"Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary."
This is an essay by Orwell who, it might some of you, was an ardent socialist himslf. The above is an excerpt of the essay at the link below
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/fun.html
Among other things, he says that all our best authors Swift, H G Wells, Joyce etcetc have tried time and again to paint a picture of Paradise and Heaven but have all failed. He says its impossible to describe in detail what what a workable Paradise would function like. he says, "It would seem that human beings are not able to describe, nor perhaps to imagine, happiness except in terms of contrast."
I disagree.Just because some goras can't come up with it doesn't mean it cant be done.But that's just me...
Can anyone submit ideas on what a functional Paradise would be like?
-Sushrut
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Why Socialists don't believe in fun- Sushrut
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I very clearly remember comteplating the same question the second time I read Animal Farm - probably 10-12 years ago. I've always had socialist leanings (still do - but, 'It's alright, Mr. ... I'll take your money since you insist'), but there were two questions that sprang up:
1. Can the pre-communist Utopia that Orwell so beautifully portrays in Animal Farm ever exist?
2. Is it really a Utopia?
Ans: No and probably No.
I'm currently reading a book on theories of justice by Martha Nussbaum where, amongst other things, she claims Rawls' contractarian theory is the ultimate theory so far, before she proceeds to debunk it. I think she hopes to put forth an entirely novel structure of State and its initial evolution.
Hopefully I will have enough time on hand to read the whole book before I move location. Thoughts will follow - perhaps Chapter wise, for best results. In the meanwhile, here are the three problems of the Rawlsian theory she hopes to overcome:
1. How do you ensure justice for those physically or mentally handicapped?
2. How do you ensure justice across individual nation-States? Remember that the social contract theories were all put forth with the nation-State as the unit which rational beings from the State of Nature contracted to form.
3. How do you ensure justice for non-human beings?
Ideas - discussions - and parallel readings are welcome...
I think structurally what the State can do it very limited. I don't think that greater state paternalism is either desirous or possible. We are all of us moving toward greater individual freedom and more individualised lifestyles. I welcome that. It would be regressive for society to move in any other direction.
As you pointed out in a later post, change must be internal. From the inside out. A state must then merely create conditions that evolve and foster justice for disadvantaged groups from within society rather than traditional methods of "protecting" them form without.
This form of behaviour is more accaptabel, following a pattern I like to call progressive acclimatisation. A new idea that seems oppressive or abhorrent starts to gain acceptance as society starts its internal process of rationalisation and acceptance. Military service was one such. Not as radical as conscription, the service was accepted and the subtler message of duty to serve one's country above all else, planted in one's head. Over time, it becomes "normal"
Canada with its 50% tax rates and Sweden with free education supported by similarly absurd tax rates are both examples where the populace has accepted classically socialistsic methods. I believe there would be much merit in observing how these have rolled out reforms that seem so absurd to others but so acceptable to those suffering them.
Of course there is the question of electing a government in whose integrity the people trust or at the very least one that people aren't all massively cycnical about already. In India this would be a problem obviously.
This reminds me of an exchange in Frasier.
Frasier: You know Niles, this is exactly the kind of time when families pull together, set aside their differences and make sacrifices for the common good, sacrfice the individual at the altar of the many, for a brighter tomorrow
Niles: Well said Frasier.... what shall WE do?
Sushrut
At the risk of being a little trite. "Utopia" = "No-place". Literally. Thomas Moore (wasn't he the man who coined the phrase), at least, was clear where he stood on the matter.
Understand etymology, and you hardly ever need to debate philosophy.
Celegrim: That last bit was so well said I almost suspect it's a quote from someplace else by the GB Shaw types ;-)
Nevertheless- you say etymology, I say semantics.
In my opinion, the debate continues...
Post a Comment