Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

gutenberg.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 600 posts

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#521

Post by adrian_b »

ncmncm wrote: post #487
culi wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

What Orwell wrote about the Communists in Spain would not lead anyone to place him among them.

That what he wrote was written after he knew from personal experience the reality of Communism, which converted him from a supporter of Communism into an opponent of it.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#522

Post by cypherpunks27ad »

The link is actually to a censored version of the review which omits the sentence "I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler."

An uncensored copy of the review which does contain that sentence is here: https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks16/1600051h.html

Here is a reference from the NYT to show that yes, he really said this: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/22/opinion/l-orwellian-ambiv...

The fact that most of the copies of Orwell's review of Mein Kampf have replaced this sentence with "..." is downright Orwellian.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#523

Post by LAC-Tech »

jhbadger wrote: post #496
LAC-Tech wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the working class almost always more socially conservative than the middle and upper classes? It's certainly true of our time. AFAICT his analysis still rings true.

Well, that's debatable. Yes, certainly right wing populists (who are often funded by billionaires and/or are so themselves) like to claim that working class people are socially conservative and that the "elite" are the ones that are trying to instigate social change, but there seems to be quite a mix of social views at all strata of society.

It's very hard to qualify, I suppose. We just have our anecdotes.

I've definitely noticed that the more formal education people have had - and the better they've done in that system - the less socially conservative they are. I live in a rural working class area but work remotely with middle class professionals from big cities, there's a pretty distinct divide in social attitudes.

As for attitudes in the upper class, I can't speak to that.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#524

Post by hef19898 »

greatpostman wrote: post #473
hef19898 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't Patton a PTSD denying, proto wheraboo who thought he fought the wrong enemy? One that was removed from Getmany due his treatment and view of displaced jews? As with all WW2 generals, I would take his quotes, and memoires, with a ton of salt.

You must admit, throwing out first hand accounts is radical

Not if those first hand accounts are known to be extremely biased. And you don't nned those books, the primary sources, war diaries, field reports and so in, are available now. No need to use, or believe, self promoting statements and books trying to whitewash (in the case of German Generals) or improve (allies) one's image.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#525

Post by Jataman606 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #366
refurb wrote: 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…

> Well, perhaps those social institutions didn't recruit the best, what about sports - if this statement was actually true, we should find best MMA fighters in places where they encounter tought times, like Russia or Somalia. Does that match observation - do they win all the MMA championships or something? It doesn't.

Just look through UFC rankings and you will see that you are wrong. The only reason that you don't see fighters from places like Somalia (because there are plenty from Russia) is that they are too poor to move to place where they would be noticed and recruited, not that they would be bad fighters. Even fighters that came from USA are mostly from tough and poor backgrounds.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#526

Post by watwut »

int_19h wrote: post #451
sudosysgen wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rift dates to WW1, not the 1930s, and considering the three arrows to be a better marking of the rift than the SPD literally giving the order to murder KPD is nonsensical. There was no split in 1903 - the SPD simply had both a revolutionary and electoral faction. And Bernsteinian revisionism wasn't about taking power through elections or through revolution (which is what the SPD took position on in 1903), it was…

Nazis in their past Freikorps incarnation also killed plenty of communists. It did not prevent KPD from doing joint strikes with them. So I find it very dubious that KPD and SPD couldn't have made a single united front, if instructions from Moscow weren't towards the opposite.

> So I find it very dubious that KPD and SPD couldn't have made a single united front, if instructions from Moscow weren't towards the opposite.

And if social democrat's were willing to cooperate with them. Because communists were only slightly smaller threat then nazi. Hitlers tactic was to talk about communists and Jew and social democrats interchangeably, but they were not. That does not mean the three were the same in practice.

Social democrats were the one pro-democracy party in Germany. That is not compatible with communism. Then there were those pro-monarchy or military dictatorship, then nazi.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#527

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

hackerlight wrote: post #519
dalbasal wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There are spots where Orwell gets convoluted. His famous and impactful (on me, lol) essay "On Nationalism" includes a confusing/backtracking carve-out for (presumably) Churchillian patriotism. But I think this is the nature of such ideas. They aren't absolute, falsifiable, scientific ideas. Just observations about people.

Why did you see this as confusing and convoluted? My interpretation is that he's saying the human psyche requires this and if a tame and healthy version of patriotism and national pride isn't provided by the centrist elements in society, then that vacuum will be filled by a populist demagogue who weaponizes it. It seems debatable but highly plausible.

.. and he is absolut on point, it just hurts to admit, that those who strife for a idealized version of humanity, might feed the darker side while doing so.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#528

Post by failTide »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #296
alar44 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling football or hockey "violence" dilutes the meaning of the word. May as well call a high five violence.

I've seen plenty of people rejoice at the injuries of another team's players

I've never seen that although I'm sure it happens. What I have seen a lot is the entire crowd cheering when a visiting player is able to walk off after being knocked down with a possible injury.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#529

Post by kortilla »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #297
hellgas00 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any group with unpalatable views to the general public don't want to have their views expressed in the open. There isn't some grand parallel to be had here. The meetings in Davos are never televised despite their influence on the masses. Recently the Washington Post Doxxed the LibsOfTikTok account creator, who's only crime was posting the views of socially liberal people on tiktok. Once your uncommon views become mai…

"Any group with unpalatable views to the general public don't want to have their views expressed in the open" I agree. I disagree however with your bigger point. The American far right in particular has gone through great lengths to be hidden. They financial backing is hidden through shell corporations and with protections they fought to carve out with Citizens United. Davos is widely publicized and the press covers…

> Seditious conspiracy is another story, and the American right is crossing into that territory recently.

Referring to a tiny minority of people generally as “the American right” is just a bunch of disingenuous bullshit designed to hint that it’s a problem with a whole ideology.

This is no different than equivocating the violence of environmental terrorists or the tiny slice of BLM violence with “the American left”.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#530

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

adrian_b wrote: post #521
ncmncm wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Orwell wrote about the Communists in Spain would not lead anyone to place him among them.

That what he wrote was written after he knew from personal experience the reality of Communism, which converted him from a supporter of Communism into an opponent of it.

There was a infamous forgotten year, were europes "on party line" communists (also in england) cheered on germany, because that was a ally of moscow then.

Those who hated on orwell, really showed their colors back then. Totalitarians, just with different decorations.

Post reply on HN