[HN Gopher] Notes on Nationalism (1945)
___________________________________________________________________
Notes on Nationalism (1945)
Author : rramadass
Score : 180 points
Date : 2022-03-06 06:16 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.orwellfoundation.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.orwellfoundation.com)
| bendbro wrote:
| > During the last twenty years or so of his life, his entire
| output was in reality an endless repetition of the same thing
|
| Ha. This is a hilarious read.
| donatj wrote:
| How Orwell defines Nationalism is in my experience what you hear
| getting called "statism" in libertarian circles.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Sure, it's worship of the state in the final analysis.
| fkfkno wrote:
| So he _was_ a patriot after all?
|
| All jokes aside, in that book there is the quote:
|
| "All art is propaganda; on the other hand, not all propaganda is
| art."
|
| History judges which is which by virtue of whether or not it
| succeeds in its objective(s). But history is itself another form
| of propaganda, so alas, we are all once again stuck here in this
| mess we call "today".
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| The original _Lego Movie_ (2014) has a wonderful, cheerful,
| catchy, and quite literally and deliberately fascist theme song (
| _Everything is Awesome_ ). You could say the entire (surprisingly
| good) film is an explanation of why it's not as good a thing as
| it seems to be.
|
| (Yes, that's all kinds of ironic for what is at the same time
| essentially a feature-length commercial.)
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| > _" The original Lego Movie (2014) has a wonderful, cheerful,
| catchy, and quite literally and deliberately fascist theme song
| (Everything is Awesome)"_
|
| I'm sorry, what? I know the label "fascist" gets thrown around
| with reckless abandon these days, but in what way is the
| everting is awesome song fascistic? To me it's just a catchy
| children's song.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| I mean, I might be wrong, but--in the literal one? As in it
| preaches conformity and finding your purpose in following the
| group whatever the group is doing?
|
| A glance at the lyrics makes me think my memory might have
| made this stronger than it actually is, but when I watched
| the movie about five years ago I remember thinking those
| lyrics were the first sign something was supposed to be off,
| and indeed I seem to remember that when the protagonist broke
| away from the prescribed routine he looked on with longing at
| the others "working in harmony" while the song is playing in
| the background.
|
| It might have been cheery Soviet plays from the 1930s making
| me paranoid, but that song was the strongest impression the
| film left on me.
| foobarian wrote:
| I don't find the literal interpretation helpful. That
| pretty much describes any group activity anywhere in the
| world. Find me one major Western company that does not
| preach "better together" or "teamwork" or whatever. Then
| you have the Eastern ideas of "all under Heaven." The
| Communist "brotherhood and unity." Etc.
|
| Not that I have an answer. It's complicated but
| interesting. :-)
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > conformity and finding your purpose in following the
| group
|
| That's good advice for a happy life for a lot of people, of
| course assuming that "the group" is not actively hostile to
| nonconformists. But nothing wrong with chosing to get a
| job, work hard and take care of your family, and live
| according to your cultural and/or religious customs.
| prox wrote:
| Yeah, the lego people where just building and destroying
| and weren't allowed to think outside that norm. Master
| builders were outlawed and creativity was frowned upon.
|
| Lego movie is a movie from the perspective of the kid who
| wants to play but his father who is also represented as
| the CEO / absolute ruler wants to keep his lego world as
| he once made it (the kragl glue superweapon)
| dsclough wrote:
| I had the same takeaway from this movie as you did, thought
| indeed it has been a while since I've seen it as well.
| Seems quite unlikely that Everything is Awesome was simply
| meant as a catchy children's song.
| flycaliguy wrote:
| I've said it before and I'll say it again, Spice World paired
| with Josie and the Pussycats is a good time and a great thesis.
| nojonestownpls wrote:
| kcorbitt wrote:
| > In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so
| widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject,
| but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing
| equivalent I have chosen the word 'nationalism', but it will be
| seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary
| sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not
| always attach itself to what is called a nation - that is, a
| single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a
| church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense,
| against something or other and without the need for any positive
| object of loyalty.
|
| After reading the first few pages of the essay I think Orwell is
| describing what I've heard others call "tribalism", for example
| in https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
| anythin...
|
| There are certainly good things that come from this, but overall
| it sure seems like an aspect of human nature that can do a lot of
| damage in what should be a positive-sum world.
| dash2 wrote:
| But note, he distinguishes between nationalism and patriotism,
| and even blames the decline of patriotism for the rise of
| nationalism. It's quite a subtle essay. He was also ahead of
| his time in knowing about - or rather, being aware of - both
| things like the concentration camps, and (to my surprise) the
| Bengal famine.
| bobthechef wrote:
| genericacct wrote:
| A bit is either 1 or 0, tertium non datur
| avodonosov wrote:
| I heard an opinion that identification of oneself with a group
| based on some principle (ethnicity / religion / class, etc) is a
| mechanism produced by evolution, allowing humans to form lager
| groups than the number of individuals one can personally know.
|
| In contrast, for example, to apes. Chimpanzees can only form
| group up to 150 members.
|
| BTW, on wars between chimpanzees:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
| wpietri wrote:
| I'd say "form larger groups" is burying the lead. Evolution is
| about differential survival, and humans, as eusocial animals,
| are at an extreme end of the spectrum. What caused such rapid
| evolution? My money would be on a whole lot of murder by people
| who clubbed together based on more tenuous identity markers
| than you see used in our nearest relatives, the other great
| apes. Take, for example, how frequent and widespread violent
| ethnic cleansing is.
| sorokod wrote:
| Evolution based or not, quck and cheap IFF ( identification
| friend or foe) is an obvious low resolution optimisation.
|
| One should be aware that this is an optimization and in fact
| the entire dichotomy of friend or foe is an optimization in
| itself.
| jdrc wrote:
| wish we go back to forming groups of 150, each of them equipped
| with a nuclear head and some servers.
| rramadass wrote:
| Given whats going on in the World now, Orwell's "Notes on
| Nationalism" is a pertinent read. We must be careful that we
| don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the
| other side" reflexively.
|
| Summary on Wikipedia :
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism
| steve76 wrote:
| cheschire wrote:
| Getting carried away is an open and public action. Not getting
| carried away must be done privately. It's tough to know how
| many people around are not getting carried away because they
| are afraid of being lashed out at for not being extreme enough.
|
| This slowly shifts the window. It seems inevitable.
| christophilus wrote:
| Two people close to me think that a hot war between the US
| and Russia is inevitable and that we may as well go ahead and
| get it over with. One is a Republican; the other is a
| Democrat. To me, that anecdote indicates the window has
| already shifted a whole lot.
|
| Getting into a hot war with Russia over Ukraine seems like an
| obviously bad idea to me. Funding and supplying the
| Ukrainians? Sure. War? No.
| gexla wrote:
| I feel the deeper thing that's going on is that you're
| objectifying the other side. By turning them into an object,
| you strip others of their humanity. You then setup a
| relationship in which you can rationalize doing all sorts of
| bad things. Not sure that "objectifying" is the right word here
| though.
| donatj wrote:
| I think dehumanizing is the more common word for what you're
| expressing, but objectifying works here too.
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| Totally agree but it's too late, it already happened. It took
| only about 4 days of intense propaganda, for people to start
| asking for racial sanctions. People started demonizing
| Dostoevsky. Russians have lost their jobs all over the world
| for not publicly taking a stance against their own people. Next
| step is going to be the burning of russian books. Trust me, at
| this rate, it will come soon.
| artem247 wrote:
| phatfish wrote:
| I've not seen any of this. But then I avoid Twitter and other
| social media. In a conflict with global attention like this
| one there will always be a minority of extreme views
| (propaganda and genuine). Western leaders are not blaming the
| Russian people, although obviously there is an affect on
| them. Same with the mainstream media.
|
| The hatred of a very small minority amplified by social media
| is the source of opinion like this.
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| It's not the majority of the people luckily, although most
| have been in a state of propaganda shock for a few days and
| are recovering now. The ones proposing the worst things are
| politicians and the state affiliated media in concertation,
| which when is war time we just found out is 100% of the
| "independent" western media.
| dash2 wrote:
| Which politicians are proposing the worst things, and
| which media are backing them up? This sounds like a too-
| broad generalisation. I think the most extreme calls have
| often come from citizens, and haven't been taken up by
| those in authority.
| lottin wrote:
| By 'racial' sanctions, you mean sanctions aimed at Russian
| citizens? There's nothing 'racial' about that.
| lolinder wrote:
| "It is almost superfluous to remark that a democratic
| Government always shows worst where other Governments
| generally show best, on its outside; that unreasonable people
| are much more noisy than the reasonable; that the froth and
| scum are the part of a violently fermenting liquid that meets
| the eyes, but are not its body and substance."
|
| -- John Stuart Mill, _The Contest in America_ , 1861
| j4yav wrote:
| If you think it's upsetting that people are being called
| cowards or complicit for not protesting, which I agree is
| unfair, wait until you find out what the propaganda being
| used to justify the war is saying about Ukrainians.
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| I've seen a lot of russian propaganda and none of it takes
| the racial angle on Ukrainians. Russian consider Ukrainians
| part of their culture so it wouldn't make much sense. Any
| source?
| enkid wrote:
| Russia saying Ukrainian culture is the same as Russian
| culture could be considered racist. It's similar to
| claims that African Americans don't have a unique
| culture. The result is people justifying suppression of
| that culture because it "doesn't exist" independently.
| car_analogy wrote:
| Are there really semi-common claims that _African_
| Americans don 't have a unique culture?
|
| _Opinion: There is no 'White culture'_ -
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/opinions/american-culture-
| and...
|
| _White culture steals because it has no soul of its own.
| White people are fleeing Whiteness because they do not
| have a way to exist apart from their history of
| oppression._ - https://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/how_can_w
| hite_americans_be_...
| enkid wrote:
| I don't know about modern claims, I was more talking
| about historical claims, where "culture" was associated
| with whiteness and things that were considered black were
| lesser and therefore not worth preserving. Black culture
| wasn't "American" even thought it was in America. If you
| claim Ukrainian culture is Russian culture even thought
| Ukrainians don't agree, and then use that to justify an
| invasion, it sure seems racist to me.
| oldcigarette wrote:
| "and then for no reason at all putin invaded ukraine"
|
| The response has been absurdly hostile to the Russian people.
| The West's foreign policy is simple "escalate". Stay tuned
| for your daily programming.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Just got finished watching The Great Hack* on Netflix.
| Demonizing "the other side", exactly as you've said, causes the
| polarisation that prevents even the consideration of
| compromise, resulting in political unproductivity that in turn
| erodes trust and forces us simple humans back into the basic
| pigeon holes that remain as the only effective politics,
| primarily: fear.
|
| The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and will remain
| un-catered-to until its profitability increases.
|
| * The 5-minute mini-rundown of the Trinidad and Tobago election
| strategy in 2010, at about 1hr and 1-minute into the doco, is a
| phenomenal eye-opener.
| harryvederci wrote:
| Youtube (ugh[0]) link of the fragment:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0
|
| [0] Youtube is designed to suck you in and force feed you
| advertisements. Sorry, I couldn't find the fragment somewhere
| else.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Because I was too lazy to find the clip myself, I'll
| instead contribute by linking to the less user-hostile, but
| questionably legal (isn't that few words just indicative of
| the state of society we find ourselves in) Invidious clip:
|
| https://yewtu.be/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0
| grujicd wrote:
| OMG, that Trinidad and Tobago part is so eye opening, even
| for middle aged cynic who thought he saw it all.
| dleslie wrote:
| Now ask yourself what grass roots campaigns you supported
| were likely created by agencies like this.
| grujicd wrote:
| Yup. There was an Otpor (resistance) movement in Serbia
| which helped overturn Milosevic at the end of 90-ties. It
| was later found out it was assisted by several US
| agencies.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otpor
|
| Its goal was the oposite from the Trinidad and Tobago
| one, to motivate as many people to take a vote. At the
| time noone knew they got outside help, but in retrospect,
| such help was very needed to overthrow a dictator.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| My cynicism is running the other way. I have been burned
| too many times by "factual" documentaries that leave our
| context and information that run counter to what the
| documentary is selling. Especially all the Netflix garbage
| which is designed to just increase the number of hours of
| content they have.
|
| The audio seems to be from a sales pitch, so Cambridge
| Analytica has incentive to lie that they did something.
|
| The "Do So" movement seems to have started due to someone
| not allowing the incumbent, extremely unpopular prime
| minister onto their property:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Villafana
|
| I have not found any good evidence that Cambridge Analytica
| orchestrated anything. At best, I am guessing they acted as
| an advertising firm and used an organically growing
| movement against an already extremely unpopular leader.
|
| But the Netflix documentary attempts to make it seem like
| Cambridge Analytica started the movement and succeeded in
| swaying an outcome that would not have gone the way it did
| without Cambridge Analytica. Maybe it did, maybe it did
| not, but a sales rep from Cambridge Analytica trying to
| sell their services is certainly no proof of anything.
| fontenot-jon wrote:
| fontenot-jon wrote:
| dragonsh wrote:
| There is a very good work done by Rabindra Nath Tagore [0] on
| nationalism before the WWII. It's still relevant today.
|
| [0]
| https://archive.org/details/nationalism00tagorich/page/12/mo...
| plasticisbad wrote:
| Let's just hope one nation doesn't get too powerful, lest they
| abuse their power and invade other nations to "protect" their
| sovereignty. Its happened before and is likely to happen again.
| eklavya wrote:
| It frustrates me to no end when people confuse patriotism with
| nationalism, some even cite this essay! They say despicable
| things (in my view) like "patriotism is the root of all evil"
| while enjoying the lifestyle/security provided by the altruistic
| patriotism of many others.
| joseph8th wrote:
| I have always considered myself a patriot, even in my commie
| youth. The idea of America to me was revitalized and given
| honor and dignity in the Civil Rights era. Real sacrifice. Self
| sacrifice that leads to progress, not sacrificing others for
| personal profit. Something indefinite, yet you know it when you
| see it, like porn.
|
| A coworker originally from Russia the other day expressed
| dismay about Ukraine and worry for the democracy there. Her
| family back home doesn't know much about the war, but she does.
| She became a citizen last year, and but she seemed like George
| fucking Washington in that moment
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Sadly, the people I see that wear their patriotism on their
| sleeves are more likely to also be nationalist.
|
| But this is anecdotal and I could be wrong. Like a Christian
| that does not proselytize, it is probably difficult to even
| identify the "quiet patriots" and so it is only the more
| _militant_ of patriots (perhaps with a bumpersticker along the
| lines of _U.S.A. Love It or Leave It_ ) that get my attention.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Using the article's definitions of patriotism and nationalism,
| I struggle to see who these supposed altruistic patriots are.
|
| Certainly not in the military, which is almost solely focused
| on obtaining more power and prestige for itself and the nation.
| While there may be some "patriots" in government or policing,
| it's hard to say that's the dominant ideology. And businesses
| obsession with money far outweighs any patriotic feelings.
| joseph8th wrote:
| I'm one. Just a schmuck, but I haven't given up on the idea
| of America. Not like George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln,
| or JFK, but like George Washington Carver, or MLK Jr. The
| idea that the American Revolution never ended. That the Civil
| Rights era was just another phase in our centuries long
| progressively more democratic experiment in self-government
| eklavya wrote:
| You might have the good fortune to be born in a country in a
| stable region or with good neighbours. When life expectancy
| is not great in the initial active duty years (no foreign
| deployment, within border, defensive) I think it's definitely
| not about power/prestige. It would be extremely ungrateful to
| state otherwise.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I still find it hard to think of a nation where the
| military would primarily be about patriotism.
|
| Someplace like Cyprus maybe? But it's hard to view any
| forced conscription as patriotic.
|
| There are some African countries where maybe there's a
| patriotic element, but they often seem to have either a
| strong other ideology or be very corrupt.
|
| I'll fully admit my knowledge may be lacking, so feel free
| to tell me what country you think is full of altruistic
| patriots.
| mantas wrote:
| Even more frustrating is confusing nationalism with chauvinism,
| nacism and fascism.
|
| Nationalism as nations' right to self determination and self
| rule is great. And that's what brought down the old empires.
| While now empires are rebuilt under anti-nationalist slogans
| and we are sliding back to multinational behemoths.
|
| Good case why healthy dose of patriotism-nationalism is
| necessary is Ukraine war.
| macintux wrote:
| > Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and
| culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable
| from the desire for power.
|
| Orwell seems to describe what you're defending as patriotism,
| not nationalism.
| mantas wrote:
| With all due respect to Orwell, I define nationalism as
| nation's self-governance.
|
| Yes, it's sort of desire to take power from bigger
| multinational structures back to the nation. But at the
| same time it's defensive from nation's perspective.
| joseph8th wrote:
| Oh well, if YOU define it THAT way...
| macintux wrote:
| If you define nationalism as something other than the
| commonly accepted definition, then complaining about how
| people use it seems like an exercise in frustration.
| int_19h wrote:
| There's nothing particularly great about nationalism, because
| "nation" itself is an abstract concept that's inherently
| malleable. And thus we get those nebulous "national
| interests" or "national security", which seemingly justifies
| everything if you can get people hysterical enough about it.
| mantas wrote:
| Any tribalism gradation is abstract. If we agree that
| humans naturally go for some sort of tribalism, then we can
| discuss which sort of tribalism is most efficient. Tribe-
| as-extended-family tribalism is brutal. Pan-* tribalism (as
| USA) seems to start splitting into smaller tribes because
| it's hard to find common ground for people living in wide
| variety of historically caused socio-economic conditions
| (e.g. rust belt vs socal). Nation seems to be bring a good
| common narrative (historical experiences, usually language)
| and usually spans small enough territory to not have too
| much ongoing situation variation. Even the usual
| urban/countryside variation is usually not too much in
| close-by cities and their surrounding countryside because
| of population exchange both ways.
|
| As for ,,national interests" and ,,national security", you
| get the same with tribalism.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Technically, 'nation' can have implications of ethnicity,
| coming from same etymological root as 'born', though that's
| kind of losing it's meaning these days if it ever was valid.
| People are generally a bit more mongrel than they portray
| themselves.
|
| Worth bearing in mind when discussion abstract concepts like
| 'nationalism' and 'nationality' though.
| qiskit wrote:
| I would love to see an example of true altruistic patriotism
| you speak of. All people are selfish and everyone works for
| their own self-interest. Nationalism/patriotism exists because
| of each individual's recognition of that self-interest. No
| altruism involved here.
| samatman wrote:
| Patriotism is an irregular adjective in English, which takes
| the conjugation of the pronoun.
|
| For example, _I_ am patriotic, while _you_ are nationalistic,
| but _they_ are jingoistic and probably fascist to boot.
|
| I hope this helps.
| janmarsal wrote:
| Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always
| considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation
| should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not
| by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think
| Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still)
| who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British
| empire together. Good think that failed. I hope Putin fails as
| well.
| 3np wrote:
| Isn't it the same thing, just with a larger geographic area?
|
| Blair supposedly changed his views of the British Empire and
| started hating imperialism after spending time in Burma and
| seeing the oppression of the locals. That transpired years
| before he started writing under the pseudonym George Orwell.
| int_19h wrote:
| The problem is defining what "nation" is. Are Bretons a nation,
| or are they a part of the French nation? Are Catalonians a
| nation, or are they the part of a Spanish nation? Some answers
| to those questions lead to contradictions, in a sense that both
| groups adopt your "nation should be ruled from its own land by
| its own people" formula, but lay claim to the same land and/or
| people.
| janmarsal wrote:
| I admit the definition of a nation can be a bit vague
| sometimes, however, the examples you gave are quite
| straightforward and I see no problem whatsoever. A Breton
| nationalist wants Brittany to be ruled by Bretons from
| Brittany rather than by the French from Paris. A Catalan
| nationalist wants Catalonia to be ruled by Catalans from
| Barcelona rather than by Castilians from Madrid.
|
| Who decides what a nation is can be a bit tricky from time to
| time. Who do NOT decide is much easier to answer. In both of
| your examples, it is clear without a doubt that the people
| who inhabit the said geographical regions are the ones to
| decide. Not the Frenchmen from Paris or the Castiians from
| Madrid.
|
| If the people of Brittany decides that they want Brittany to
| remain as part of France then it simply means that they do
| not support Breton nationalism. From a nationalist moral
| point of view, it is up to the people of Brittany to decide.
| If a French nationalist wants to keep Brittany as part of
| France against their will then someone must tell that
| "nationalist" that he is practicing imperialism rather than
| nationalism. If a Breton "nationalist" wants to annex all of
| France to bring it under Breton rule then he is an
| imperialist rather than a nationalist.
| int_19h wrote:
| What if the people are split 50/50? Or even 60/40, for that
| matter?
| markvdb wrote:
| Or, you know, identities might be multi-faceted.
| zajio1am wrote:
| > A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own
| people
|
| Leftists sometimes consider nationalism 'good' when it is
| nationalism of a small nation against an imperium (or minority
| ethnicity against a nation state), but 'bad' when it is a
| powerful nation trying to conquer its neighbors (or opressing
| its ethnic minorities). But in facts, both of these
| nationalisms are based on the same toxic concept of ingroupness
| based on shared ethnicity, language and culture, in contrast of
| ingroupness based on shared commitment to universalist ideas
| like freedom, rule of law and democracy.
|
| OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries really
| work is because of some level of nationalism, as commitment to
| universalist ideas is primarily a thing for elites, while
| ethnicity-based tribalism is much more primal concept.
| ByteJockey wrote:
| > concept of ingroupness based on shared ethnicity, language
| and culture, in contrast of ingroupness based on shared
| commitment to universalist ideas like freedom, rule of law
| and democracy.
|
| Is the latter not also nationalism, if you believe that those
| ideals create a group that is worthy of self-determination?
| Maybe it deserves its own qualifier, such as ideo-
| nationalism, to distinguish it from ethno-nationalism, but
| does the motivation fundamentally change what it is?
|
| > OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries
| really work is because of some level of nationalism
|
| I think you're probably right here. The question I have is if
| you can make that nationalism about something other than
| ethnic groups?
| Amezarak wrote:
| "Universalist" ideas don't bind elites together because they
| are more high-minded or educated, they bind them together
| because universalist ideas liberate capital flows and thereby
| enrich the elite (in material terms) at the expense of
| everyone else (and not only in material terms.) _Capitalism
| and Schizophrenia_ is an in-depth discussion of this -
| "universalism" is simply capital flows destroying all social
| norms that impede them.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| One definition of Fascism is "imperialism coming home" and for
| whatever weird reason, Fascists generally portray themselves as
| being patriotic/nationalist often in the sense of not treating
| other countries and their citizens as equals, so basically
| imperialism.
| tough wrote:
| Orwell brother was one of the funding members of the UN
| dash2 wrote:
| Orwell was very far from that. Read Burma Days.
| janmarsal wrote:
| I have, and as far as I know Orwell wanted to reform the
| empire rather than to dismantle it. That's what I meant by
| calling him a "reformist". I'm not an Orwell expert though
| and if someone knows for certain that Orwell was in favour of
| dismantling the Empire and supported the independence of the
| British oversee territories then please correct me.
| dash2 wrote:
| Sounds like you know more than me and indeed I gave the
| title of _Burmese Days_ wrong. Here 's an interesting
| article: https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/07/reading-some-
| effing-orwell-.... It seems pretty clear, though, that
| whatever his racial attitudes, Orwell was consciously
| against imperialism.
| prox wrote:
| Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is
| basically a "war propaganda" movie seen from the viewpoint of a
| fascistic government. The whole point of the movie is to make the
| enemy seem like "the other" , and in this case these are actual
| alien bugs in the movie. All of the human characters in the movie
| are beautiful and everything on "our" side as we view it is shiny
| and "the good side"
|
| Paul Verhoeven also deliberately made the first scene shot for
| shot similar to a german Nazi propaganda film.
|
| The whole movie is to make you root for "our side" and demonize
| the other. I personally didn't realize this fully when I watched
| it, which makes the process so insidious.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers
| agency wrote:
| > In a 2014 interview on The Adam Carolla Show, the actor
| Michael Ironside, who read the novel as a youth, said that he
| asked Verhoeven, who grew up in the German-occupied
| Netherlands, "Why are you doing a right-wing fascist movie?"
| Verhoeven replied, "If I tell the world that a right-wing,
| fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to
| me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is
| beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and
| fancy ships but it's only good for killing fucking Bugs!"
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| Most people I've talked to who watched Starship Troopers didn't
| think it was satire. To be fair, the enemy is literally not
| human which does make it harder to pick up on.
| musha68k wrote:
| I remember watching it as a teenager back in 1997. I was the
| only one laughing in the cinema, it was just hilarious.
|
| It immediately dawned on me after though: why was no one else
| laughing, really? In Austria of all places.
|
| Hadn't anyone else paid attention during history classes - at
| all?
|
| Continuously chilling yet I've never been really surprised by
| the creeping normalcy of fascist thought since the 90s - in
| part because of Verhoeven's Starship Troopers.
| watwut wrote:
| To me, it came across as badly done movie. Cringy, but not
| funny.
| technothrasher wrote:
| I had a similar reaction. It was so over the top as to seem
| obviously satirical, and indeed a poke in the eye to
| Heinlein's dangerously serious take on the subject matter.
| I forgave people for not having read the original Heinlein,
| but I couldn't understand how people didn't see the satire.
| [deleted]
| XorNot wrote:
| I think that's the mark of effective satire though - or it
| can be, I'd say there's a spectrum. Some satire needs to
| call itself out to the audience - make it clear what it is
| going after, and why. Others is the latter half of it - and
| Starship Troopers is definitely in this category - play it
| so straight that you do have to actually key in to it, and
| it might not hit right away.
|
| I was early teens when I watched it, so while the "do you
| want to know more?" definitely hit as a "okay this is kind
| of absurd" we were definitely there for action and bugs
| exploding. But it certainly hit different when I revisited
| it and you realize just how effective a satire it is at
| pretty much every level.
|
| And I think that's the important part: you can totally miss
| the point of the movie, and that's basically critical to
| it's message: it is written and structured as fascist
| propaganda, and the fact that that can seem reasonable if
| you accept it uncritically _is the message_ - it 's a whole
| movie which very subtly is pointing out that fascism and
| its death cult heroism worship is exactly that, but because
| we dressed it up to look pretty while making what's
| happening abundantly clear on screen (you die horrifically
| in a pointless war), you're almost thinking this is
| reasonable.
| prox wrote:
| Well said, I especially like your take "It's seems
| reasonable to accept it uncritically _is the message_ "
|
| How often do we accept the story or the identity we are
| already part of?
|
| For instance in the current conflict I wonder how
| language plays a part. Many Russians speak no to little
| english, and vice versa I/we often don't speak Russian. I
| wonder how much this insulation adds to our conflict. I
| can't learn from their viewpoint and they not from mine.
| Which leaves us with a one sided view like in the movie.
| wpietri wrote:
| That is the trouble with good satire. It needs to be subtle
| enough that readers feel the pull of the thing being
| satirized, or there's no real lesson in it. But if it's too
| subtle, people will miss the point. In practice, it's
| impossible to get every person to hit both gates. Poe's Law
| [1] was coined before Starship Troopers, but it certainly
| applies.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
| scandox wrote:
| The last scene makes it pretty clear.
|
| "They're scared"
|
| Huge cheer.
| cycomanic wrote:
| Thank you for reminding me again of starship troopers. It is a
| great movie and in my experience has quite a bad rap amongst
| the "intelligentsia", mostly I think because people just go off
| the trailer and dismiss it as a "stupid alien action movie".
| When I discussed the satire, images etc with people they often
| look at me like I'm crazy.
| prox wrote:
| You're welcome, I think the movie can be a great starting
| point for both debates and further study. The war on terror
| (after 9/11) and the war in the movie have great parallels.
| randomsilence wrote:
| Similarly:
|
| >Showgirls was a critical failure upon release, panned for its
| acting (particularly Berkley's), characters, dance numbers,
| directing, plot, screenplay and sex scenes and is consistently
| ranked as one of the worst films ever made. Despite this,
| Showgirls has become regarded as a cult film and has been
| subject to critical re-evaluation, with some notable directors
| and critics considering it a serious satire worthy of praise.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showgirls
| sdb0 wrote:
| >All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and
| everything on "our" side as we view it is shiny and "the good
| side"
|
| must have been shocking to see that in a film
| progre wrote:
| The book (one of my favourites) is a little diffrent. There the
| perspective is that of the mobile infantist. The classic hero
| arc but in a fashist world. Like in the movie, there is no
| enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular
| directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life
| in the Mobile Infantry.
|
| The movie is brilliant in a diffrent way. It's basically satire
| on all levels. Paul Verhoeven claimed he hated the book and
| didn't finish it.
|
| Red Letter Media has a very good analyis of the whole thing:
| https://youtu.be/OkEdyq3UE5M
|
| "How do you tell your actor that you cast them as a joke?"
| einpoklum wrote:
| The book is brilliant, I would say, for being readable at the
| same time as an ode of support and admiration for the social
| order, and as a scathing critique of that order. IIANM
| Heinlein himself was more on the side of the first
| interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong) but was fair enough
| to offer solid footing for the opposite view; although one
| wonders how much of it was conscious and how much of it was
| his capability for credible depiction of social and political
| phenomena, complete with the warts and flaws.
|
| Verhoeven's book is more obviously satirical, and I recall
| getting the clear message of how the Humans are a mirror
| image of the Bugs.
| donatj wrote:
| My personal understanding of Heinlein is that he shifted
| from a very pro-government conservative to a far more
| laissez faire libertarian as he aged and as you follow his
| works throughout his life. Starship Troopers came far
| earlier in this progression.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Possibly, but what I'm saying is that he "lets" you read
| his book as an anti-government radical, and not feel
| Heinlein is forcing his beliefs onto the plot.
| prox wrote:
| Do you know where Stranger in a Strange Land sits in this
| spectrum?
| donatj wrote:
| I've personally only read Starship Troopers and The Moon
| is a Harsh Mistress, that said Stranger in a Strange Land
| came really early in his career.
|
| My understanding in my comment comes almost entirely from
| the discussion in this episode of Alienating the Audience
|
| https://alienating.libsyn.com/episode-5
| quantumwannabe wrote:
| The book is a vehicle for Heinlein's political views and he
| is 100% in support of the ideology described. The political
| system described in the book isn't fascism, rather it is
| democracy with the franchise limited to people who have
| served their country. Heinlein believes people who have
| never made personal sacrifices make poor decisions and
| therefore political power should be limited to people who
| have made such sacrifices. It's the same reason why
| children lack the right to vote in real-world democracies:
| a lack of experience to base decisions on. Heinlein also
| believes that democracy and human rights are fragile and
| need to be actively defended, not taken for granted.
|
| Verhoeven's movie is just a campy film; the man admitted
| that he stopped reading the book as soon as he saw the
| first "fascist" element, because he thinks that "military"
| equals "fascism". The movie is a strawman that does not
| represent Heinlein's views and is best thought of as a
| mindless action movie with a simple message of "war bad"
| instead of biting political satire.
| beebmam wrote:
| Yes, exactly. Whether one agrees with Heinlein's views or
| not, his work should likely be put in context. Heinlein's
| interviews are a good place for that context.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > it is democracy with the franchise limited to people
| who have served their country
|
| That's what the system teaches you in school. But IIRC,
| Heinlein did not force this down your throat as an
| absolute truth. In fact, and again IIRC, there was never
| any proper public discussion we are made aware of, of the
| reason for the war against the bugs. It's even possible
| that it's a Human-initiated campaign; Rico is not told,
| nor is he ever concerned with those kinds of things.
|
| > Heinlein also believes that democracy and human rights
| are fragile and need to be actively defended
|
| That's one way to characterize it I guess.
| quacked wrote:
| > Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution
| though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who
| finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile
| Infantry
|
| This is a very shallow interpretation of the book. When did
| you read it?
| watwut wrote:
| I have seen the book quoted in defense of near fascists
| ideas (like that soldiers should have more say in politics
| and more voting rights then civilians). In full
| seriousness.
|
| I have never seen it quoted to support anything else.
| progre wrote:
| _Shallow reading_? It 's a one sentence comparison with the
| movie not my fucking literary analysis.
| wpietri wrote:
| I've read it a few times and think that's a fine take.
| What's your issue with it?
| [deleted]
| nirui wrote:
| Contrary to common believes, that a fascist society must
| visually similar to what been portrayed in a WW2 movie, a
| real fascist society now days hides behind layers of outlooks
| that makes them look normal. People in a fascist society may
| work a well-paid job in a clean glassy high-rise, and their
| government and law might be structured like a normal one. The
| most obvious difference between a fascist society and a
| normal society is probably how the society create and changes
| it's laws, which is complex to observe even in a normal
| society. This is the reason why so many people couldn't
| believe it when they're already in one.
|
| "There is no effort ... I mean they do all the scientific
| research, but they never investigate how to communicate with
| them, how to have peaceful solution... their society thrive
| on the need of an enemy. And they have all these space ships
| and faster than light travel, they made all this
| advancements, but it's a fascist society that just breeds his
| bread for war." (11:07)
|
| This cuts really deep.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > People in a fascist society may work a well-paid job in a
| clean glassy high-rise
|
| Just like under fascism in Italy and Germany. Most people
| would spend their attention on work and entertainment,
| often avoiding discussing politics and ignore dissenting
| voices outside of the overton window.
|
| Sounds familiar?
| nirui wrote:
| > Most people would spend their attention on work and
| entertainment
|
| And most of their life would be normal, happy, even
| fulfilling until the very moment they "stepped over the
| red line".
|
| I've observed many instances in the past, so yes, I'm
| very familiar of it. In fact, people has invented a term
| for it already, it's called *** ****.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Hmm, I see it currently happening. Everything is fine,
| until you step over certain line and then mob of self-
| righteous evil people descent and at least attempt to
| ruin your life... The left truly never changes...
| goodpoint wrote:
| > it's called ** **.
|
| huh?
| tenpies wrote:
| The Man in the High Castle adaption by Amazon was fantastic
| in this. The Nazi cities were _beautiful_. They were
| orderly, clean, everyone was well dressed and nice.
| Infrastructure was top notch and there were only very small
| hints that something was off. It was the type of NIMBY
| paradise that the rich Californians would kill for.
|
| What I have found to be a fantastic guiding principle for
| fascism in the West is the saying of a Peruvian dictator:
| "for my friends: anything, for my enemies: the law!". We're
| seeing this right now as the West has completely re-written
| the rules of The Game for the sake of hurting Russia and
| Russians. Going to be an interesting decade as the world
| re-shapes to adjust for the rule change and the West likely
| becomes more of an authoritarian fascist totality.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| You had me in the first part.
|
| No one was interested in hurting the Russians until they
| invaded Ukraine. And nothing about this makes me suddenly
| think of my country as the good guys or makes any of the
| issues with my country any better.
| prox wrote:
| Can you explain further? What are these rules and what is
| "The Game"? You mean the sanctions?
|
| Those aren't anything new afaik, and I don't understand
| the connection to how the West will become more
| authoritarian because of that.
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| Not OP, but I wonder is he is having the same feeling I
| am on this whole Ukraine situation.
|
| Below is a paste from a conversation I had with a close
| group of friends:
|
| I feel sorry for Ukrainians. I can't help but shake the
| feeling that they are being used as a pawn for the US to
| drain the military resources of Russia.
|
| I would guess that, the optimal outcome from the
| neocon/neolib perspective is for Russia to rubblize
| Ukraine over a period of months to a year, all they while
| the west says "woe is me", and supplies equipment to
| decimate Russian armor and aircraft.
|
| This makes Russia the indisputable bad guy for the
| atrocities committed against Ukraine, all the while the
| west has clean hands in decimating Russia's military
| power.
|
| The end result is hundreds of thousands to millions of
| dead Ukrainians that the neocons will shed crocodile
| tears over.
|
| Only cost them a few hundred million dollars to do
| hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to Russia.
|
| If there was any legitimate desire to have Russia back
| off, they would be offering terms such as guaranteeing
| that Ukraine would never enter NATO as part of a treaty,
| lifting of sanctions, etc, contingent on a full
| withdrawal.
| bandushrew wrote:
| I find it interesting that your language implies it is
| the responsibility of the west to persuade Russia to back
| off?
|
| Surely the responsibility for the actions of Russia rest
| on the Russian leadership?
|
| Russia has decided to invade Ukraine. Russia needs to
| decide to stop doing that.
|
| Where does it become the responsibility of the west?
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| It's true the west does not want to get their hands
| dirty, and the people of Ukraine suffer all the more
| because of it.
|
| The reason is Nuclear Weapons. Putin is holding the world
| hostage and saying "don't get involved or I blow us all
| to hell."
|
| The blame is on Putin. He invaded. He cried the crocodile
| tears about NATO while approving unjustified war on the
| people of Ukraine.
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| > The blame is on Putin.
|
| Not arguing that point. He made the decision to invade,
| he has agency of his own and is responsible for his
| actions.
|
| My point is that if people think his Nazi and NATO talk
| is bullshit, call it by offering terms that completely
| neutralize those points.
|
| It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in
| NATO, trust us." It's a completely different thing to
| say, "Ukraine will never be in NATO, here is a legally
| binding treaty stating so, contingent on X actions by
| Russia."
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be
| in NATO, trust us."
|
| No one ever said that. Ukraine is going to be in NATO if
| they want to be in NATO. The claim that Ukraine would
| eventually be admitted to NATO is not the bullshit.
|
| The bullshit is that NATO is offensively directed at
| Russia; the only reason Russia isn't in NATO and covered
| by its defensive shield (Russia joined the onramp
| Partnership for Peace program in 1994) is that Putin
| decided he didn't want it to be, made known-unacceptable
| demands to bypass the accession process, was rebuffed as
| he knew he would be, and used that as a reason to stop
| any work toward joining.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Many people are so used to nationalist propaganda that they
| don't see it's a parody.
|
| Pretty scary.
| cmurf wrote:
| When I was a teen in midwest USA I took a German foreign
| exchange student to an NFL game. They were mortified at the
| whole stadium standing to sing the national anthem, thought
| it was bizarre and scary.
| quacked wrote:
| When I was a teen in <large college town> I thought it was
| bizarre and scary that anyone would feel enough patriotism
| to sing the national anthem. Now I think it's bizarre and
| scary for anyone to feel such a lack of patriotism that
| they would think it's bizarre and scary to want to sing the
| national anthem.
| darkwater wrote:
| You have been successfully assimilated /s
| Ekaros wrote:
| Or reading that some schools do Pledge of Allegiance every
| day. That is the most fascist thing I can imagine.
| Something that would never happen in Europe outside single
| time in army or similar institution... National anthem is
| limited to independence day...
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| I find the pledge to the flag, especially in school, much
| worse than singing the national anthem.
| supercucklchaim wrote:
| The world needs to be rid of Nationalism sooner rather than
| later. The narrative is changing slowly but surely. Our ability
| to use the internet, aside from obvious propaganda, has made the
| world smaller yet more interconnected than ever.
| hereforphone wrote:
| There is no narrative. Humans prefer to function alongside
| those who hold similar values to their own. This increases
| efficiency (when the values are productive) and naturally
| results in a feedback loop that ideally will improve that value
| set.
|
| I know many of us have to go to HR training now and learn about
| the wonders of diversity, but there's a lot to be said (in
| nature and history) from shared values and culture.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| > HR training now and learn about the wonders of diversity
|
| That's kind of ironic because true diversity of thought is
| not tolerated.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Shared values and culture necessitate limited tolerance for
| diversity of thought.
|
| That's just reality. You can't share values if you tolerate
| people thinking other values are better.
|
| Culturally also. In the US, back when everyone ate chicken,
| spoke English, and went to some form of Christian church on
| Sundays, there was very little cultural diversity
| tolerated.
|
| Chicken, English, and Church _was_ the culture.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| > You can't share values if you tolerate people thinking
| other values are better.
|
| It seems like a toxic, dystopian, totalitarian nightmare
| to live in a society like that. I want dissent. I want
| _good_ debate. I want people to be able to call bullshit
| when it is. I want to bring down people that have posted
| up themselves to these unproductive positions,
| dogmatizing their ideology _by force_ and _by shame_ ,
| not by good intent, listening to each other, and seeking
| truth and fairness.
|
| Culture is "pull", not "push".
| dudul wrote:
| Diversity of though is no longer the party line. Now it's
| diversity of experience. Just like equity has replaced
| equality, and same outcome has replaced same chances.
|
| Grifters can only make money, sell their books/trainings if
| they keep moving the goal posts.
| jdrc wrote:
| nationalism is surely on the decline, but we can't replace it
| with nothing.
| joseph8th wrote:
| Clearly you should have read Orwell's essay. He makes clear
| the distinction between patriotism and nationalism in the
| first couple paragraphs.
| sjaak wrote:
| Something else will replace it. Tribalism is built in to our
| 'firmware'.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Unfortunately in the West I think this might be identity
| politics. There is very much a "us Vs them" attitude with the
| whole thing. To give an example I see a lot of LGBT "allies"
| with pin badges, flags, etc. To label oneself as being part
| of that group.
|
| Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I feel weird if I select the yellow emoji color since
| everyone on our internal slack is gung ho about their skin
| color. Same with pronouns, almost indirectly mandated at
| this point.
| [deleted]
| saila wrote:
| Modern identity politics in the U.S. seems like the
| inevitable result of telling people they are "free" but
| then excluding certain identified groups from social life,
| jobs, etc.
|
| Over time, people will bond around their exclusion to
| create a more powerful bloc to assert their rights. It
| seems to me that the dominant identitarians of the past
| have largely created the current situation by not following
| the creed of "live and let live."
|
| Conservatives and the right engage in extreme identity
| politics, but "identity politics" is most often used as a
| pejorative against liberals and the left. I wonder why that
| is. Modern identities probably wouldn't exist if it weren't
| for historical identification/classification and
| discrimination.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Identity politics would always exist.
|
| We just called it "tribalism" in our distant past.
|
| It can never go away. It isn't specific to the US either,
| it's a part of us as humans. That's the real reason there
| are no "free" countries. I guarantee, you look closely
| enough, you'll find the group in that country that is not
| "free". People just knock the US all the time because the
| group in our nation that is not "free" is pretty obvious
| to everyone in the world. But all the other nations are
| just as bad. I've been to a lot of them, so I can promise
| you that.
|
| There is not shining example of non-tribalist freedom out
| there, and only the ready and frequent application of
| force would ever create such a nation. Even then, it
| would be against the will of many of that nation's
| citizens.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.
|
| Not my sense at all.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yes, I thought _tribalism_ was the better word.
|
| > As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word
| 'nationalism'...
| goodpoint wrote:
| Not at all. Like most social constructs, tribalism can be
| learned and unlearned.
|
| Amplified or quenched.
|
| Applied in harmless ways like having a favorite musician or
| sportsball team or in very harmful ways like
| racism/nationalism/ethnocentrism/sexism.
| mantas wrote:
| Looking at US - it's already being replaced by political
| divide. I prefer Euro style ethnic tribalism to US style
| political tribalism much more.
|
| Former allows to keep it at sports, lame memes and kitchen.
| Yet find common ground on internal politics. Even if
| political narratives divide, there's still something to unite
| people. Meanwhile political tribalism seem to be penetrating
| everything with little chance for something in common.
| refurb wrote:
| I kinda get your point but which system produced fewer wars
| in the last 250 years?
| mantas wrote:
| Big part of Euro wars were caused partially by
| multinational empires. WW1 - Austro-Hungary and Russian
| empire. WW2 - Soviet Union. Yugoslavian wars if in the
| middle between Serbian chauvinism and Yugo multinational
| empire as well.
|
| Meanwhile US had plenty of action in this department too.
| tnzk wrote:
| Seems like they aren't simply mutually exclusive.
| hoesephgerrible wrote:
| The appearance of ostensible diversity, whilst an
| underlying consensus is actually present. Propaganda exists
| for a reason I suppose.
| medstrom wrote:
| To take it a step further, what if the Euro style ethnic
| tribalism could be also decentralized, detached from any
| one place, to end its effect on geopolitics altogether?
| Unfortunately I think that'd lead directly to US style
| political tribalism. We may be forced to pick and choose
| from having localized tribes vs. politicized tribes.
|
| Maybe if we eliminate states and administrative regions in
| favour of municipalities only (almost flat hierarchy with
| just two levels of government: municipality level and EU
| level), the localized "ethnic" tribes would be a lot
| weaker.
| mantas wrote:
| Like... parallel societies? Separate school, health,
| monetary systems? That looks like a brewing conflict once
| there's a conflict in meatspace that can't be solved in
| such style.
|
| We don't need to eliminate states. We need to bring down
| remaining empires masquerading as nation states. Russia
| shall be divided by separating it's ethnic autonomies,
| Kaliningrad taken away, Crimea given back to Ukraine.
| Catalonia and Scotland shall be finally granted
| independence. Bavarian voices are rather silent nowadays,
| but why not.
| mantas wrote:
| We need more Ukrainian style nationalism and less Russian style
| chauvinism.
| piscesmustard wrote:
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| You raise a good point. In times of emergency, desperation:
| nationalism can be beneficial.
|
| For the most part however it seems to be destructive.
| mantas wrote:
| Societies shall be designed to withstand the worst. Not
| just naively hoping for the best.
|
| It's not destructive. At worst, it's less fun for hyper
| individualistic type of people.
| lazyninja987 wrote:
| Aidevah wrote:
| Insightful and relevant as ever, Orwell is always worth reading
| (and rereading). Sometimes I feel that his fictional works have
| unjustly overshadowed his enormous production of essays, so it's
| good to see these pop up on the front page once in a while.
|
| Also for those who might be mislead by the title, Orwell is
| discussing something much broader here:
|
| > _But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using
| the word 'nationalism' for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the
| extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such
| movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism,
| Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not
| necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less
| to one's own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that
| the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few
| obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and
| the White Race are all of them objects of passionate
| nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously
| questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that
| would be universally accepted._
| sebow wrote:
| More often than not it's (sadly, i guess) necessary for an
| author to transform/include such fictional elements in order to
| attract attention about a topic, especially when it's a
| sensible one (surveillance, trust in authority,etc).
|
| I'm not sure i prefer this instead of a raw analysis of culture
| & society without the fictional elements, but at the same time
| I personally think having such fictional elements often anchor
| a work better throughout time(though a downside to this might
| be that future artistic adaptations might "rewrite" some
| original thoughts).Even more interestingly: raw, almost
| technical analyses often get forgotten and dismissed by people
| even if they contain 'predictions' that turned out to be true,
| coming back to the first point that the masses understandably
| aren't interested in them.It's like we don't care about
| truth/future if it doesn't make us feel good.
| ImaCake wrote:
| I didn't enjoy 1984. If you have been exposed to those ideas
| elsewhere the book just doesn't work. I did however love his
| memoir of his time fighting as a socialist volunteer in the
| Spanish civil war [1]. Very insightful read and clearly shows
| where his thinking was going when he later wrote animal farm
| and 1984.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
| Aidevah wrote:
| Absolutely, Homage to Catalonia is also one of my favourite
| works by Orwell.
| mrjangles wrote:
| I think what happens here is that Orwell is having a big stab
| at the intelligencia, and the intelligencia at the time (as
| now) hated nationalism. He is trying to point out all the ways
| their behavior is just like that of overzealous nationalists at
| the time, so he redefines the word so as the label all the
| intelligencia as the thing they hate.
|
| It makes for effective rhetoric. I think anyone reading this
| should keep in mind that he seems to have good things to say
| about what he defines as "patriotism", which is what we would
| mean by the word nationalism today. In other words, he would
| absolutely not agree with the anti-nationalists of today who
| hate their country. In fact, he goes out of his way in this
| essay to label those people as prime examples of
| "nationalists".
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-06 23:01 UTC)