Live data from Hacker News

George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

docs.google.com

11–20 of 252 posts

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#11

"However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life." This seems wrong (with hindsight, I suppose). My mental image of Orwell is that he was quite sharp. How did he manage to get this bit wrong so badly? Does anyone know the reason?

For context

> [Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all "progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flag and loyalty-parades…. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.

I'm not sure this appeals to people more then peace and prosperity but it can have a strong appeal to some people some of the time especially to young men(see ISIS) and especially when your side is winning the war and civilian losses are low.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#12

"However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life." This seems wrong (with hindsight, I suppose). My mental image of Orwell is that he was quite sharp. How did he manage to get this bit wrong so badly? Does anyone know the reason?

Why does it seem wrong to you? I'm not sure if it is right or wrong but it does not seem outright wrong.

It sounds completely wrong to me (my opinion). It's a very utilitarian view of people where, as Orwell describes it here, you get to define some "great" goal, and convince people to fight for it, getting them to sacrifice things of their own in the process. It's all very subservient, manipulative, and a bit inhuman.

Given how prosperous and successful such societies have turned out to be in the past (they all failed), I would have expected someone to just reject it outright in favour of all the other ideas like individuality and freedom, as they are clearly better. I mean, you can't say some ideology is "psychologically sound" and have all its adoptees crash and burn everywhere causing untold amounts of damage. That's not sound at all.

So I was wondering if he meant it, or he was just depressed from how the war was going in 1940. Plus, and maybe I'm just ignorant, I always thought he was against totalitarianism.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it seem wrong to you? I'm not sure if it is right or wrong but it does not seem outright wrong.

It sounds completely wrong to me (my opinion). It's a very utilitarian view of people where, as Orwell describes it here, you get to define some "great" goal, and convince people to fight for it, getting them to sacrifice things of their own in the process. It's all very subservient, manipulative, and a bit inhuman. Given how prosperous and successful such societies have turned out to be in the past (they all failed)…

>I always thought he was against totalitarianism

What he writes, does not imply that he is pro-totalitarianism. He only says, that the concept to give people something to hope for, to fight for, to give their life for a "higher meaning" is a more sound psychological concept as "hey, have a good time ... and just live for the next gadget"

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#14

"However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life." This seems wrong (with hindsight, I suppose). My mental image of Orwell is that he was quite sharp. How did he manage to get this bit wrong so badly? Does anyone know the reason?

>This seems wrong (with hindsight, I suppose).

Not that wrong. The whole passage tells more about how he meant it: that people don't just want ease and hedonism, but they also need struggle and passion and meaning and hurt.

People that have it all too easy more often than not fell in for drugs, depression, etc. And conversely, some of the most "happiest" place on earth, according to their citizens own estimations in polls, are places with tragic poverty and harsh conditions.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#15

"However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life." This seems wrong (with hindsight, I suppose). My mental image of Orwell is that he was quite sharp. How did he manage to get this bit wrong so badly? Does anyone know the reason?

Read it in context. Hedonistic utilitarians believe in the alleviation of suffering and the delivery of pleasure (in the sense of such things as comfort and intellectual pleasures as well as baser pleasures). This is in the tradition of John Stuart Mill, and many English thinkers, including socialists such as Orwell, take this premise for granted. The phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" is commonly used as a description of this kind of hedonistic utilitarianism. The type of socialism that Orwell subscribes to is meant to be an attempt to achieve this end.

By my reading, Orwell is giving Hitler a bit of credit, not only in the fact that he rejects this premise and emphasizes patriotic and militaristic virtues above quality of life, but that he could move an entire nation to agree with this vision. What Orwell means here is that people don't just want comfort and prosperity; they are in fact willing to actively sacrifice these things to achieve a vision, especially one expressed in warlike or patriotic terms. Orwell might be a bit disappointed, and is definitely unsympathetic to fascism, but he does give it credit for being able to inspire people to a grander cause than their own comfort and well-being.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#16
post #11

"However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life." This seems wrong (with hindsight, I suppose). My mental image of Orwell is that he was quite sharp. How did he manage to get this bit wrong so badly? Does anyone know the reason?

For context > [Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all "progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers…

I think there is a difference between how you paraphrased him, and what he wrote. He didn't say "appealing" (which I think would have meant the appeal was superficial), he instead chose to say "psychologically sound" (meaning he thought it was not superficial at all). To me those two concepts are quite different.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it seem wrong to you? I'm not sure if it is right or wrong but it does not seem outright wrong.

It sounds completely wrong to me (my opinion). It's a very utilitarian view of people where, as Orwell describes it here, you get to define some "great" goal, and convince people to fight for it, getting them to sacrifice things of their own in the process. It's all very subservient, manipulative, and a bit inhuman. Given how prosperous and successful such societies have turned out to be in the past (they all failed)…

You have it backwards. The conception of hedonistic comfort and "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the definition of utilitarianism; the fascist concept Orwell is calling "psychologically sound" is in fact the rejection of utilitarianism.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it seem wrong to you? I'm not sure if it is right or wrong but it does not seem outright wrong.

It sounds completely wrong to me (my opinion). It's a very utilitarian view of people where, as Orwell describes it here, you get to define some "great" goal, and convince people to fight for it, getting them to sacrifice things of their own in the process. It's all very subservient, manipulative, and a bit inhuman. Given how prosperous and successful such societies have turned out to be in the past (they all failed)…

I mean you don't have to go too far to find similar themes in say the US. The whole "War on Terror" sure has a very similar feel to it. Not as extreme as in Fascist countries but the general components are still there.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#19
Has anyone here actually read Mein Kampf? Doing so is probably banned in Germany and I am not sure what there is other than kiddie porn or some al-qaeda training manual that you totally would not want in your browsing history. There could come a time when no living person has read Mein Kampf and nobody would know first hand why it is wrong.

Re: George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it seem wrong to you? I'm not sure if it is right or wrong but it does not seem outright wrong.

It sounds completely wrong to me (my opinion). It's a very utilitarian view of people where, as Orwell describes it here, you get to define some "great" goal, and convince people to fight for it, getting them to sacrifice things of their own in the process. It's all very subservient, manipulative, and a bit inhuman. Given how prosperous and successful such societies have turned out to be in the past (they all failed)…

The way I read it he is not saying that totalitarianism is good. He is just saying that it should not be underestimated, since it allowed Hitler to get into power and rally a people into war.
Post reply on HN