4 ms·

There's a fantastic quote from Orwell about Hitler's rise that points out that the appeal of fascism was struggle and conflict itself. I'l see if I can find it

There's a fantastic quote from Orwell about Hitler's rise that points out that the appeal of fascism was struggle and conflict itself. I'l see if I can find it, but it is something I wonder about from a sociological standpoint: When we have our basic needs met, how do we deal with the alienation that results? If we don't deal with that alienation, can we expect someone who promises adversity to arise? Being poor, lacking healthcare, experiencing violence, etc are all terrible things, but overcoming them often strongly informs our identities. If we manage, through politics and technology, to achieve a safe, post-scarcity society with all basic needs met, will we have to deal with a collective identity crisis (or millions of individual crises) and if so, how do we deal with it? Found the Orwell quote: “[Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all “progressive” thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. 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, not to mention drums, flag and loyalty-parades ... Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them “I offer you struggle, danger and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet”

watwut 9y ago
Hitler promised a lot more and did not arise to power in the situation of good economy. He promised new land under theory that Germany is overcrowded, he promised power and went up as capitalism/democracy seemed to be failing. Hitlers popularity went down when economy was better and up when it crashed. Another thing that played against socialists in Germany was knowledge of purge in Russia. Germans were scared that something like that will happen there unless there is strongman in lead. And to be fair, communists getting power would likely mean danger and killings. People also hoped that Hitler in power will cause street violence go down. People will trade identity and purpose for comfort, but in Germany it did not happened out of comfort. And it happened in violent already militaristic state that valued military a lot long before Hitler.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  My wording was unclear by positioning it as "the appeal" as opposed to "one of the appeals". Hitler promised a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The Nazi party was extremely cynical in its application of promises and even ideology. One of the the most interesting and disturbing pieces of Nazi propaganda was a poster of a banker and a communist holding hands, with the caption, "Marxism is the guardian angel of capitalism." An absurd and nonsensical statement, it was instead appealing to a particular segment of German society's emotional rejection of both the banks and communist movements. What Orwell is referring to is not the totality of Nazi appeal, because they positions themselves to have many, often conflicting with each other, but one particular appeal to a certain segment of society.
  - watwut 9y ago
    > What Orwell is referring to is not the totality of Nazi appeal, because they positions themselves to have many, often conflicting with each other, but one particular appeal to a certain segment of society. What I want to say is that the amount of people who were throwing away comfort, safety and short working-hours in exchange of struggle was smaller then the quote implies. Their choice dont speak for humanity. German history does not give us reason to worry that alienation from having too good life leads to such catastrophe. Struggle seeking segments of society had their own reasons to accept that deal and it was not that their all basic needs were well met. It was not collective identity crisis due to all problems being solved. A lot them were hurt, scared, damaged by WWI experiences, used to violence and inside country that was breaking down. They did not believed the comfort can be gained unless Germany gets to power again and destroys enemies. And the wish for militaristic values did not came out of nowhere either - the boys were raised to be that way. There was a lot of social status to be gained by being in military plus guaranteed state employment (and whole state institutions being all ex-soldiers).

watwut 9y ago

Hitler promised a lot more and did not arise to power in the situation of good economy. He promised new land under theory that Germany is overcrowded, he promised power and went up as capitalism/democracy seemed to be failing. Hitlers popularity went down when economy was better and up when it crashed. Another thing that played against socialists in Germany was knowledge of purge in Russia. Germans were scared that something like that will happen there unless there is strongman in lead. And to be fair, communists getting power would likely mean danger and killings. People also hoped that Hitler in power will cause street violence go down. People will trade identity and purpose for comfort, but in Germany it did not happened out of comfort. And it happened in violent already militaristic state that valued military a lot long before Hitler.

michaelchisari 9y ago
My wording was unclear by positioning it as "the appeal" as opposed to "one of the appeals". Hitler promised a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The Nazi party was extremely cynical in its application of promises and even ideology. One of the the most interesting and disturbing pieces of Nazi propaganda was a poster of a banker and a communist holding hands, with the caption, "Marxism is the guardian angel of capitalism." An absurd and nonsensical statement, it was instead appealing to a particular segment of German society's emotional rejection of both the banks and communist movements. What Orwell is referring to is not the totality of Nazi appeal, because they positions themselves to have many, often conflicting with each other, but one particular appeal to a certain segment of society.
- watwut 9y ago
  > What Orwell is referring to is not the totality of Nazi appeal, because they positions themselves to have many, often conflicting with each other, but one particular appeal to a certain segment of society. What I want to say is that the amount of people who were throwing away comfort, safety and short working-hours in exchange of struggle was smaller then the quote implies. Their choice dont speak for humanity. German history does not give us reason to worry that alienation from having too good life leads to such catastrophe. Struggle seeking segments of society had their own reasons to accept that deal and it was not that their all basic needs were well met. It was not collective identity crisis due to all problems being solved. A lot them were hurt, scared, damaged by WWI experiences, used to violence and inside country that was breaking down. They did not believed the comfort can be gained unless Germany gets to power again and destroys enemies. And the wish for militaristic values did not came out of nowhere either - the boys were raised to be that way. There was a lot of social status to be gained by being in military plus guaranteed state employment (and whole state institutions being all ex-soldiers).