4 ms·

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, a

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.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    It's also the basis of all advertising, marketing, and PR. I think Orwell was wrong, but not for the obvious reasons. As an observation, it's impossible to argue with the suggestion that humans need more than comfort. Humans have been creating crusades, pogroms, holy wars, riots, race riots, and revolutions since almost forever. But I don't think he understood what made Nazi fascism so extreme - which is the way it turned war, patriotism, and death into ends in their own right, rather than means to an end. There was no pretence at higher purpose or salvation. The entire German political system became a suicide and death cult, and swallowed itself whole.
    - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
      >There was no pretence at higher purpose or salvation. Maybe not in the traditional form (with religious meaning), but in a new, nationalistic form. The pretence of a higher purpose of the NS system was in my opinion, that the nation will succeed in its god given plan to succeed. You can hear it shining threw in many of Hitlers speeches. No, when you understand "purpose" in a strict religious way, it did not have such pretence. But when you have an open mind to something that is more common than religion, it definitively had. There are also many things that are clearly directed into a cult or replacement-religion. Also Hitler uses many religious phrases and imitations. Many see this as a clear sign for a cult. Also the fact, that for example the wife of Goebbels killed her children, speaks clearly that many people (many killed themselves either) lost all hope and life purpose, because the NS system was (for them) something like the salvation for the German nation. >The entire German political system became a suicide and death cult, and swallowed itself whole. Now you say it yourself and contradict yourself by saying that it became a cult. It was a kind of cult and thus had the pretence of a higher purpose. (of course, if you always define "purpose" as going to heaven, you are right -- but in my opinion there are different levels or kinds of purpose). That is right. But this was possible, because with the dead of the system, many of the involved people also lost hope for Germany as a whole. I don't want to excuse, what they did (some of them slaughtered their own people and behaved like real monsters), but in some cases it might become a little more understandable. I also don't want to show this cult in a shiny light. It was really a death cult (and that from the start) -- but because of a different reason: The system was based on the notion, that the German nation will rise -- and the condition for that was, that others had to fall. It was a kind of social-darwinism (hope, got that word right). This whole notion: I will rise, and others have to fall (for that) is anti-christian and a total abuse of Darwins findings. It is a cult, based on the death of others. What happened was, that this death fired back on the Germans.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    That is your opinion, but many religions are based on that notion.
philwelch 12y ago
You have it backwards. The conception of hedonistic comfort and "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the definition of utilitarianism; the fascist concept Orwell is calling "psychologically sound" is in fact the rejection of utilitarianism.
- conistonwater 12y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mean utilitarian in its formal sense, just as form of treating people as a utility for others.
adamnemecek 12y ago
I mean you don't have to go too far to find similar themes in say the US. The whole "War on Terror" sure has a very similar feel to it. Not as extreme as in Fascist countries but the general components are still there.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Exactly. And as with Mein Kampf, anyone who read the People for the New American Century's manifesto should have been able to guess what was coming.
- philwelch 12y ago
  The entire "war on X" formulation is a Fascist concept. Though the war on terror involved literal military action, the "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", and so forth are reminiscent of Mussolini's series of initiatives such as the "Battle for Grain", "Battle for Land", "Battle for the Lira", and "Battle for Births".
DangerousPie 12y ago
The way I read it he is not saying that totalitarianism is good. He is just saying that it should not be underestimated, since it allowed Hitler to get into power and rally a people into war.

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.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  It's also the basis of all advertising, marketing, and PR. I think Orwell was wrong, but not for the obvious reasons. As an observation, it's impossible to argue with the suggestion that humans need more than comfort. Humans have been creating crusades, pogroms, holy wars, riots, race riots, and revolutions since almost forever. But I don't think he understood what made Nazi fascism so extreme - which is the way it turned war, patriotism, and death into ends in their own right, rather than means to an end. There was no pretence at higher purpose or salvation. The entire German political system became a suicide and death cult, and swallowed itself whole.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    >There was no pretence at higher purpose or salvation. Maybe not in the traditional form (with religious meaning), but in a new, nationalistic form. The pretence of a higher purpose of the NS system was in my opinion, that the nation will succeed in its god given plan to succeed. You can hear it shining threw in many of Hitlers speeches. No, when you understand "purpose" in a strict religious way, it did not have such pretence. But when you have an open mind to something that is more common than religion, it definitively had. There are also many things that are clearly directed into a cult or replacement-religion. Also Hitler uses many religious phrases and imitations. Many see this as a clear sign for a cult. Also the fact, that for example the wife of Goebbels killed her children, speaks clearly that many people (many killed themselves either) lost all hope and life purpose, because the NS system was (for them) something like the salvation for the German nation. >The entire German political system became a suicide and death cult, and swallowed itself whole. Now you say it yourself and contradict yourself by saying that it became a cult. It was a kind of cult and thus had the pretence of a higher purpose. (of course, if you always define "purpose" as going to heaven, you are right -- but in my opinion there are different levels or kinds of purpose). That is right. But this was possible, because with the dead of the system, many of the involved people also lost hope for Germany as a whole. I don't want to excuse, what they did (some of them slaughtered their own people and behaved like real monsters), but in some cases it might become a little more understandable. I also don't want to show this cult in a shiny light. It was really a death cult (and that from the start) -- but because of a different reason: The system was based on the notion, that the German nation will rise -- and the condition for that was, that others had to fall. It was a kind of social-darwinism (hope, got that word right). This whole notion: I will rise, and others have to fall (for that) is anti-christian and a total abuse of Darwins findings. It is a cult, based on the death of others. What happened was, that this death fired back on the Germans.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  That is your opinion, but many religions are based on that notion.

philwelch 12y ago

You have it backwards. The conception of hedonistic comfort and "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the definition of utilitarianism; the fascist concept Orwell is calling "psychologically sound" is in fact the rejection of utilitarianism.

conistonwater 12y ago
Sorry, I didn't mean utilitarian in its formal sense, just as form of treating people as a utility for others.

adamnemecek 12y ago

I mean you don't have to go too far to find similar themes in say the US. The whole "War on Terror" sure has a very similar feel to it. Not as extreme as in Fascist countries but the general components are still there.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Exactly. And as with Mein Kampf, anyone who read the People for the New American Century's manifesto should have been able to guess what was coming.
philwelch 12y ago
The entire "war on X" formulation is a Fascist concept. Though the war on terror involved literal military action, the "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", and so forth are reminiscent of Mussolini's series of initiatives such as the "Battle for Grain", "Battle for Land", "Battle for the Lira", and "Battle for Births".

DangerousPie 12y ago

The way I read it he is not saying that totalitarianism is good. He is just saying that it should not be underestimated, since it allowed Hitler to get into power and rally a people into war.