
“The Origins of Totalitarianism“ is out of stock on Amazon - artsandsci
https://qz.com/897517/the-origins-of-totalitarianism-hannah-arendts-defining-work-on-tyranny-is-out-of-stock-on-amazon/
======
chippy
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](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!

~~~
derrickdirge
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.

------
loudtieblahblah
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.

------
stcredzero
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.

~~~
loki49152
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

------
Semiapies
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.

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

Not sure how that's relevant.

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

------
gech
I believe Eric Hoffer is a worthy and relevant addition to this thread.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer)

------
hugh4life
Meh, you're better off reading this.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Need_for_Roots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Need_for_Roots)

~~~
maldusiecle
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.

~~~
mlmlmasd
> 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.

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

~~~
mlmlmasd
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.

------
madcaptenor
The Kindle version is $1.99, though.

