I 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.
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 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.
> 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.
Orwell defined what he was meaning exactly, in the second paragraph...
> By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
The sentences I quoted above resonate with me today, here in Scotland, pertaining to the Scottish National Party and especially with their rather foaming-at-the-mouth Nationalism. To see their behaviour - despite the 2014 Independence referendum in which the people of Scotland voted against breaking away from the United Kingdom - is to behold exactly the kind of irrational and in my view outright dangerous form of nationalism Orwell is writing about.
I consider myself a Scottish patriot, not a nationalist. I also consider myself a British patriot, not a nationalist, and it is for those reasons that I voted against Scotland becoming independent, breaking away from the UK, and it is also the reason why in my opinion the quicker the SNP lose their minority government in the Scottish parliament - they are being propped up by a handful of Scottish Greens who themselves demonstrate a propensity towards Communistic ideals hiding behind a thin veneer of "green" - the better.
What I meant is that usually Orwell doesn't mince words. That paragraph is a little flowery and ambiguous for him. The key words are "or other unit" which he later uses to expand the definition of nationalism out to potentially any ideology regardless of what it (if anything) it has to say about nations.
The definition of "patriotism" was (I think) intended as a disarming "I don't mean you" to British moderates. It's interesting that this part still (as you say) resonates in British politics today. I don't think it's quite honest though.
I think patriotism as Orwell defines it here is a moderate nationalism. More sentimental than ideological, as moderate political positions often are. It's not really different to modern european "democratic socialism" or whatnot. It is very different to early 20th century socialism, which were very fanatical.
What I meant overall is that I think if he was writing about the french, he would have just said "fanatics" instead of light stepping around local political sensitivities.
The distinction doesn't work very well as phrased here. It's too easy to convince oneself that I am a patriot, and they are nationalists. So it ultimately just becomes another tribal marker.
Any one on that list he gave, zionism -> pick any flavour of modern israeli politics. Celtic nationalsim -> pick any flavour of modern irish politics. Neo-Tories.. same.
Most people self labeling as any of these would unanimously (if not alway honestly) all self describe the belief as patriotic by exactly the definition that Orwell gave. The other isms on his list aren't about nations. I guess Trotskyists wouldn't necessarily call themselves patriots, but what does that prove?
> Any one on that list he gave, zionism -> pick any flavour of modern israeli politics
Just so I'm not misunderstanding you....so, any thing (I'm looking for examples of specific beliefs or policy goals that are motivated by Nationalism but passed off as patriotism) any politician in Israel believes is Nationalist, but presented(?) as patriotic? What does this look like in action?
Their quote was rather hyperbolic, but much of Israel's foreign affairs policy is aggressively nationalistic. I could give examples of their nationalism in action, but as an outsider I'd rather not assume I know what they consider patriotic. I'll pick an example from the USA instead.
The US phenomenon around "support our troops" is presented as a patriotic appreciation for true Americans making hard sacrifices. The best way to support our troops would be keeping them home, which would also be the best thing to do by Orwell's definition of patriotism. The slogan has been used as a way to demonize those opposed to US foreign policy, and as a form of propaganda to show young people how much their community will love them if they enlist, nationalist ambitions.
Israel is well beyond Nationalist if you ask me. But I'm trying to get some detail on this seemingly well known phenomenon of Nationalist actions being presented as patriotic. Maybe I'm wrong but it's starting to seem like some of these assertions are opinions based on some sort of social signalling rather than facts.
Orwell's definition of patriotism is fairly specific, and he mentions how hard it is to understand what anyone means when they say "patriotism" or "nationalism." Because of that, most things called patriotism barely try to fit Orwell's definition, but I can try again...
The Bush rhetoric about the necessity of the war on terror was presented in a very patriotic light by Orwell's definition. They brought up a seemingly constant risk to all American homes, and the often repeated line about the "terrorists hate our freedom" seemed to threaten and belittle the cultural values core to American patriotism. An appeal to patriotic feelings to justify nationalist actions.
If that doesn't work for you, I don't know what will. I'd guess you're using different definitions of the terms, as even my most cynical views on Israel would be nationalist.
> An appeal to patriotic feelings to justify nationalist actions.
Attacking foreign countries who are not a threat is Nationalism? Is there any even remotely authoritative source that would agree with this?
Maybe I haven't been clear, but this magical redefining of words is part of the issue I'm having. If I was to say Liberalism (just for example) was synonymous with <some repugnant crime>, people would give me a "HN timeout" within 5 minutes, but it seems like you can throw whatever you want under the Nationalism banter and it's all good. Does anyone have any integrity anymore, or is it fake news all the way down?
> I'd guess you're using different definitions of the terms
It seems I am, the ones found in the dictionary for decades. But this seems to conflict with some other definition that everyone else seems to know, but won't say out loud. It's a rather interesting phenomenon to observe from someone on the outside.
This discussion is in a topic about Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism." The first several paragraphs are spent defining what he is calling "nationalism." I had figured you had read it, or one of the various comments summing it up, or even questioned why I repeatedly mention "Orwell's definition of patriotism."
I don't think they are. To put it in orwellian-ish terms, it's pretty likely that the only people that will really insist on the distinction would self describe as patriots.
You will probably find a patriotism-nationalism-like relationship between moderate and extremist flavours of any "ism." Social-democrats & Marxist-purists, conservative-traditionalists & fundamentalist-theocrats; Democrats & Anarchists.... These all tend to come in at least 2 flavours: moderate or extra spicy.
>I don't think they are. To put it in orwellian-ish terms, it's pretty likely that the only people that will really insist on the distinction would self describe as patriots.
He laid out fairly specific definitions for both patriotism and nationalism. Under those definitions, they're clearly separate things. In short, he sees patriotism as a love of your home, while nationalism is the worship of the state/similar entity.
Given Orwell's extended definition it looks like Orwell is actually talking about to collectivism. It is not clear why he chose the more specific term 'nationalism' over the more general term 'collectivism'.
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.