“The Origins of Totalitarianism“ is out of stock on Amazon | Hacker News Reader

“The Origins of Totalitarianism“ is out of stock on Amazon

qz.com

46 pointsartsandsci27 comments

Since we are talking books - You could give The Mass Psychology of Fascism by Wilhelm Reich a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mass_Psychology_of_Fascism

It was banned and burnt by the Nazi's in the 1930's but significantly it was one of several books of the authors which was burnt by the US Govt. in 1956!

On a related note, Canettis main work deals with the 20th century phenomenon of the "mass" and its constituents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowds_and_Power

Poor Wilhelm Reich.

Whatever you think about the validity of his research, it must have been agonizing for him to watch so much of his work literally go up in flames. It's hard to imagine how such destruction of knowledge could ever be justified.

If you are, or plan to be, in the New England area, I highly recommend visiting 'Orgonon', Reich's former home and current museum in Rangeley, Maine. It's fascinating and tragic.

I really wish Manufacturing Consent was as well. Of all the talks of "fake news", I've not seen anyone even mention this institutional analysis of the media.

What disturbs me most in recent years, is the lack of self-awareness concerning groupthink among fellow members of the left in the US. I keep seeing thinking and behavior along these lines: Because the other side are so horrible in their views/morals we are justified in doing bad things to them. People seem to think that being "on the side of justice" means they can emotionally wound, attack the livelihood, shout down, or physically/bureaucratically exclude people whose views they do not like. Gandhi had a phrase for this: "An eye for an eye, making the whole world blind." Just because "the other side" is so horrible, doesn't mean you are justified in going not quite as far.

Being on the side of justice means according all of your fellow human beings the same rights and respect, even your opponents and even your "enemies." A democratic society whose leaders no longer stand up for principles is a society that is breaking down. A movement that claims it is about "justice" but which doesn't stand up for principles -- even when it comes to calling its "own side" into account -- is philosophically and ethically bankrupt.

I agree completely. I think people are panicking and being pushed one way or the other. We need to remember our kindness and empathy now more than ever.

We need to remember our kindness and empathy now more than ever.

When someone says this, it's time to run, or maybe a little late for that.

It will all become clear to you when you accept that it was the American Left who inspired the Fascists, Bolsheviks, and Nazis in Europe. All of them were leftist/socialist ideological movements. All of them copied policies that the American Progressives had put in place years before.

You are not fighting them. You are them.

> It will all become clear to you when you accept that it was the American Left who inspired the Fascists, Bolsheviks, and Nazis in Europe. All of them were leftist/socialist ideological movements.

That's simply factually false; the Bolsheviks were at least plausibly a left-wing movement by the usual standards (though even with them there is an argument that they were a right-authoritarian movement with left-wing rhetoric), but not in any substantive way inspired either by the American Left (which at that point was pretty much just the early labor movement) or American Progressives (which, while the label has been adopted by the modern left, were not at that time a left-wing movement). There inspirations were almost entirely European, not American.

The Fascists and Nazis were both right-wing movements, both substantively and, largely, rhetorically, though it's true that both adopted similar, though somewhat different, syntheses of the rhetoric of the European Right with that of certain elements (largely, fron different non-Marxist socialist traditions) elements of the European Left. Neither was inspired by American Leftist or Progressive movements in any substantive way.

I remember a lot of people buying The Road to Serfdom eight years ago. Then, as now, I wonder how many bothered to read it.

> I remember a lot of people buying The Road to Serfdom eight years ago.

Not sure how that's relevant.

Because the same panic was happening when Obama came into office. It was just the other side that was doing the panicking.

I believe Eric Hoffer is a worthy and relevant addition to this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

Meh, you're better off reading this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Need_for_Roots

Simone Weil's work is fascinating and enlightening, certainly worth exploring if you've never been exposed to it before.

That said, if you're looking for concrete political understanding, probably don't read the work of a French mystic who starved herself to death.

> That said, if you're looking for concrete political understanding, probably don't read the work of a French mystic who starved herself to death.

That's like saying 'probably don't concern yourself with Godel's mathematics because he was mentally ill and starved himself to death'. Such a stupid reason to look down on someone's work for.

Well, "mystic" and "concrete political understanding" don't coexist very comfortably. "Starved herself to death" may still be irrelevant, though...

Not really, there is nothing about being labeled a 'mystic' that means the person is less politically informed. The Catholic Popes are arguably in the same bucket but were and are some of the most politically informed and influential people on the planet. Simone Weil was very politically active and quite well informed.

The Kindle version is $1.99, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com