5 ms·

"However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life." This seems wrong (with h

"However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life." This seems wrong (with hindsight, I suppose). My mental image of Orwell is that he was quite sharp. How did he manage to get this bit wrong so badly? Does anyone know the reason?

Systemic33 12y ago
He has pretty communistic views himself, so to me this just seems like a bit of bias showing.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- iak8god 12y ago
  > He was a communist for a long time, then got disenchanted because of Stalin (he wrote 1984 in this period). This is wrong. It's hard to succinctly characterize Orwell's political views[1], but it's simply incorrect that he was "a communist" for any length of time. An uncharitable reading of your comment might be simply that you think democratic socialism and communism are the same thing, in which case it might be very helpful for you to read some of Orwell's political essays [2] and other non-fiction. 'Homage to Catalonia' is wonderful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views [2] http://georgeorwellnovels.com/essays/ http://georgeorwellnovels.com/essays/
  - _delirium 12y ago
    I don't think in the context of Spain, at least, the various versions of libertarian socialism saw themselves as that clearly distinguished. POUM had people who described themselves as "communist", "socialist", and "anarchist", some of whom were the same people. They specifically dissociated themselves from the Soviet Union (and more specifically from Stalin), but were largely supportive of some kind of non-authoritarian "socialism" or "communism". I mean the party flag was the red flag with a hammer and sickle!
    - iak8god 12y ago
      > I don't think in the context of Spain, at least, the various versions of libertarian socialism saw themselves as that clearly distinguished. I don't disagree. Reading in 'Homage' about the wide variety of affiliations and beliefs is really eye-opening, which is one reason I recommended it in my response to the (now deleted) comment above. However, it's just completely wrong from 2014 and with a view of the entire 20th century and of Orwell's entire life to state that he "was a communist for a long time," which is what I was responding to. I hope the author of that comment takes my recommendation. Orwell writes with such integrity and clarity and without even a hint of the tribalism that plagues political discussions.
      - smutticus 12y ago
        I just finished reading 'Homage to Catalonia' and 'Down and Out in Paris and London'. Two early Orwell novels that possibly reveal more of his political thinking than either 'Animal Farm', or '1984'. Homage is great. What I came away with was a profound sense of how ideology and labels are completely destructive to clear political understanding. This is really a running theme in Orwell's work. Once one identifies as a 'this' or a 'that' one becomes beholden to its leaders, or whomever might be wagging 'this' or 'that' dog. His reference and definition of Trotskyism in Homage sticks with me the most. When Poum are labelled Trotskyists it's never made clear what Trotskyists actually are, only that they're bad, and somehow counter to goodness. This appears again in his discussion of how Stalin, American and British interests want Fascism to fail, but actually dread any real social revolution in Spain more than Fascism. So they're not willing to arm anarchists against Fascists. The eventual suppression of Poum and the anarchists by Communists loyal only to the USSR, ultimately ruins any chance the Republicans might have had. It was a fascinating read, and it must be read by anyone interested in understanding the Spanish Civil war, or Orwell. One can see where Orwell got the idea for '2 legs bad, 4 legs good' --> '4 legs good, 2 legs better' in 'Animal Farm' from his experience in Spain. This scene from chapter 10 sticks in my mind. Orwell is approached by a Communist friend and asked to join their unit. This is after Communist propoganda has started to paint the Poum as 'counter revolutionary'. "I had to tell him that after this affair I could not join any Communist-controlled unit. Sooner or later it might mean being used against the Spanish working class. One could not tell when this kind of thing would break out again, and if I had to use my rifle at all in such an affair I would use it on the side of the working class and not against them. He was very decent about it. But from now on the whole atmosphere was changed. You could not, as before, 'agree to differ' and have drinks with a man who was supposedly your political opponent." Orwell wants the reader to understand that these various 'isms' and 'ists' are extremely susceptible to internal corruption. No matter what their initial beliefs. In addition he strongly discouraged 'mealy mouthed' language, and imprecision. 'Doublespeak' from '1984' and his essay on 'Politics and the English Language' are all about this strongly held belief of his. He skill and precision at writing allowed him to more easily deconstruct propoganda, and he was frustrated by the misuse of language for political manipulation. So any notion someone might have that Orwell was a 'this' or a 'that' is utter hogwash. He would never identify himself as anything, for he knew that once he did that something would alter its form to something terrible.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
adamnemecek 12y ago
Why does it seem wrong to you? I'm not sure if it is right or wrong but it does not seem outright wrong.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- conistonwater 12y ago
  It sounds completely wrong to me (my opinion). It's a very utilitarian view of people where, as Orwell describes it here, you get to define some "great" goal, and convince people to fight for it, getting them to sacrifice things of their own in the process. It's all very subservient, manipulative, and a bit inhuman. Given how prosperous and successful such societies have turned out to be in the past (they all failed), I would have expected someone to just reject it outright in favour of all the other ideas like individuality and freedom, as they are clearly better. I mean, you can't say some ideology is "psychologically sound" and have all its adoptees crash and burn everywhere causing untold amounts of damage. That's not sound at all. So I was wondering if he meant it, or he was just depressed from how the war was going in 1940. Plus, and maybe I'm just ignorant, I always thought he was against totalitarianism.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    >I always thought he was against totalitarianism What he writes, does not imply that he is pro-totalitarianism. He only says, that the concept to give people something to hope for, to fight for, to give their life for a "higher meaning" is a more sound psychological concept as "hey, have a good time ... and just live for the next gadget"
    - conistonwater 12y ago
      The notion that the people are there for you to give them something to hope for is somewhat totalitarian by itself.
      - 12y ago
PythonicAlpha 12y ago
The hedonistic conception of life gives people no meaning at all -- there are many better psychological concepts around, that fill people with a meaning and not only with gadgets. Why do you think, the catholic church survived for 2000 years -- that is longer than the US capitalism currently lived.
rat87 12y ago
For context > [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. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. 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. I'm not sure this appeals to people more then peace and prosperity but it can have a strong appeal to some people some of the time especially to young men(see ISIS) and especially when your side is winning the war and civilian losses are low.
- conistonwater 12y ago
  I think there is a difference between how you paraphrased him, and what he wrote. He didn't say "appealing" (which I think would have meant the appeal was superficial), he instead chose to say "psychologically sound" (meaning he thought it was not superficial at all). To me those two concepts are quite different.
  - true_religion 12y ago
    He, the author, is saying that characterizing people as desiring struggle (as referenced in the book) is more psychologically sound than characterizing them as seeking pleasure as an end-goal as a hedonistic principle would state. It's not saying nazism is 'correct' and should be practiced, but rather the way nazis view human psychology is a better model than that of the hedonist.
coldtea 12y ago
>This seems wrong (with hindsight, I suppose). Not that wrong. The whole passage tells more about how he meant it: that people don't just want ease and hedonism, but they also need struggle and passion and meaning and hurt. People that have it all too easy more often than not fell in for drugs, depression, etc. And conversely, some of the most "happiest" place on earth, according to their citizens own estimations in polls, are places with tragic poverty and harsh conditions.
- psykotic 12y ago
  > And conversely, some of the most "happiest" place on earth, according to their citizens own estimations in polls, are places with tragic poverty and harsh conditions. That's very far from my recollection of those polls where Scandinavian countries frequently come out on top. Common denominators of those countries include low wealth inequality, an extensive social safety net, and a grounded attitude towards the future. With all this, there's still plenty of struggle and passion and meaning and hurt in the microcosm of daily existence. Humans don't seem designed to be suspended in a state of constant happiness.
philwelch 12y ago
Read it in context. Hedonistic utilitarians believe in the alleviation of suffering and the delivery of pleasure (in the sense of such things as comfort and intellectual pleasures as well as baser pleasures). This is in the tradition of John Stuart Mill, and many English thinkers, including socialists such as Orwell, take this premise for granted. The phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" is commonly used as a description of this kind of hedonistic utilitarianism. The type of socialism that Orwell subscribes to is meant to be an attempt to achieve this end. By my reading, Orwell is giving Hitler a bit of credit, not only in the fact that he rejects this premise and emphasizes patriotic and militaristic virtues above quality of life, but that he could move an entire nation to agree with this vision. What Orwell means here is that people don't just want comfort and prosperity; they are in fact willing to actively sacrifice these things to achieve a vision, especially one expressed in warlike or patriotic terms. Orwell might be a bit disappointed, and is definitely unsympathetic to fascism, but he does give it credit for being able to inspire people to a grander cause than their own comfort and well-being.

Systemic33 12y ago

He has pretty communistic views himself, so to me this just seems like a bit of bias showing.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

iak8god 12y ago
> He was a communist for a long time, then got disenchanted because of Stalin (he wrote 1984 in this period). This is wrong. It's hard to succinctly characterize Orwell's political views[1], but it's simply incorrect that he was "a communist" for any length of time. An uncharitable reading of your comment might be simply that you think democratic socialism and communism are the same thing, in which case it might be very helpful for you to read some of Orwell's political essays [2] and other non-fiction. 'Homage to Catalonia' is wonderful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views [2] http://georgeorwellnovels.com/essays/ http://georgeorwellnovels.com/essays/
- _delirium 12y ago
  I don't think in the context of Spain, at least, the various versions of libertarian socialism saw themselves as that clearly distinguished. POUM had people who described themselves as "communist", "socialist", and "anarchist", some of whom were the same people. They specifically dissociated themselves from the Soviet Union (and more specifically from Stalin), but were largely supportive of some kind of non-authoritarian "socialism" or "communism". I mean the party flag was the red flag with a hammer and sickle!
  - iak8god 12y ago
    > I don't think in the context of Spain, at least, the various versions of libertarian socialism saw themselves as that clearly distinguished. I don't disagree. Reading in 'Homage' about the wide variety of affiliations and beliefs is really eye-opening, which is one reason I recommended it in my response to the (now deleted) comment above. However, it's just completely wrong from 2014 and with a view of the entire 20th century and of Orwell's entire life to state that he "was a communist for a long time," which is what I was responding to. I hope the author of that comment takes my recommendation. Orwell writes with such integrity and clarity and without even a hint of the tribalism that plagues political discussions.
    - smutticus 12y ago
      I just finished reading 'Homage to Catalonia' and 'Down and Out in Paris and London'. Two early Orwell novels that possibly reveal more of his political thinking than either 'Animal Farm', or '1984'. Homage is great. What I came away with was a profound sense of how ideology and labels are completely destructive to clear political understanding. This is really a running theme in Orwell's work. Once one identifies as a 'this' or a 'that' one becomes beholden to its leaders, or whomever might be wagging 'this' or 'that' dog. His reference and definition of Trotskyism in Homage sticks with me the most. When Poum are labelled Trotskyists it's never made clear what Trotskyists actually are, only that they're bad, and somehow counter to goodness. This appears again in his discussion of how Stalin, American and British interests want Fascism to fail, but actually dread any real social revolution in Spain more than Fascism. So they're not willing to arm anarchists against Fascists. The eventual suppression of Poum and the anarchists by Communists loyal only to the USSR, ultimately ruins any chance the Republicans might have had. It was a fascinating read, and it must be read by anyone interested in understanding the Spanish Civil war, or Orwell. One can see where Orwell got the idea for '2 legs bad, 4 legs good' --> '4 legs good, 2 legs better' in 'Animal Farm' from his experience in Spain. This scene from chapter 10 sticks in my mind. Orwell is approached by a Communist friend and asked to join their unit. This is after Communist propoganda has started to paint the Poum as 'counter revolutionary'. "I had to tell him that after this affair I could not join any Communist-controlled unit. Sooner or later it might mean being used against the Spanish working class. One could not tell when this kind of thing would break out again, and if I had to use my rifle at all in such an affair I would use it on the side of the working class and not against them. He was very decent about it. But from now on the whole atmosphere was changed. You could not, as before, 'agree to differ' and have drinks with a man who was supposedly your political opponent." Orwell wants the reader to understand that these various 'isms' and 'ists' are extremely susceptible to internal corruption. No matter what their initial beliefs. In addition he strongly discouraged 'mealy mouthed' language, and imprecision. 'Doublespeak' from '1984' and his essay on 'Politics and the English Language' are all about this strongly held belief of his. He skill and precision at writing allowed him to more easily deconstruct propoganda, and he was frustrated by the misuse of language for political manipulation. So any notion someone might have that Orwell was a 'this' or a 'that' is utter hogwash. He would never identify himself as anything, for he knew that once he did that something would alter its form to something terrible.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

adamnemecek 12y ago

Why does it seem wrong to you? I'm not sure if it is right or wrong but it does not seem outright wrong.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
conistonwater 12y ago
It sounds completely wrong to me (my opinion). It's a very utilitarian view of people where, as Orwell describes it here, you get to define some "great" goal, and convince people to fight for it, getting them to sacrifice things of their own in the process. It's all very subservient, manipulative, and a bit inhuman. Given how prosperous and successful such societies have turned out to be in the past (they all failed), I would have expected someone to just reject it outright in favour of all the other ideas like individuality and freedom, as they are clearly better. I mean, you can't say some ideology is "psychologically sound" and have all its adoptees crash and burn everywhere causing untold amounts of damage. That's not sound at all. So I was wondering if he meant it, or he was just depressed from how the war was going in 1940. Plus, and maybe I'm just ignorant, I always thought he was against totalitarianism.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  >I always thought he was against totalitarianism What he writes, does not imply that he is pro-totalitarianism. He only says, that the concept to give people something to hope for, to fight for, to give their life for a "higher meaning" is a more sound psychological concept as "hey, have a good time ... and just live for the next gadget"
  - conistonwater 12y ago
    The notion that the people are there for you to give them something to hope for is somewhat totalitarian by itself.
    - 12y ago

PythonicAlpha 12y ago

The hedonistic conception of life gives people no meaning at all -- there are many better psychological concepts around, that fill people with a meaning and not only with gadgets. Why do you think, the catholic church survived for 2000 years -- that is longer than the US capitalism currently lived.

rat87 12y ago

For context > [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. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. 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. I'm not sure this appeals to people more then peace and prosperity but it can have a strong appeal to some people some of the time especially to young men(see ISIS) and especially when your side is winning the war and civilian losses are low.

conistonwater 12y ago
I think there is a difference between how you paraphrased him, and what he wrote. He didn't say "appealing" (which I think would have meant the appeal was superficial), he instead chose to say "psychologically sound" (meaning he thought it was not superficial at all). To me those two concepts are quite different.
- true_religion 12y ago
  He, the author, is saying that characterizing people as desiring struggle (as referenced in the book) is more psychologically sound than characterizing them as seeking pleasure as an end-goal as a hedonistic principle would state. It's not saying nazism is 'correct' and should be practiced, but rather the way nazis view human psychology is a better model than that of the hedonist.

coldtea 12y ago

>This seems wrong (with hindsight, I suppose). Not that wrong. The whole passage tells more about how he meant it: that people don't just want ease and hedonism, but they also need struggle and passion and meaning and hurt. People that have it all too easy more often than not fell in for drugs, depression, etc. And conversely, some of the most "happiest" place on earth, according to their citizens own estimations in polls, are places with tragic poverty and harsh conditions.

psykotic 12y ago
> And conversely, some of the most "happiest" place on earth, according to their citizens own estimations in polls, are places with tragic poverty and harsh conditions. That's very far from my recollection of those polls where Scandinavian countries frequently come out on top. Common denominators of those countries include low wealth inequality, an extensive social safety net, and a grounded attitude towards the future. With all this, there's still plenty of struggle and passion and meaning and hurt in the microcosm of daily existence. Humans don't seem designed to be suspended in a state of constant happiness.

philwelch 12y ago

Read it in context. Hedonistic utilitarians believe in the alleviation of suffering and the delivery of pleasure (in the sense of such things as comfort and intellectual pleasures as well as baser pleasures). This is in the tradition of John Stuart Mill, and many English thinkers, including socialists such as Orwell, take this premise for granted. The phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" is commonly used as a description of this kind of hedonistic utilitarianism. The type of socialism that Orwell subscribes to is meant to be an attempt to achieve this end. By my reading, Orwell is giving Hitler a bit of credit, not only in the fact that he rejects this premise and emphasizes patriotic and militaristic virtues above quality of life, but that he could move an entire nation to agree with this vision. What Orwell means here is that people don't just want comfort and prosperity; they are in fact willing to actively sacrifice these things to achieve a vision, especially one expressed in warlike or patriotic terms. Orwell might be a bit disappointed, and is definitely unsympathetic to fascism, but he does give it credit for being able to inspire people to a grander cause than their own comfort and well-being.