Live data from Hacker News

George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

docs.google.com

211–220 of 252 posts

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

#211
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

Trying to make some kind of comparison between Mein Kampf and the Quran (and by extension, the Torah and the Bible since they contain much the same content) is beyond idiotic. Have you really read either of the Quran and/or Mein Kampf?

The definition of a pamphlet is an unbound booklet, which is how the Manifesto was originally printed. It's length was 23 pages.

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

#212
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the other hand, here is the Nazi's public face : http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.... Read it, then tell me if you still don't understand why these people might get classified as left-wing. They implemented quite a few of these points too, by the way. You can say whatever you want about Nazi's but they are by far the most successful leftist party in history, and quite a few "left-wing" r…

You'll note, however, that many of those platform points were polar opposites to policies enacted in practice once the Nazis came to power.

War profits continued (indeed, Nazis who tried to actually push for getting rid of the profit motive were quickly removed from their posts and marginalized).

"Unearned" income continued. The Nazis even maintained the gold standard for international trade long after the other major economies had devalued their own currency, and much of the mobilization of their wartime economy came via inventive capitalist measures from the Reichsbank, Reich Economic Ministry, military-economic departments of the Oberkommandowehrmacht, and more.

Likewise the trusts were not only not nationalized (at least, at any great scale), but businesses and industry were forced to join specified cartels based on their market sector. It was through these cartels that the Reich enforced economic policy.

Most of the "left wing" economic policies that were enacted were emulated using good old standard "right wing" methods. Markets remained; instead of centrally planning economic output directly, the Reich simply regulated the market such as to achieve mostly the desired effect. Instead of banning refrigerators outright, the Reich simply failed to import enough iron ore to make civilian goods once the priority list for Wehrmacht and export needs had been filled.

Chemical plants that were absolutely essential for the Reich's strategic needs were contracted to companies like IG Farben with profit guarantees and profit sharing agreements, methods that would be perfectly accept to almost any right-wing economist.

There were state industries too (Junkers, a strategic industry expansion program, a steel/coal production cartel, etc.) so it's not as if Nazi Germany didn't have traditionally left-wing attributes to it. But nor was it lacking in traditionally right-wing attributes or methods.

All of these methods were means to an end, as opposed to being taken from either a left-wing or right-wing palette of options because they were left- or right-wing.

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

#213
post #212
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, here is the Nazi's public face : http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.... Read it, then tell me if you still don't understand why these people might get classified as left-wing. They implemented quite a few of these points too, by the way. You can say whatever you want about Nazi's but they are by far the most successful leftist party in history, and quite a few "left-wing" r…

You'll note, however, that many of those platform points were polar opposites to policies enacted in practice once the Nazis came to power. War profits continued (indeed, Nazis who tried to actually push for getting rid of the profit motive were quickly removed from their posts and marginalized). "Unearned" income continued. The Nazis even maintained the gold standard for international trade long after the other majo…

You expressed my point much more eloquently than I could. Always watch people actually do. Not only what they say.

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

#214
post #200
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the "but it was never implemented correctly" socialists always seem to forget the strength of a state required to simply "implement" socialism, and then enforce it.

Failing said state, it would require a very sizeable majority of the whole mass of people to simply switch over all at once, and again, somehow defend that new order from warlords and parasites.

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

#215
post #205
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrat != Liberal. Liberals have not controlled the government in the U.S. (or Israel) for a very long time.

Well, everybody calls them liberals; they even call themselves liberals (when they're not calling themselves progressives, which is an even stronger code word for "left-wing"). If your argument is that they aren't "true" liberals, then who are the "true" liberals?

George McGovern. Walter Mondale. Lyndon Johnson. Franklin Roosevelt. William O. Douglas. Thurgood Marshall.

There are liberals in the government today, but they are a minority and wield very little power.

Here's an interesting historical perspective of the Supreme Court:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Su...

And a contemporary analysis of Congress:

http://thatsmycongress.com/house/ http://thatsmycongress.com/senate/

The extreme skewing towards conservatism is most evident at the extreme ends of the spectrum in the House: there are only 22 strong liberals vs 74 strong conservatives. There are two Congressmen with perfect 100 conservative scores and not a single one with a perfect liberal score.

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

#216
post #28

This sent chills down my spine: "He [Hitler] had crushed the German labor movement and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both left and right concurred ... that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism. Plus ca change...

It's easy to forget just how many Socialisms there were. The "Ein Volk!" were the "socia" in National Socialism, reusing the Goethe-und-Wagner nationalism from the Bismarck era. It's collectivist to the core and regarded the individual as very nearly nothing. Just because it's massively illiberal does not mean it was not a Socialism. And technically Conservatism is also quite Liberal, coming as it had from Burke. It'…

'socialism' is a word with a specific meaning -- collective ownership of the means of production. dichotomizing ideologies between 'collectivist' and 'individualist' is nonsense baby political theory that accounts for nearly nothing meaningful

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

#217
post #189
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we're safe from politicians exploiting fear and selfishness to push dangerous policy at all.

well I guess we're more wary

It depends what you mean by "we". Russians seems pretty ok with accepting it's strong man in Putin with propaganda and media control. And they're a large nation with immense resources and a huge nuclear arsenal, not very comforting in my book.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Bearing in mind that this "caricature of pure evil" image is basically result of propaganda of the winning side of WW2" I'm not sure that any propaganda is necessary to convince 99.9% of people that the instigator of the largest genocide in human history is, in fact, a "caricature of pure evil."

Stalin's genocide was larger.

famine isn't the same thing as genocide

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

#219
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Nazis felt as secure from internal challenge in Germany during their rule as they appear to have been in retrospect. In any case, whether it was really unnecessary or not, they seem (from the little I've read about this) to have been past masters at controlling potential domestic opposition using the rapier rather than the bludgeon, using a combination of bribery and conciliation, isolation and medi…

>the mysterious absence of Down's Syndrome children in many places these days. could you please expand ?

I don't know what places the author's referring to, but according to one study, most fetuses diagnosed with Down Syndrome in Europe [0] and the United States [1] are aborted. The rate of live births has remained steady, but apparently it would be significantly higher if not for prenatal screening [2]. This discrepancy isn't very mysterious, nor is it really an absence, so maybe the GP has something else in mind?

[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10521836

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22418958

[2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.2702/full

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

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually don't foresee another Hitler rising, because the first Hitler ruined it for all future Hitlers. I think what was most damning was the manner in which Germany lost the war. If I thought it was mainly Hitler's values and racism, I would not feel as safe. Hitler bet big on war and he lost in spectacular fashion. I think he forever associated that style of leadership with catastrophe.

People told themselves the same thing about Napoleon, though. And they told themselves the same thing about WW1 - it was 'the war to end all wars,' and everyone was so thoroughly sick of it afterwards (not least Hitler, who was gassed), that somply having the audacity to march an army around was treated as a a strategic victory. For some time governments that were opposed to Hitler congratulated themselves on resolvi…

You said it right here:

Now of course, people might have responded to Hitler much earlier if they had taken all his Jew-baiting and so on at face value, and realized that when he talked about exterminating large groups of people he meant exactly that, as opposed to just conquering and looting in the traditional fashion.

If people had called Hitler's bluff, things would have gone differently. Do you think the next one will be able to bluff?

Of course, another major factor in enabling Hitler to become Hitler was the circumstances of world power. WWII didn't happen in a vacuum. It was the dramatic culmination of the centuries-long rise of Europe. You mentioned that WWI was destructive. But not destructive enough: thirty years later the same adversaries were ready for another attempt to settle scores and dominate Europe. WWII had to be the end of that cycle: after WWII, Europe was shattered, and world power had shifted to the east and west. The Europe that the combatants had sought to dominate no longer existed.

I'm not much of a scholar of Napoleon, but the way it was framed to me was that the Napoleonic war(s) was the first total war: the size of the French forces were unprecedented, and contemporaries could have been forgiven for not predicting the outcome. Each subsequent war of this type raised the stakes further. That cycle has run its course forever, because the stakes are now so high that victory would mean acquiring territory that was radioactive and uninhabitable.

PS. One of the things that's striking about Mein Kampf is how provincial and small-minded it is. I read a little bit, and one of Hitler's biggest bugbears was the Habsburgs and their treatment of Austria. Hitler was very much a product of his time and place. That time and place is gone forever.

My final point: no one wants to be the next Hitler. What do you suppose was going through Hitler's mind when he committed suicide in a bunker beneath Berlin, surrounded by foreign armies closing in from all sides? He may have anticipated being hanged as a war criminal, or feared retribution from his own people now that defeat could no longer be credibly denied. People make a lot of how Hitler was a maniac and insane, but he knew he lost. In photographs of Hitler from near the end of the war, he looks clearly downcast and exhausted. Hitler started the war maniacally certain of victory, and he ended his reign thoroughly aware of his failure. Hitler was not an imbecile, and if he had known what was coming, I don't think he would have chosen it.

Post reply on HN