Comment by patrickk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by patrickk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I like this explanation, which comes from a reddit comment[1]:

"There are two kinds of journalism that get emotional reactions out of us. One has to do with exposing the 'puppet-masters' of society and their stranglehold on the way we live our lives. Clear and sustained reporting of this kind builds public resentment into effective political currents."

"The second is the kind of scandalous, sordid stories of individual misconduct which keep us occupied, but just leave us throwing our hands up wondering 'what is this world coming to?'."

"Curtis is saying that the lines between the two have become dangerously blurred, so that the latest banking scandal is reacted to as though it's a tale of private immorality that we should just shake our heads and tut about, in the same way we might about Miley Cyrus' latest exploits."

"As always, Curtis pulls his interesting trick of exploring and linking the history of the two trends through the lives of individuals, but I agree that can sometimes be confusing. It's definitely worth a read though."

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1s8a8v/what_the_...

I think a lot of the confusion about the article is that Curtis himself doesn't claim to understand what's really going on:

"""Computers, "financial engineering" and credit, social media, algorithms that predict what you want, NSA surveillance, giant new holding corporations called Master Limited Partnerships - all of these surround us and wrap us into a complicated modern web. Some of it is wonderful, other parts of it are threatening - while even more parts are just incomprehensible."""

For him, """It is as if the scandals are part of a giant jigsaw puzzle - and what we are waiting for is someone to come along and click those pieces together to give a clear, big picture of what is happening."""

(Like others, I also found the writing style very unclear, and I'm actually kind-of a fan of his).

What I think Curtis wants us to take from the piece is the suggestion of an overarching connection (possibly even a human-designed one) between these seemingly unconnected, aforementioned aspects of our lives.

The guiding theme for the article seems to be the effort to "... find an oblique angle that offers a bit more perspective" - the life of Tamara Mellon, her father, and great-uncle of her husband, affected by aspects of current finance practices, (the alleged precursor to) social media and/or surveillance, and corporations.

If I may add my personal opinion on this interpretation of Curtis' views: Nothing new here. Orwell and Huxley already warned us from the dangers of rising mass-surveillance and huge power structures, while people are kept docile with "Light Entertainment". I don't think there's anything more described in the article, but what a fascinating description it is.

There is something new here, Orwell and Huxley dont cut it.

This is a kind of global apathy that neither Orwell nor Huxley deal with, (in my reading) Orwell explains power very well and how oppressive regimes control and guide our very lives, Huxley is about the same but from a different angle - instead of active oppression by more carrots in the form of entertainment.

But where is this apathy coming from when facts are thrown in our faces about the misuse and abuse of democracy - in Orwells world it would be like an actor taking over the TVs and announcing even in double-speak so it cant be misread "You can make a change, its not all real, the power the state has depends only on YOU and YOU can take it right now, stop it all!" and the same for Huxley. The message is clear, we dont have to be oppressed - in fact the powers area afraid of us, we are masters of our own faith.

That has happened, and yet nobody seems to give a shit. Its like neither Orwell nor Huxleys methods were really needed to drive society in certain directions. Its like the common people dont want to be in charge of their own lives, like we have nothing to live for, nothing to stand up for, nothing to accomplish.

Then the question we now have then, what is it that would make us do things, what is capable of driving and changing society? What would the common man/woman in 2013 step up and stand for? Thats the piece that is missing.

For me, Huxley hews much closer to reality - First Worlders are generally too comfortable, too preoccupied with the minutiae of getting on to really be fundamentally shaken by these ongoing revelations.

"An army marches on its stomachs" comes to mind here - it will take many more people feeling a much more literal pinch before the tide rises enough to buoy dissent past this nascent malaise. 20-30 years from now, with automation having rendered entire classes of workers obsolete, with the resultant gains having been gobbled by the same actors who have dominated global commerce these last 30+ years - I think we'll find then what the end game really looks like. I doubt very much it will be appetizing to 99.999% of us.

In my reading, Huxley depicts a society too sated and distracted to criticize the power structures they live in. The oppression is not one of force and fear, as in Orwell, but is equally demoralizing and incapacitating. Maybe even more incapacitating: in Orwell, Smith's resistance wells up from within; in Huxley, the introduction of an alien from another world is required to throw things into relief. In this sense, Curtis may be describing sort of a synthesis of the Orwellian and Huxleyan views, built on the mass media stupefaction of the populace to glamorize the roll out the surveillance state.

Maybe the internet is our version of that "alien"?

Maybe before it was aquihired.

I can speak for myself. I would very much like to change structures and reduce the power of the state. Sometimes I feel very motivated.

On the other hand, I have been struggling for years with health problems and just in general to get by financially. I suspect that I may not be alone in that.

I always think that if I become independently wealthy, then I might be able to take political action. I would have resources to release technologies that could make a difference, or to run media campaigns. And I would be able to pay lawyers.

But as it is, besides clicking on a few petitions online or some such, I don't feel like I am able to take political action. I don't have the energy for it. And to be honest, I don't know what I would do. I do not believe that voting or making efforts inside of the current system will make a significant difference. I get the impression that we need to do some experimentation with some fairly radical changes to ordinary societal structures. And those types of changes, I don't even mention specifics anymore because they are rejected immediately or not understood.

I think that we need improved belief systems and structures, rather than incremental modification or adjustments. People aren't buying those types of ideas though. So it seems like everyone is too stupid or conservative to recognize and support ideas that are radical enough to make a difference. But like I said, I don't even present those ideas anymore, because I don't have the resources to try them, and no one is listening, and there is no point in presenting an idea just to have everyone shit on it.

Go on, I'm interested. What kind of changes do you have in mind?

I think the apathy comes from a dearth of alternatives. People see that the current system is corrupt, but nobody can think of a better idea. There is a pervasive and not wholly unjustified sense that all political ideologies have failed.

For a long time libertarianism and its relatives seemed like the last idealism standing, but there is now an increasing sense of cynicism toward those ideas as well since it's clear that economic liberty just means the top 0.1% capture 99% of everything due to self-reinforcing network effects in markets.

> This is a kind of global apathy that neither Orwell nor Huxley deal with.

I think this might be the other side of the "global politically-motivated violence is decreasing near-monotonically viewed over centuries" trend.

Whoever could imagine a world power trying to engage in empire-building, in 2013? Governments just aren't scary, any longer, in that fundamental sense. And so their dual, revolutions, are also becoming increasingly rare.

>Whoever could imagine a world power trying to engage in empire-building, in 2013? Governments just aren't scary, any longer, in that fundamental sense.

why would you need a formal empire if you can make governments in different countries do your bidding? Any empire of the past had local governors/governments who would manage the daily routine of keeping flock in check and sewer flow. And current governments, especially in Western world, are doing it pretty effectively.

>And so their dual, revolutions, are also becoming increasingly rare.

people make revolution when they hit the wire and other means don't cut anymore. So if one manage to keep the population even just a small distance from the "wire", by providing minimal employment (or more precisely enough "bread and circuses"), policing without too much abuse, etc... - no revolution. Many countries have reached or coming close to this optimum, while some (i.e. Arabian Spring) hasn't mastered it yet.

> what is it that would make us do things, what is capable of driving and changing society?

The same thing that it has always been. There is nothing new here.

If you look at the populist changes to society throughout history, they are fixing problems that are literally unimaginable to modern western sensibilities.

For example, the average age upon death of a working class Londoner in the 1780s was 19. [0] Can we even imagine that? People, in huge numbers, dropping off at 19? So that's how we got labor laws.

Consider the civil rights movement. It's tempting to blur this with today's racial "tensions", but back then there were cities that would post signs threatening to shoot blacks on sight. This was common enough that there's probably one within an hour's drive of where you are right now [1].

In 1932, the year that the Nazis came to power, German unemployment was over 30% [2]. That is basically unimaginable for most countries today, and those that are in this ballpark have exactly the sort of unrest (e.g. Greece, Spain) that probably leads to social change. It's certainly way different than anything you see in the US.

The thing is, NSA spying or whatever don't really rate a mention next to any of these. Sure, it is a violation of your rights but people don't rise up for "on paper" sorts of causes.

It is easy for HN and the educated leisure class to paint everybody as "apathetic" or whatever. But out in the real world, 58% of Americans spend at least one year below the poverty line [3]. People aren't worrying about the Orwellian society because they're worrying instead about how to pay for Christmas presents for the kids.

If you really want the masses to care about whatever HN's issue of the day is, the first step is to figure out how to get the masses into the educated leisure class so that they have time to care.

[0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/02/orph-f20.html

[1] http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/content.php?file=sundowntow...

[2] http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/the-nazi-rise-to-po...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

This is it really. Who doesn't have a car that wants one? Who doesn't have a tv? Who doesn't have the Internet? Who doesn't live to a good age? And moreso in europe: who doesn't have free health care? Who doesn't get a living allowance and shelter when they're out of work? Who can't afford to fly and stay in other countries(£20 flights if you're not picky). Hell, you've even got a country debating whether or not to give every citizen a salary, for free!

The fact is that the poorest people have things that kings couldn't have a 100 years ago. You're going to have a hard time persuading people to rise up under these conditions. And really, why should they?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com