Live data from Hacker News

George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

gutenberg.net.au

431–440 of 600 posts

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#431
Ooh! I just read Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". In it, he describes how he and his wife almost got into serious trouble for having a copy with them in Barcelona. Orwell had joined a loyalist political faction as a volunteer to help fight Franco's fascists, which were backed by Germany. However, communists took over the Catalan government, using Orwell's party as a scapegoat to gain power. They started rounding them all up as traitors. Thousands were put in jail or summarily executed.

The police came to search Orwell's wife's hotel room in the middle of the night and found a copy of Mein Kampf, which given the circumstances, was incredibly incriminating. But apparently they found other political books and luckily for her, decided it wasn't incriminating. I have no idea how.

I thought the book was enlightening and Orwell really is an amazing writer. I lived in Spain for a few years and visited most of the areas he went to, which made the whole book even more vivid. Orwell was sooooo lucky to escape the country. Just a week after he and his wife left, formal charges were brought against them as traitors in Spain.

By the way, I have no idea how I went this long without knowing it (maybe I forgot) but George Orwell is a pen name. I was reading the Wikipedia page about his wife and I was like, "Who the hell is Eric Blair?"

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids just don't know any better. I would imagine that those who actually spent some of their childhood in a war zone would have a very different perspective. What's toxic is when grownups end up glorifying war or thinking of it as a solution to hard problems.

Eh, war is simply fun. It’s appealing to males in particular, and our testosterone tends to lock in the intoxication. There’s a reason that Battlefield is one of the most successful gaming franchises of all time, and that it’s very hard to find any videogame that doesn’t involve some kind of warfare. (There are dozens of wonderful counter examples: Minecraft, celeste, undertale, sim city, stardew valley. But for ever…

>Eh, war is simply fun. It’s appealing to males in particular, and our testosterone tends to lock in the intoxication. There’s a reason that Battlefield is one of the most successful gaming franchises of all time

This seems like it's essentializing psychology into core biological elements (with a shaky, uncited relationship to evolutionary psychology) without question. When statements are made this way, don't you think it closes off possible avenues for research beyond the bare facts of war and competition in future societies, at least without genetic modification? I think questions like these should be left open rather than dismissed as "war is fun, testosterone".

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#433

> 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 This fact has been the downfall of every utopian ideology, and ignoring creates a vacuum that fascist regimes readily fill. I wonder what…

[deleted]

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need some amount of brotherly conflict and competition in order to have healthy collaboration. Otherwise, you just get the pretense of agreement and a slow slouch into frustration and resentment.

Disagree that sports are a form of brotherly conflict. Maybe within the same team but definitely not considering the win/loss dynamic between teams. You can approach disagreements with the idea that both people are working together to make the best product and are are disagreeing with the same goal in kind; a different type of argument than the one opposing teams are engaged in.

Sorry I wrote this on my phone at the gym and should have proofread better.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#435
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the saying “Good times create weak men”. And it’s true. You often see a growing discontent among wealthy societies where everything is taken care of. People need purpose in what they do and “my purpose is to fight for the survival of my country” is a pretty compelling one to many people.

> “Good times create weak men” Convert it to any form of observable, measurable phenomena, and you will see it doesn't make any sence. How do we measure 'strength' of a man - perhaps military success? Then best fighters should come from background of poverty and deprivation - is that true? Medieval knights and samurai were the best of their time, did they recruit recruit starving peasans? No, they were a social class…

> Medieval knights and samurai were the best of their time, did they recruit recruit starving peasans?

The best fighters of the Medieval period were probably the Mongols. But even Medieval knights and Samurai were often leading lives that were so rough that it's hard for most modern people to realize it. And they knew that if they failed to train properly, that in the next war (which was probably coming soon), they were likely to die first.

> No, they were a social class and were offered the best training and considerable social cloud. Commanders and officers where basically a nobility.

During times of war, capable warriors tend(ed) to increase their rank. Capable yeomen can become men-at-arms, men-at-arms can be knighted, knights can become commanders and maybe given a barony, on so on.

Such soldiers might certainly provide good training to their sons, making this multi-generational.

> we should find best MMA fighters in places where they encounter tought times

If you look at the backgrounds of a large set of MMA fighters, you would find that a LOT of them come from rough working-class conditions. (Or at least they did when I stopped following MMA about 10 years ago). For practitioners of golf, tennis or polo, you will find more upper class people, of course.

> Maybe 'strong men' means being morally upstanding and doing what's right, even when it is going to cost you?

'Strong' men tend to develop strong codes of honor, that may be considered un-empathetic or even brutal in civilized societies. Look at present day Afghanistan. 50 years of almost constant conflict has hammered the Taliban fighters into such a group. Their sense of morality is quite different from the western sense, but they seem to feel it very strongly. Currently, opium production is being shut down at a high rate, for instance. Whether or not their sense of honor will lead to prosperity over the longer term remains to be seen.

> If this were true, we'd expect to see less corruption and fewer crimes in communities that are poorer, right?

Maybe that will be the outcome 500 years from now. But short term, corruption and crimes lead to poverty faster than poverty leads to a strengthening of moral character, so such cycles may take a long time.

> Bad times only create bad things - they create uneducated, malnurished, and psycologically damanged people, and they lead to violence. Anything good that ever happens, happens in spite of them, not because of them.

Really bad times also remove the damaged people from the population, either by death or inability to have offspring, partly because of that violence you mentioned. Over Darwinian time that is an absolute necessity to keep random genetic drift (random mutations) from destroying the gene pool.

Over shorter periods, the same MAY be the same for the "meme pool", to use the Dawkins original use of "meme". Cultural shifts that accumulate randomly over time are likely to result in a reduction of social and economical robustness in an area. Only when a society is under some survivial pressure, will cultural elements that reduce the "fitness" of the culture be weeded out.

External pressure can lead to increased group cohesion, while economic downturns CAN lead to improvement of economic organization. Or, if a culture is not able to build robustness against such preassures, it can collapse and be replaced by a new culture.

Now, I'm looking at these things like a biologist would when describing animal populations. I'm not making the claim that the societies created by "strong men" are morally superior to older civilizations where men have become "soft" or "weak".

My point is rather that if a civilization makes life very easy for the inhabitants, if will over time lead to the same outcome that you will get if you start feeding wild animals. Eventually, those "wild" animals will come to depend on beeing fed, and may face extinction if the food stops arriving. If what you want is a pet, that's ok. If you want to ensure a sustainable species, you really have to limit the amount of food and other help you provide to wild animals.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#436
post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree with you. I don't think that the integrity of elections and democracy are the main point of this essay. Orwell wrote a lot about authoritarianism, and as you say, "communism" was the prime example at the time. What he hints at here is not only the fragility of democracy. It's about the fragility of civilization. It's about the "will to power" as defined by Nietzsche, and the power of belief systems, a…

Slavery pre-dates capitalism. Slavery is more a product of feudalism. In fact, it was the capitalist successes of the northern states in the US that drove the defeat of the southern slave states.

Yep, it's convenient today to connect the two or to pretend that America's (or Britain's) success in the early day was largely a product of slavery. But even when slavery ended there was hardly a sudden decline in prosperity, that engine kept accelerating.

> Slavery didn't make America rich. It made a few Southerners rich and a few Northerners rich, but it didnt make the country rich.

> Another way to look at it is, the Confederacy was a loose collection of agricultural states. The real money was made by the industrial northern states. In the north were mills, factories, ship building, and steel mills.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-slavery-contribute-to-Ame...

American capitalism (and the labour movements that reacted to it) was built in the factories and mills, not the farms in the south.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#437

The Journal of Finance just published this paper: "Financial crises and political radicalization: How failing banks paved Hitler's path to power" https://www.bis.org/publ/work978.htm .

The recent biography of Keynes (“The Price of Peace” by Carter) spends a lot of time discussing similar theories put forth at the time; Keynes was very critical of the Treaty of Versailles as he considered it an inevitability that crushing the German economy post-WW1 would produce a nationalist demagogue. Indeed, the treatise by Keynes after which the biography was named provided a technical argument for that thesis.

In The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) Keynes puts the blame squarely on the French delegation as led by Clemenceau:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Consequences_of...

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His description of trench warfare and hand to hand combat is horrifying. I understood his views on communism better after reading the book.

The words “communism” and “socialism” have particularly slippery modern meanings - they depend where you are internationally, in time, and your partisanship. I have read a lot of what he wrote, and I am still unsure what he exactly meant by socialism. I find his essay ‘On Nationalism’ difficult to follow, although very interesting. I love all his writings about his own experiences, because his observations are so exc…

At that time in Europe "socialism" basically just meant "good". It was a stand in for a government where you care about each other.

Then there's the more "theoretical" definition of socialism. In the US it might seem bewildering why Orwell considered the anarchists of that war to be the "true socialists" (despite Orwell being a communist, he had a lot of support for them). But the truth is that both anarchism and communism far pretty well within the boundaries of socialist theory historically. And that's quite evident when you think about the fact that the final goal of both of these theories is a stateless society

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#439

The Journal of Finance just published this paper: "Financial crises and political radicalization: How failing banks paved Hitler's path to power" https://www.bis.org/publ/work978.htm .

The recent biography of Keynes (“The Price of Peace” by Carter) spends a lot of time discussing similar theories put forth at the time; Keynes was very critical of the Treaty of Versailles as he considered it an inevitability that crushing the German economy post-WW1 would produce a nationalist demagogue. Indeed, the treatise by Keynes after which the biography was named provided a technical argument for that thesis.

> crushing the German economy post-WW1

It was so crushed it was the strongest economic power in Europe by 1923. Truly a crippling burden.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any recommendations for other writings and analyses by Orwell?

Down and Out in Paris and London.

This one is very unfairly ignored all too often. The details may have changed since then (not too much, though), but everything is spot on. I remember reading this living between jobs on a couple of quid a day in a hostel and thinking that the similarities really were uncanny. Except for the work houses, luckily this bit is gone from Western Europe.

What really struck me was how plain it was that laws and rules that are supposed to apply equally to everyone often have in-built repressive aspects, like the fact that you could get fined and jailed for sleeping rough. This is wonderfully summarised by a quote that I found only later: “the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

So yes, Down and out is a must read, just as much as Animal farm and 1984.

Post reply on HN