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

Notes on Nationalism (1945)

orwellfoundation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#71

Post by enkid »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #47
j4yav wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think it’s upsetting that people are being called cowards or complicit for not protesting, which I agree is unfair, wait until you find out what the propaganda being used to justify the war is saying about Ukrainians.

I've seen a lot of russian propaganda and none of it takes the racial angle on Ukrainians. Russian consider Ukrainians part of their culture so it wouldn't make much sense. Any source?

Russia saying Ukrainian culture is the same as Russian culture could be considered racist. It's similar to claims that African Americans don't have a unique culture. The result is people justifying suppression of that culture because it "doesn't exist" independently.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#72

Post by mrjangles »

Aidevah wrote: post #65

Insightful and relevant as ever, Orwell is always worth reading (and rereading). Sometimes I feel that his fictional works have unjustly overshadowed his enormous production of essays, so it's good to see these pop up on the front page once in a while. Also for those who might be mislead by the title, Orwell is discussing something much broader here: > But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using th…

I think what happens here is that Orwell is having a big stab at the intelligencia, and the intelligencia at the time (as now) hated nationalism. He is trying to point out all the ways their behavior is just like that of overzealous nationalists at the time, so he redefines the word so as the label all the intelligencia as the thing they hate.

It makes for effective rhetoric. I think anyone reading this should keep in mind that he seems to have good things to say about what he defines as "patriotism", which is what we would mean by the word nationalism today. In other words, he would absolutely not agree with the anti-nationalists of today who hate their country. In fact, he goes out of his way in this essay to label those people as prime examples of "nationalists".

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#73

Post by zajio1am »

janmarsal wrote: post #18

Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still) who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British empire together. Good think that faile…

> A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people

Leftists sometimes consider nationalism 'good' when it is nationalism of a small nation against an imperium (or minority ethnicity against a nation state), but 'bad' when it is a powerful nation trying to conquer its neighbors (or opressing its ethnic minorities). But in facts, both of these nationalisms are based on the same toxic concept of ingroupness based on shared ethnicity, language and culture, in contrast of ingroupness based on shared commitment to universalist ideas like freedom, rule of law and democracy.

OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries really work is because of some level of nationalism, as commitment to universalist ideas is primarily a thing for elites, while ethnicity-based tribalism is much more primal concept.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#74

Post by Amezarak »

zajio1am wrote: post #73
janmarsal wrote: post #18

Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still) who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British empire together. Good think that faile…

> A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people Leftists sometimes consider nationalism 'good' when it is nationalism of a small nation against an imperium (or minority ethnicity against a nation state), but 'bad' when it is a powerful nation trying to conquer its neighbors (or opressing its ethnic minorities). But in facts, both of these nationalisms are based on the same toxic concept of ingr…

"Universalist" ideas don't bind elites together because they are more high-minded or educated, they bind them together because universalist ideas liberate capital flows and thereby enrich the elite (in material terms) at the expense of everyone else (and not only in material terms.) Capitalism and Schizophrenia is an in-depth discussion of this - "universalism" is simply capital flows destroying all social norms that impede them.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#75

Post by fkfkno »

So he was a patriot after all?

All jokes aside, in that book there is the quote:

"All art is propaganda; on the other hand, not all propaganda is art."

History judges which is which by virtue of whether or not it succeeds in its objective(s). But history is itself another form of propaganda, so alas, we are all once again stuck here in this mess we call "today".

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#76

Post by lotsofpulp »

grujicd wrote: post #9
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just got finished watching The Great Hack* on Netflix. Demonizing "the other side", exactly as you've said, causes the polarisation that prevents even the consideration of compromise, resulting in political unproductivity that in turn erodes trust and forces us simple humans back into the basic pigeon holes that remain as the only effective politics, primarily: fear. The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and…

OMG, that Trinidad and Tobago part is so eye opening, even for middle aged cynic who thought he saw it all.

My cynicism is running the other way. I have been burned too many times by “factual” documentaries that leave our context and information that run counter to what the documentary is selling. Especially all the Netflix garbage which is designed to just increase the number of hours of content they have.

The audio seems to be from a sales pitch, so Cambridge Analytica has incentive to lie that they did something.

The “Do So” movement seems to have started due to someone not allowing the incumbent, extremely unpopular prime minister onto their property:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Villafana

I have not found any good evidence that Cambridge Analytica orchestrated anything. At best, I am guessing they acted as an advertising firm and used an organically growing movement against an already extremely unpopular leader.

But the Netflix documentary attempts to make it seem like Cambridge Analytica started the movement and succeeded in swaying an outcome that would not have gone the way it did without Cambridge Analytica. Maybe it did, maybe it did not, but a sales rep from Cambridge Analytica trying to sell their services is certainly no proof of anything.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#77

Post by refurb »

mantas wrote: post #23
sjaak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something else will replace it. Tribalism is built in to our ‘firmware’.

Looking at US - it’s already being replaced by political divide. I prefer Euro style ethnic tribalism to US style political tribalism much more. Former allows to keep it at sports, lame memes and kitchen. Yet find common ground on internal politics. Even if political narratives divide, there’s still something to unite people. Meanwhile political tribalism seem to be penetrating everything with little chance for somet…

I kinda get your point but which system produced fewer wars in the last 250 years?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#78

Post by ImaCake »

Aidevah wrote: post #65

Insightful and relevant as ever, Orwell is always worth reading (and rereading). Sometimes I feel that his fictional works have unjustly overshadowed his enormous production of essays, so it's good to see these pop up on the front page once in a while. Also for those who might be mislead by the title, Orwell is discussing something much broader here: > But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using th…

I didn’t enjoy 1984. If you have been exposed to those ideas elsewhere the book just doesn’t work. I did however love his memoir of his time fighting as a socialist volunteer in the Spanish civil war [1]. Very insightful read and clearly shows where his thinking was going when he later wrote animal farm and 1984.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#79

Post by quacked »

progre wrote: post #13
prox wrote: post #8

Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is basically a “war propaganda” movie seen from the viewpoint of a fascistic government. The whole point of the movie is to make the enemy seem like “the other” , and in this case these are actual alien bugs in the movie. All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side” Paul Verhoeven al…

The book (one of my favourites) is a little diffrent. There the perspective is that of the mobile infantist. The classic hero arc but in a fashist world. Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry. The movie is brilliant in a diffrent way. It's basically satire on all levels. Paul…

> Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry

This is a very shallow interpretation of the book. When did you read it?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#80

Post by ByteJockey »

zajio1am wrote: post #73
janmarsal wrote: post #18

Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still) who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British empire together. Good think that faile…

> A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people Leftists sometimes consider nationalism 'good' when it is nationalism of a small nation against an imperium (or minority ethnicity against a nation state), but 'bad' when it is a powerful nation trying to conquer its neighbors (or opressing its ethnic minorities). But in facts, both of these nationalisms are based on the same toxic concept of ingr…

> concept of ingroupness based on shared ethnicity, language and culture, in contrast of ingroupness based on shared commitment to universalist ideas like freedom, rule of law and democracy.

Is the latter not also nationalism, if you believe that those ideals create a group that is worthy of self-determination? Maybe it deserves its own qualifier, such as ideo-nationalism, to distinguish it from ethno-nationalism, but does the motivation fundamentally change what it is?

> OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries really work is because of some level of nationalism

I think you're probably right here. The question I have is if you can make that nationalism about something other than ethnic groups?

Post reply on HN