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

211–220 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#211

Post by seagullz »

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…

The real cases are not much different. In the backdrop of invading a country thousands of miles away on a false pretext, the American Sniper story is a window into that[0]:

“Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq,” he writes after describing his first kill, a woman who walked into a street with a grenade in her hand as marines advanced into her village. After a moment’s hesitation, he drops her with a shot.

“That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy ‘savages,’” he writes of this scene. “There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there.”

[0] https://www.bookforum.com/print/1902/-9467

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#212

Post by sifar »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #5
rramadass wrote: post #2

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

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…

>> The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and will remain un-catered-to until its profitability increases.

To play devils advocate, this exploitation of our irrational (as in not involving reason) behaviours is a pretty rational process.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#213

Post by ByteJockey »

esyir wrote: post #187
ByteJockey wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, bu…

There was an attempt in the US, with the whole concept of the melting pot. In the interest of maintaining the other cultures though, this has been phased out in favour of the "salad bowl". Imo, the catch is that by prioritizing ethnic cultures, you then allow them to supersede the national identity. Ethnocentricism is the default thanks to our monkey brains and in the absence of reinforcement, or the presence of disc…

I reckon you might be right about that last part, unfortunately. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere deep down in the human brain it just defaults to trusting the person who looks most like your parents/siblings/children/etc. Absent some other compelling reason/conditioning of course.

I wonder if the melting pot doesn't deserve a reboot. Everything else seems to be getting one these days.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#214

Post by systemvoltage »

sangnoir wrote: post #175
systemvoltage wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 inte…

> I want people to be able to call bullshit when it is. If only there was a universal catalog of "bullshit" things. Since there isn't, it's common for those out of tune with the majority in one aspect to dislike their opinions being called out as bullshit, subjectively.

Claim: 1+2 = 4

Me: Bullshit!

It’s called logic and reasoning.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#215

Post by rixed »

prox wrote: post #194
rixed wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the extension (if not the very existence) of NATO after 91?

Russia was invited to NATO in the Partnership for Peace program. And invading a country without provocation and which was elected democratically is kind of the reason for a defensive alliance in the first place. Furthermore with Russia being a defacto dictatorship it becomes hard to deal with the actual position of the Russian people (who aren’t allowed to protest or have free media or vote) After all that, there is…

I believe you, yet western countries refused to discuss that very topic few weeks ago when Russia demanded that NATO was not extended further. Frankly, as a mere western Europe citizen, arguably living far away from russian borders, I could not care less about NATO extension. I feel more threatened by the war mongering in the west than by the russian army, and I suspect many other people feel the same. Yet this opinion is not represented at all in the western "democracies".

edit: removed emotional part

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#216

Post by watwut »

chernevik wrote: post #208
watwut wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The book is very clear that everyone, regardless of ability, has a right to perform the term of service necessary for the franchise, and that all have complete freedom of speech. There are many sloppy criticisms of the book, none of which have bothered to actually understand it.

Convinced pacifists and those unwilling to become part of their army don't get to vote. Everybody who votes is expected to spend enough time in military to be shaped and molded by them. Plus, the book is clear on superiority of soldiers when it comes to making state and political decisions. That are fairly fascist ideas, very straightforwardly.

Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are never used for anything else except ideas like this.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#217

Post by goodpoint »

quacked wrote: post #198
goodpoint wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. If countries were religions any group with that attitude would be considered a cult.

Countries were religious; when the social technology of the "nation" was developed, the primary justification lay in religion. Why do you think that a loyal preference to land, law, and shared history is cult-like?

> Countries were religious; when the social technology of the "nation" was developed, the primary justification lay in religion

Everybody knows that.

But I wrote "If countries were religions" not "religious".

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#218

Post by chernevik »

watwut wrote: post #216
chernevik wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book is very clear that everyone, regardless of ability, has a right to perform the term of service necessary for the franchise, and that all have complete freedom of speech. There are many sloppy criticisms of the book, none of which have bothered to actually understand it.

Convinced pacifists and those unwilling to become part of their army don't get to vote. Everybody who votes is expected to spend enough time in military to be shaped and molded by them. Plus, the book is clear on superiority of soldiers when it comes to making state and political decisions. That are fairly fascist ideas, very straightforwardly. Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are neve…

Never mind the people who quote it, such as you know them. The book is available on its own, to any who will give it a few hours.

Like most of its critics, you don't know what the book says.

Soldiers aren't considered superior, they don't even get to vote until they retire. It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, not the subordination of all civil institutions to the State. Note that the book's extensive moral philosophizing talks about the collective and general good, but _not_ the importance of the State. It is largely silent about what civil society and its institutions look like. There is no suggestion of a totalitarian thought control apparatus, and indeed the book notes the risk that the electorate will panic and screw up defense policy.

And again, it notes that all persons, franchised or not, have the right to free speech, which is hardly typical of a fascist society.

Further, the book is a thought experiment. Heinlein never wrote another book of the kind, and wrote a number that most would consider positively subversive.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#219

Post by watwut »

chernevik wrote: post #218
watwut wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convinced pacifists and those unwilling to become part of their army don't get to vote. Everybody who votes is expected to spend enough time in military to be shaped and molded by them. Plus, the book is clear on superiority of soldiers when it comes to making state and political decisions. That are fairly fascist ideas, very straightforwardly. Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are neve…

Never mind the people who quote it, such as you know them. The book is available on its own, to any who will give it a few hours. Like most of its critics, you don't know what the book says. Soldiers aren't considered superior, they don't even get to vote until they retire. It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, not the subordination of all civil i…

> It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all

No. It requires being soldiers and equates being soldiers to individual willingness to sacrifice himself for the good. Unwuestioningly assuming those are the same ... and also that self sacrifice should be requires.

Those are fascist ideas, really. And here you are defending them, equating the system describe by the book with what book defends.

Because, the book is written from the point on view of fan and contain no other point of view.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#220

Post by chernevik »

watwut wrote: post #219
chernevik wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind the people who quote it, such as you know them. The book is available on its own, to any who will give it a few hours. Like most of its critics, you don't know what the book says. Soldiers aren't considered superior, they don't even get to vote until they retire. It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, not the subordination of all civil i…

> It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all No. It requires being soldiers and equates being soldiers to individual willingness to sacrifice himself for the good. Unwuestioningly assuming those are the same ... and also that self sacrifice should be requires. Those are fascist ideas, really. And here you are defending them, equating the system describe…

That is neither an accurate description of the book, nor my comment, nor fascism.
Post reply on HN