Live data from Hacker News

George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

docs.google.com

191–200 of 252 posts

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

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please note, I'm not arguing your overall point, I agree with it completely. This comment is really just nit-picking over terminology. I'm pretty sure that Stalin has been post-categorized into the "Left-Wing" camp as he stood for "Socialism". That one label is about the only thing about Stalin that could be classified as "Left-Wing". There has been an enormous amount of jostling amongst all "Left-Wing" political par…

>> "Socialism" is now very different from Stalin's view of it Didn't released documents after 1989 show that most of the West European communist parties took orders directly from Moscow/Stalin? IIRC, it was a big shock that the reason the Italian communist party was so reasonable after WW II was because it was orders from Moscow. (Stalin wanted to split Europe in two.) I remember that the Swedish communist party used…

Considering that Stalin died in 1953, it's improbable that he had any influence on the communist parties of Europe during the 80's.

I'd also refrain from conflating the "communist" parties from Europe with "Socialism", despite the obvious, ideological connections. Times had changed, labels were still being re-used.

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

#192
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm continually astonished at the ultraconservative meme that Hitler was left-wing (which seems to originate with a book called 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, although it has doubtless been floating around for much longer). Point out that one of the very first things that Hitler did on attaining power was have all the trade unionists arrested, and you might as well be talking to the air.

It's almost as though "left" and "right" are meaningless terms that are just use to split the people into two camps for battle against each other.

It' not "almost as though" but they are meaningless terms (and harmful to political discussion in my view). American politics likes to force every issue into the "liberal" or "conservative" category but reality is much more subtle.

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

#193
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conservatism doesn't send people to concentration camps Doesn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...

Last I checked Gaza were nothing like a concentration camp, and calling it that is an offense to anyone who experienced any real one. When did foreign journalists have access to ccs? When did ccs have markets in broad daylight? Where is forced labour? (I didn't mention starvation etc because those ones are contested but still.) I literally don't like to bring this up as it isually brings downvotes but letting people…

You're right, Gaza is more like the Warsaw ghetto than a concentration camp. History never repeats itself exactly.

But I should say that I didn't really want to emphasize the "conservative" aspect of what Orwell wrote about Hitler so much as that he was able to get away with a lot of what he did in the early days because the "property-owning classes" allowed him to. That is the part I found chilling.

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

#194
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my original response I stated that National Socialism wasn't actually comprised of left wing socialists, but rather hard right fascists, and go on and on about how conservatives completely misrepresent this stuff all the time, and in the very next response to that comment, you do the exact same thing that I was lamenting? Ah yes the great "leftist" Mao, so "left" wing, he purged everyone who disagreed with him (Mc…

So you're saying that anyone who purges people who disagree, who exterminates and enslaves minorities, and who uses military thugs to achieve his ends, can't be left wing? Please enlighten us on your highly non-standard definition of "left wing".

By analogy, you could say that the Inquisition was inherently unchristian, in so far as Christianity has an ideological character beyond simply "Christ worship".

Similarly, if we do the obvious thing and conflate "left wing" and "socialist", and believe that socialism has an ideological character beyond simply hating the existing organization of society, then extermination, slavery, thuggery, coercion, and violence are inherently anti-socialist.

This view is also the conclusion Orwell was operating under---the utopian ideal of capital-S Socialism which he approved of was used as operating cover to assist in the seizing of power by technocratic middle classes.

This view was pretty much explicitly stated in the Goldstein treatises in 1984, which described "English Socialism" as actually a form of "oligarchical collectivism," and claimed that "The Party rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it does so in the name of Socialism."

Similarly, there's this bit from the supposedly ex-Trotskyist James Burnham (who Orwell rightly abuses for being a power-worshiping scumbag):

"Some apologists try to excuse Marxism by saying that it has ‘never had a chance’. This is far from the truth. Marxism and the Marxist parties have had dozens of chances. In Russia, a Marxist party took power. Within a short time it abandoned Socialism; if not in words, at any rate in the effect of its actions. In most European nations there were during the last months of the first world war and the years immediately thereafter, social crises which left a wide-open door for the Marxist parties: without exception they proved unable to take and hold power. In a large number of countries — Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, England, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, France — the reformist Marxist parties have administered the governments, and have uniformly failed to introduce Socialism or make any genuine step towards Socialism... These parties have, in practice, at every historical test — and there have been many — either failed Socialism or abandoned it. This is the fact which neither the bitterest foe nor the most ardent friend of Socialism can erase. This fact does not, as some think, prove anything about the moral quality of the Socialist ideal. But it does constitute unblinkable evidence that, whatever its moral quality, Socialism is not going to come."

To be fair, it's easy to believe claims about Stalin not being a socialist are simply ego-bruised leftists invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy. I don't think this necessarily applies simply because socialism is inherently an ideology. If someone claims to be a pacifist while marauding through a public place with an assault rifle, massacring people as they go, we have no problem resolving this dissonance: the murderer's claims of pacifism are simply lies.

Of course, pacifism was never taken all that seriously to begin with, so it's safe for us to simply say "you're lying about being a pacifist." We feel a bit more constrained telling someone they're lying about their status as a Christian or a socialist.

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

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Russia of today in relative terms is weaker than WW2 Germany militarily. The US is looking to disengage as much as possible from global conflicts. I think that they would be extremely reluctant to be pulled into a head on war against Russia/ China over a lot of 3rd countries.

Do not forget that, whatever the strength of Russia's conventional forces, Russia also possesses nuclear weapons. For that reason, it would be unthinkable for the West to fight a head on war against Russia.

It looks like nukes are off the table. In any way, Russia is invading countries who don't possess nuclear weapons, and uses unflagged troops. From that logic it would be illogical to retaliate with nukes for attacks on troops that aren't yours...

Putin is deliberately isolating conflict regions from each other and from the bigger picture, somehow hoping that no single attack is worth it for NATO to actually retaliate in any form. So far, as long as no NATO countries are in immediate danger, this works extremely well.

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

#196

With what we know today we could see Orwell picture of Germany was incomplete. People did not want struggling at the time. After the Great depression created by the banks bubble and having everything they could produce taken by countries like France as payment for WWI GERMANS WERE ALREADY STRUGGLING. Germans were dying in winter because the coal was sent to France as payment. And this is not like winter in Morocco. I…

> we could see Orwell picture of Germany was incomplete [...] [It's] not that he promised suffering, but that he promised that suffering will end.

Looks to me that it's what Orwell described in that excerpt (at the end of the essay):

> at this moment “Better an end with horror than a horror without end” is a winner.

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

#197
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is true of all such literature. The little Red Book, The Communist manifesto, Mein Kampf, the Quran, all of these books are boring to the point that despite their historical influence, and the massacres ascribed to them, it is a real struggle to get through them. Well, at least most of them are really short.

The Communist Manifesto is a pamphlet and it contains a lot of great quotable passages. The Little Red Book contains contains quotes and proverbs from Mao. The Quran.. you can hardly say that it is boring. Your book comparison is just wrong. If you want to compare Mein Kampf to something, then Josef Stalin wrotes some tomes which are dreadful.

Mein campf is ... well, it's rambling. Think one of those internet "we didn't land on the moon, climate is bad, boo immigrants" texts rambling. The quran is rambling too, but of a different kind. "you must do X, you can't do Y, he must do Z, if you do A, B and C you'll be rewarded". It'd be fine, but it's 50 freaking pages of that. Why are you claiming "boring" is an unfair assessment of this ?

I'm unsure what the definition of pamphlet is, but the communist manifesto definitely exceeds what I'd consider length limits for pamphlets.

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

#198

From a timing perspective, this was published in March, 1940. Some other noteworthy events with their dates: * Germany invades Poland (September, 1939) * Britain, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany (September, 1939) * Soviets invade Poland, which is later split (October, 1939) * Nazis begin euthanasia of ill and disabled in Germany (October, 1939) * Soviets attack Finland (November, 1939…

> Soviets invade Poland, which is later split (October, 1939)

Wrong, soviets invaded on 17th September. In October most fighting was already done.

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

#199
post #186

In 1937, Pope Pius XI published a kind of "review" of the ideas in Mein Kampf and the actions of the Nazi Party. Mit Brennender Sorge ("With Burning Anxiety") remains the only papal encyclical ever principally published in a language other than Latin. That is, the official edition was published in German and other translations were derived from the German rather than a Latin original. Apparently, the Pope's harsh cri…

"Fascism" and "Catholic right-wing" were synonymous at the time. Hitler had signed a treaty with the Holy See to basically allow them to control schools in Germany in exchange for a thumbs up for the regime, and this meant the Vatican was backtracking. Hitler thought they were allies; and the Vatican was important for Nazi power, so yeah, that move pissed him off.

Given that they clearly did not have the church on their side, isn't that a massive conflict ?

Also the wikipedia page states that because of the German (pre-nazi) agreement with the vatican that was seen as lending legitimacy to the nazi government, this rebuke by the pope was seen as a great step forward for German catholics, lending legitimacy to an already existing opposition amonst catholics which was then publicly and violently suppressed ...

I'd be interested in hearing more.

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

#200
post #174
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Unio... Both the extreme left and the extreme right are very much opposed to unions. Ergo making a difference between them on that basis seems impossible. It worked on the other side of the fence as well : Nazi Germany restricted or outlawed trade and business organisation just as it did it unions. They went after the Church too. They restriced universities. The…

What is the extreme left for you? Stalinism isn't extreme left, it's just an totalitarianism promoted as socialism to gain credit. Just as north korea ain't a democracy even though they call themselves that. What I usually associate with "extreme" or far left is the "autonomous left" or similar where trade unions are certainly a fundamental part of the organisational idea.

This is the "but it was never implemented correctly" argument. To the rest of the world, I assure you that Soviet-style communism definitely qualifies as socialism.
Post reply on HN