 13y ago
As automation increases and we have machines do most of our work. We don't seem to put that saved time into leisure. We rather seem to use that saved time to do more work. Humans aren't too happy with every one getting the same, even if that is sufficient for every one's sustenance. We inevitable use our time to buy things that distinguish us from other fellow humans. The theme was also propagated in the novel 1984,concept of equality among humans was/is going to be a big disaster.
- arethuza 13y ago
  From what I recall of the Party in 1984 (at least the Inner Party) they had no illusions about them holding power to benefit anyone else: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." [NB I find the natural antidote to this to be the speech from the end of The Great Dictator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IvPIWzQcUY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IvPIWzQcUY]
  - kamaal 13y ago
    The problem with 'holding power' is you also need submission from the masses or at least need to keep them in order. There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans. The very concept is against our very internal wiring. Equality means, every one gets the same regardless of their efforts in getting it. This is a very strange concept, and the human understanding of motivation rejects it. Those who contribute more, always assume they need to get proportional to their effort(which is justice), those who contribute less or nothing at all feel they are entitled to get the same as everyone because they think equality is justice. Net result? The hard working no longer feel motivated to contribute, or worse move else where where they feel they will better rewarded. The situation in the system worsens with no one building anything of real value, while expecting to get the same. That's how socialists and communists systems across the world have collapsed over time. Secondly, war will be perpetual state in which humans will live for many ages to come. In fact this too was discussed in pretty detail in 1984. War is basically an activity that destroys human effort, so that there is room to create more and more of it. That will ultimately be the only way in which more goods can be created and consumed. Unless of course in the far future we colonize universe to an extent there is far too much space for us to interfere. Just like the very very early humans on earth.
    - circlefavshape 13y ago
      "There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans" This is simply not true. Hunter-gatherer societies are typically egalitarian, and our species has subsisted by hunting and gathering for the vast majority of its existence.
      - haihaibye 13y ago
        In the tribe there was inequality of status (eg best hunters) and mate choice. Between tribes there was inequality of where to live, or living at all due to border clashes, raids etc
- AimHere 13y ago
  >The theme was also propagated in the novel 1984,concept of equality among humans was/is going to be a big disaster. Not at all. If you want to mention an anti-egalitarian novel, Harrison Bergeron is probably the one to pick. Orwell was very definitely big on equality and socialism - In one of his essays, circa World War 2, he even proposed a maximum wage! 1984 was largely a critique of Stalinist totalitarianism (and post-war British austerity) rather than a criticism of socialism itself. In fact, one of his problems with Stalin (as well as the previously-mentioned totalitarianism) was that Stalin was a counterrevolutionary who crushed the egalitarian revolution going on in Spain during the Civil war - Orwell was fighting alongside a Trotskyite militia at the time and recounted his ideas in Homage to Catalonia. Orwell was to the left of Stalin, if anything. Orwell's socialism is certainitely the main thread throughout all of his work, but unfortunately his two most famous works - Animal Farm and 1984 - because they happen to be attacks on the Soviet Communist Party, are often erroneously read as attacks on socialism.
  - acheron 13y ago
    Orwell's main target seemed to be those who "corrupted" what he felt were the originally good ideas/intentions of socialism (Stalin in particular), with the result that people were left worse off (or, at best, no better) afterwards than they had been before socialism. Whether such "corruption" is inevitable or not... given his other writings, Orwell would have said no, but readers can have their own opinions.
- aleh 13y ago
  > Humans aren't too happy with every one getting the same. > We inevitable use our time to buy things that distinguish us from other fellow humans. IMHO this is cultural, not biological phenomenon. In developed countries, especially US, people are pretty much being brainwashed to 'think different and buy X'. Yes, inequality is inevitable to some extent, however it is often artificially promoted for its own sake.

As automation increases and we have machines do most of our work. We don't seem to put that saved time into leisure. We rather seem to use that saved time to do more work. Humans aren't too happy with every one getting the same, even if that is sufficient for every one's sustenance. We inevitable use our time to buy things that distinguish us from other fellow humans. The theme was also propagated in the novel 1984,concept of equality among humans was/is going to be a big disaster.

arethuza 13y ago
From what I recall of the Party in 1984 (at least the Inner Party) they had no illusions about them holding power to benefit anyone else: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." [NB I find the natural antidote to this to be the speech from the end of The Great Dictator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IvPIWzQcUY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IvPIWzQcUY]
- kamaal 13y ago
  The problem with 'holding power' is you also need submission from the masses or at least need to keep them in order. There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans. The very concept is against our very internal wiring. Equality means, every one gets the same regardless of their efforts in getting it. This is a very strange concept, and the human understanding of motivation rejects it. Those who contribute more, always assume they need to get proportional to their effort(which is justice), those who contribute less or nothing at all feel they are entitled to get the same as everyone because they think equality is justice. Net result? The hard working no longer feel motivated to contribute, or worse move else where where they feel they will better rewarded. The situation in the system worsens with no one building anything of real value, while expecting to get the same. That's how socialists and communists systems across the world have collapsed over time. Secondly, war will be perpetual state in which humans will live for many ages to come. In fact this too was discussed in pretty detail in 1984. War is basically an activity that destroys human effort, so that there is room to create more and more of it. That will ultimately be the only way in which more goods can be created and consumed. Unless of course in the far future we colonize universe to an extent there is far too much space for us to interfere. Just like the very very early humans on earth.
  - circlefavshape 13y ago
    "There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans" This is simply not true. Hunter-gatherer societies are typically egalitarian, and our species has subsisted by hunting and gathering for the vast majority of its existence.
    - haihaibye 13y ago
      In the tribe there was inequality of status (eg best hunters) and mate choice. Between tribes there was inequality of where to live, or living at all due to border clashes, raids etc
AimHere 13y ago
>The theme was also propagated in the novel 1984,concept of equality among humans was/is going to be a big disaster. Not at all. If you want to mention an anti-egalitarian novel, Harrison Bergeron is probably the one to pick. Orwell was very definitely big on equality and socialism - In one of his essays, circa World War 2, he even proposed a maximum wage! 1984 was largely a critique of Stalinist totalitarianism (and post-war British austerity) rather than a criticism of socialism itself. In fact, one of his problems with Stalin (as well as the previously-mentioned totalitarianism) was that Stalin was a counterrevolutionary who crushed the egalitarian revolution going on in Spain during the Civil war - Orwell was fighting alongside a Trotskyite militia at the time and recounted his ideas in Homage to Catalonia. Orwell was to the left of Stalin, if anything. Orwell's socialism is certainitely the main thread throughout all of his work, but unfortunately his two most famous works - Animal Farm and 1984 - because they happen to be attacks on the Soviet Communist Party, are often erroneously read as attacks on socialism.
- acheron 13y ago
  Orwell's main target seemed to be those who "corrupted" what he felt were the originally good ideas/intentions of socialism (Stalin in particular), with the result that people were left worse off (or, at best, no better) afterwards than they had been before socialism. Whether such "corruption" is inevitable or not... given his other writings, Orwell would have said no, but readers can have their own opinions.
aleh 13y ago
> Humans aren't too happy with every one getting the same. > We inevitable use our time to buy things that distinguish us from other fellow humans. IMHO this is cultural, not biological phenomenon. In developed countries, especially US, people are pretty much being brainwashed to 'think different and buy X'. Yes, inequality is inevitable to some extent, however it is often artificially promoted for its own sake.