Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes on Nationalism (1945)

orwellfoundation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#131

Post by wpietri »

quacked wrote: post #79
progre wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

I've read it a few times and think that's a fine take. What's your issue with it?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#132

Post by mantas »

refurb wrote: post #77
mantas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somet…

I kinda get your point but which system produced fewer wars in the last 250 years?

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.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#133

Post by wpietri »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #10
prox wrote: post #8

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 al…

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.

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

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#134

Post by mantas »

medstrom wrote: post #28
mantas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somet…

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 o…

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.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#135

Post by wpietri »

avodonosov wrote: post #11

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_Chimpanz…

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.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#136

Post by mantas »

macintux wrote: post #69
mantas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#137

Post by mantas »

int_19h wrote: post #32
mantas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#138

Post by Ekaros »

nirui wrote: post #68
goodpoint wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> 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 *** ****.

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...

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#139

Post by Ekaros »

cmurf wrote: post #88
goodpoint wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people are so used to nationalist propaganda that they don't see it's a parody. Pretty scary.

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.

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...

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#140

Post by dash2 »

janmarsal wrote: post #52
dash2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell was very far from that. Read Burma Days.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN