Notes on Nationalism (1945)
orwell.ru
Notes on Nationalism (1945)
1–10 of 91 posts
Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)
#2Boy oh boy if only I could make more people read this. So many people in India just conflate patriotism with nationalism and it has become a fashion to brand any patriotic talk as "nationalistic". And they assume they are right because they think great people of past agree.
Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)
#3"Among the intelligentsia, it hardly needs saying that the dominant form of nationalism is Communism — using this word in a very loose sense, to include not merely Communist Party members, but ‘fellow travellers’ and russophiles generally. A Communist, for my purpose here, is one who looks upon the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it his duty t justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Obviously such people abound in England today, and their direct and indirect influence is very great."
I find this somehow hard to believe. I can buy that the British intelligensia was probably full of people who thought communism was a good philosophy. But outright supporting Russia as their homeland? That doesnt make sense, unless there was some huge ex-patriation of Russian intelligensia types to other countries?
Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)
#4I always really admired Orwell's style as a political journalist and writer. He writes clearly and gets to the point. He doesn't hide in flowery ambiguity, like most journalists do when writing about "isms."
Here specifically, I don't think he's clear and timeless.
This is an essay about British politics of the time, for the British. Nationalism meant the bad guys from the war, which was just ending. Orwell is warning against fanatical politics likes those of the 1930s. Besides the war, the British Empire was ending. Orwell is warning the British about paranoid, nationalist politics the loss of empire was stirring up.
He is being delicate with his labels to avoid just calling his readers fanatics^. I think this leaves us with something less timeless.
Anyway.... First, he splits hairs to define nationalism separately from patriotism, the safer & less violent flavour of nation-centric "ism". Then he extends his definition of "nationalism" to include also... "such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism."
So, wtf does Orwell mean when he says "nationalism". It's not like patriotism, but is like Trotskyism? I think he just means fanatics. Ideologists that care more about winning arguments and wars then morals & greater goods supposedly furthered by ideologies.
That is relevant today. I think this essay would have been gone on to the top shelf of timeless political writing if Orwell had pretended to write for the French about the British, instead of "anticipating the troll" and mincing his words in response. Name the thing.
^Orwell's essay on Gandhi is written for Brits too. He doesn't hold back pointing out the fanaticism of Gandhi. This makes his positive points about Gandhi's nonviolent political methods clearer and more honest, having already named the superstitious elements what they were.
Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)
#5"Among the intelligentsia, it hardly needs saying that the dominant form of nationalism is Communism — using this word in a very loose sense, to include not merely Communist Party members, but ‘fellow travellers’ and russophiles generally. A Communist, for my purpose here, is one who looks upon the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it his duty t justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Ob…
There were really was a belief among orthodox Western Communists that the Soviet Union was the future and that Stalin was a great man. They often became Rusophiles who learned Russian and went on trips to the Soviet Union where they were given carefully controlled tours which made the place seem like Utopia. That was different from just a belief in Communism -- as Orwell notes, there certainly were the Trotskyists, who believed that Lenin's revolution in the USSR had been betrayed by Stalin, but they had their own parties and organizations (and weren't that numerous).
Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)
#6"Among the intelligentsia, it hardly needs saying that the dominant form of nationalism is Communism — using this word in a very loose sense, to include not merely Communist Party members, but ‘fellow travellers’ and russophiles generally. A Communist, for my purpose here, is one who looks upon the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it his duty t justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Ob…
Orwell is being obtuse when he says "nationalism."
What he meant is some flavour of what we'd call "ideologist" today, whether or not the ideology has much to do with nations or nation states. Communism was a major political movement all over europe (and the world) at the time. Most labour movements considered themselves communists.
Anglo-American liberalism was the biggest ideological faction, but Orwell doesn't seem to count that as "Nationalism." After that, communism probably was the biggest faction in universities in 1945.
Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)
#7"Among the intelligentsia, it hardly needs saying that the dominant form of nationalism is Communism — using this word in a very loose sense, to include not merely Communist Party members, but ‘fellow travellers’ and russophiles generally. A Communist, for my purpose here, is one who looks upon the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it his duty t justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Ob…
Orwell is being obtuse when he says "nationalism." What he meant is some flavour of what we'd call "ideologist" today, whether or not the ideology has much to do with nations or nation states. Communism was a major political movement all over europe (and the world) at the time. Most labour movements considered themselves communists. Anglo-American liberalism was the biggest ideological faction, but Orwell doesn't see…
But it's not just Communism, it's Russia itself. I see it even today among some members of our national Communist Party (which was historically Stalinist). They not only irrationally¹ defended the USSR, as they transferred that to current Russia and Putin. It truly boggles the mind.
And they are not Russians, or particularly care about the land or the people, it's a support of the Russian nation specifically.
¹ By irrationally, I mean what Orwell describes - defending actions they would never defend in other countries and ignoring inconvenient facts
Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)
#8I always really admired Orwell's style as a political journalist and writer. He writes clearly and gets to the point. He doesn't hide in flowery ambiguity, like most journalists do when writing about "isms." Here specifically , I don't think he's clear and timeless. This is an essay about British politics of the time, for the British. Nationalism meant the bad guys from the war, which was just ending. Orwell is warni…
Yes, he really does seem to just mean fanatical adherents to an ideology, which may or may not be associated with a physical nation. He is certainly using the term "nationalism" in a non-standard way. But I think he did it because he was trying to point out the similarities between traditional nationalism and ideologues of all stripes.
Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Orwell is being obtuse when he says "nationalism." What he meant is some flavour of what we'd call "ideologist" today, whether or not the ideology has much to do with nations or nation states. Communism was a major political movement all over europe (and the world) at the time. Most labour movements considered themselves communists. Anglo-American liberalism was the biggest ideological faction, but Orwell doesn't see…
But it's not just Communism, it's Russia itself. I see it even today among some members of our national Communist Party (which was historically Stalinist). They not only irrationally¹ defended the USSR, as they transferred that to current Russia and Putin. It truly boggles the mind. And they are not Russians, or particularly care about the land or the people, it's a support of the Russian nation specifically. ¹ By ir…
This is true, obviously very true in his time. I think it is inevitable though, one becomes a symbol of the other.
Were the east european liberals of the 70s & 80s not obsessed with America? Cowboys, rockstars, blue jeans, holywood gangsters...
Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)
#10I always really admired Orwell's style as a political journalist and writer. He writes clearly and gets to the point. He doesn't hide in flowery ambiguity, like most journalists do when writing about "isms." Here specifically , I don't think he's clear and timeless. This is an essay about British politics of the time, for the British. Nationalism meant the bad guys from the war, which was just ending. Orwell is warni…
Yes, he really does seem to just mean fanatical adherents to an ideology, which may or may not be associated with a physical nation. He is certainly using the term "nationalism" in a non-standard way. But I think he did it because he was trying to point out the similarities between traditional nationalism and ideologues of all stripes.
I think he was.
I think he was also trying to piggy-back. To the British of 1945, "Nationalism" meant Germany, Japan, Italy and their other recent enemies. Everyone knew they were irrational, destructive fanatics. I think he was warning of similar in British politics.