Whenever I read any history of European democracies, I always get the impression that political oppression was a lot worse in the past than it is now, despite how bad it may appear.
I've always wondered if Europe's decline into totalitarianism was halted all on its own due to the natural "swinging of the pendulum" as they call it, or if it was due to American hegemony over the world, and the fact they basically had the whole of Europe under military occupation until the fall of the Soviet Union.
Is today's rise of totalitarianism in Europe simply the swinging of the pendulum, or is it due to the waning of power in the American empire, and therefore the return of Europe to its natural, equilibrium state?
It's never simply a question of either or. Europe slowly migrated on its own away from autocratic regimes but USA clearly put in a large effort to enforce this in the recent period.
What I would highlight is the tendency of any group to turn on itself in the absence of an external threat. And this could be the silver lining of the current events.
>Whenever I read any history of European democracies, I always get the impression that political oppression was a lot worse in the past than it is now, despite how bad it may appear.
I am reading Clark's Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia (<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002RI9PMM/>, and was surprised to learn of the extent of the freedom of the press in late 18th-century Prussia. A British visitor wrote that people were as free to speak as back home, citing a work that was very critical of the king in the context of Poland. During the Napoleonic wars, despite the existential threat to Prussia from France, at least four newspapers that celebrated Revolutionary France as the next step in human freedom were allowed to publish.
(I read that last part almost immediately after hearing of YouTube shutting down Russian state media channels. It's always preferable to counter propaganda with free speech. Even liars deserve the opportunity to speak. This is especially true when there is no formally declared war between the US and Russia.)
I was going to ask something similar. What I can think of is Poland and Hungary, potentially Belarus, maybe Turkey if you count that as European? (A very open question I think), and Russia itself.
Poland has issues, certainly. Hungary is under sanction from other parts of the EU because of Viktor Orban. Turkey has Erdogan. Belarus has been under the thumb of Lukashenko since a few years after gaining independence, and Russia is Russia but even under Putin it's probably less totalitarian than it was under communism. Honestly I think that (with the exception of that short period in the early 90s when everything looked like it was coming up roses) Europe as a whole is far less totalitarian now than it was for most of the 20th century. Certainly the decades post-WWII where communism held sway, by force, across vast swathes of the continent. Even with its current problems, Poland is far more free now than it was behind the iron curtain.
The OP posts this - "I always get the impression that political oppression was a lot worse in the past than it is now, despite how bad it may appear." which makes me think they have a very weird view and possibly not much knowledge of history. Because yes, it was far worse for far more people for a very long time.
> Poland is far more free now than it was behind the iron curtain.
it depends on what freedom you look at.
In Poland abortion has been banned, while
In 1920, the Russian Soviet Republic under Lenin became the first country in the world in the modern era to allow abortion in all circumstances
If you are a woman in Poland you're far less free now (not only because of the anti abortion laws). A friend of mine found out when she was pregnant that she had a risky medical condition and had to move to Czech Republic to be able to end her pregnancy.
In total, compared to Poland in the 1970s? I think that’s probably a discussion topic. I agree it’s not in a good place and it seems to be getting worse. As do my Polish colleagues!
It's not, because as long as they don't stop they're not getting in. Nothing indicates they are stopping, so saying it's an open question is disingenuous - we'll probably have to wait for the regime to die. Perhaps after that we can see some changes.
Not that much compared to the rising totalitarianism in e.g. Canada I'd say. Neither Poland nor Hungary are exactly totalitarian, they just happen to reject the demands of a vocal minority who do not agree with their rejection of globalism in favour of a form of nationalism. Political discourse being what it is these days any such rejection, let alone any support of nationalism is directly seen as proof of totalitarianism and all those -isms and -phobias. Given that both countries seem to be functional democracies with at least as reliable an electoral system as, say, the United States of America [1] and given their recent history of occupation by totalitarian regimes I think they're doing quite well in treading their path through the intricacies of European politics.
Now Trudeau in Canada, he is someone to look out for. He seems to have collected a clique of cronies around him who are al to willing to suspend civil rights when he feels his position is threatened. I all but assume the next election cycle will rinse the country clean of his ilk and restore confidence in the health of the Canadian state.
[1] ...where neither party seems to accept the outcome of the elections, whether those be national (Clinton disputes 2016, Trump disputes 2020) or state (Stacey Abrams still insists on being the true governor of Georgia)
Wow. This is beyond ridiculous. The trucker convoy interrupted international borders and ground a major city to a halt. Emergency powers were used for a limited time to clear it. They have since been rescinded. It is my understanding that such powers specifically to do not contravene Canadian civil rights, and the act used was constructed such that Parliament maintains power and must periodically renew them, not the individual PM.
The idea this counts as some sort of totalitarian escalation is bizarre and heavily partisan. The idea that the democrats contested the election in 2016 in a similar way to Trump's "big steal" narrative and actions is also nakedly fantastic.
The truckers caused disturbances for two weeks while Trudeau's lockdown measures caused disturbances for two years. Living in a country - Sweden - which followed a different path for a similar outcome in SARS2-related I can wholeheartedly say I would take the trucker's disturbance over Trudeau's any day.
Also, blocking bank accounts of people who donated to those truckers which was not in violation of any law whatsoever? Welcome to the new world. What little trust those people had in societal institutions will have been erased now.
> Sweden - which followed a different path for a similar outcome
Sweden which has around 1.7x the deaths per million as Canada?
Canada is not unique in its approach, many countries followed that path. In fact Sweden is definitely the outlier there. Singling out Canada for criticism is disingenuous.
> I would take the trucker's disturbance over Trudeau's any day.
So? I'd also take two weeks of crap over two years of pandemic. Guess what? We didn't get a choice about there being a pandemic and your comparison is more or less meaningless.
> Also, blocking bank accounts of people who donated to those truckers
Didn't actually happen.
Go have a read about it. One MP said that one constituent called Brianne had complained that they had their account locked, but refused to give further details. The list of donors was leaked by hackers, nobody by the name given by the MP had donated in the area he represented.
You speak like everyone who donated had their accounts frozen, but there's no real evidence it happened to even a single individual.
> What little trust those people had in societal institutions will have been erased now.
Those people that don't exist? You have fallen for right-wing screeching and propaganda, again.
> Sweden which has around 1.7x the deaths per million as Canada?
Also, Sweden which will have far fewer deaths and other damages due to 'collateral damage' from lockdowns.
With regard to your claim of bank accounts not having been frozen, that goes against most of the "evidence" I've seen as well as against what the deputy prime minister said [1], as well as against Trudeau's claims.
I would think twice before siding with the Trudeau regime, they will not go down in history as an example of Canada's vibrant democratic tradition.
Just you wait! I'll be right in the end! You'll see!
LOL.
Regardless, as I said, using the example of Sweden (an outlier in policy) to point to Canada as being specifically bad, is fallacious. Maybe Sweden will have a better set of outcomes. That doesn't mean Canada is uniquely bad. Their lockdowns and related covid measures have comparatively middle of the road in global terms.
And yes, they froze the accounts of some of the protestors engaged in illegal activities. They did not, as you claimed, freeze donor accounts. The article you linked to doesn't make that claim either, and simply says they would be able to freeze accounts linked to the protest, it doesn't give any more details than that about what actually happened.
Given that all your claims have been so hilariously wrong and obviously biased, I don't think I give a **** what you think about the Trudeau 'regime'. The reality is more or less bound to be the exact opposite.
You might want to change your media diet a little - right now it's heavy on the right wing talking points and not so good on objectivity.
>Just you wait! I'll be right in the end! You'll see!
You will. You already can. You actually have been able to see this for more than a year had you only opened your eyes - maybe your mask was in the way?
> LOL.
Strange sense of humour, considering the damages from those lockdowns:
- the National Bureau of Economic Research warned that increases in poverty caused by the lockdowns will cost more than 800,000 lives in the United States over the next 15 years due to higher poverty levels [1]
- Suicide rates have jumped dramatically over the past year [2]
- Dementia deaths between March and September jumped 13,000 as patients were left with little means of social interaction [3]
- San Francisco reported that deaths from drug overdoses exceeded COVID-19 deaths in 2020 [4]
- the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 475,000 excess deaths in the U.S. at a time when it was reporting 281,000 coronavirus-related fatalities. The difference is 194,000 additional deaths unexplained by normal mortality and COVID-19 combined [5]
All this while the lockdowns had little to no effect [6].
So, take that mask off your eyes and follow your own advice on your "media diet". Follow science instead of The Science™. Also, stop with that stupid "right wing" blather which you probably got from your "media diet" - or do you think countries like Sweden and Denmark are "right wing"?
Interesting the difference a few years can make. In this preface Orwell claims the Ministry of Information attempted to suppress its publication around 1944; by 1950 the CIA had purchased the film rights. They eventually funded a feature-length animated film adaptation that was released in 1954[0]
Which is one of the reasons that made me think—conspiracy theorize—at first that the book was about a critique of capitalism, but then edited to read as a critique of communism.
Then, I thought that both systems can be prone to manifest inequality because of their own inherent flaws, and I realized that we shouldn't be squabbling about which one is "right" (like with the Leviathan of Parsonstown [0]), but rather on what parts can we take from any other politico-economical system to make the best one.
An important fact, that sadly is often not mentioned when discussing Orwell's most famous work, is that Orwell was a communist.
He even wrote about is experience fighting side-by-side with the Catalonian anarchist of the CNT during the Spanish civil war, in his book/journal "homage to Catalonia". He was part of the POUM, a communist but anti-marxist militia.
In the book, you can already see that he was very wary of the USSR. And after being almost jailed and barely fleeing Catalonia by the Republican, who allied themselves with the USSR and jailed and undermined any militia who was not aligned with them, his mind was definitely made up.
Animal Farm is definitely a critique of both capitalism and authoritarian communism (Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism at the time), the conclusion pretty much being that both system end up with powerful and rich people on top and misery on the bottom.
I think 1) Orwell never identified as "communist" but rather as a socialist with anarchist leanings, which is somewhat different. 2) Given his early death we don't know how his views would have evolved had he lived. Many left wing people of his generation moved to the right (often extremely so like Whittaker Chambers) because they eventually saw the conflict as between the USSR and the West and began to see anyone with any sympathy to the USSR as a potential traitor.
> The word ancient emphasises the fact that intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals arc visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency.
Orwell sounds almost exactly like a modern "anti-woke" blogger.
Perhaps it is still repeated since it's a good point.
Although my impression is that most of the anti-woke bloggers/podcasters are hucksters looking to ride the polemic for fame and money rather than intellectually-interested in freedom of the press.
He also wrote a complaint about how socialism attracts all sorts of crazy characters, which he felt were holding back his own version of socialism, like:
* people with beards
* sandal wearers
* fruit juice drinkers
* vegetarians
* pacifists
* feminists
* sex-maniacs
By that last one he meant gay people, in fact he possibly was thinking of one specific guy who sounds like a total legend nowadays but was a controversial character at the time:
> Edward Carpenter (29 August 1844 – 28 June 1929) was an English utopian socialist, poet, philosopher, anthologist, an early activist for gay rights[1] and prison reform whilst advocating vegetarianism and taking a stance against vivisection.
I assume you are talking about the rant in The Road to Wigan Pier. Orwell was certainly culturally conservative and by "sex maniacs" he did mean gay people but also heterosexual free-love enthusiasts. Orwell's ideal of a socialist (which he describes in the book) is a man who works in a factory who has a stay-at-home wife who takes care of his children and who likes solidly "English" things like eating beef and drinking beer. He didn't like the counterculture at all.
1984 is a great cautionary tale of fiction. I think it’s a misapplication of the medium to place the themes of a fictional narrative on top of reality though. Reality is way more complex than these broad stroke rebukes of intellectuals.
Putting aside the linked content I'd just like to marvel at the speed of the site - near plain text, minimal markup, basic JS. And even a dead link to a guestbook in the source.
A few modern enhancements would be a nice addition to fix the overly wide width and font selection but they certainly aren't required.
Ah, 1999. A simpler web. Transporting the build of those simpler times to the world of today would deliver instant gratification.
Well, the overly wide width can easily be mitigated by resizing your viewport; this is truly responsive web. Your font (size) preference is also easily applied, and nothing breaks when you scale the information to your preference.
Both are very rare nowadays, and have been for quite a while, where "responsive" means "one of X configurations, and _we_ choose which" and scaling text often has the effect of breaking the visual appearance, and thus, in a visual-first mindset, the UX, and more often than not also the functionality in general.
> Well, the overly wide width can easily be mitigated by resizing
> your viewport; this is truly responsive web.
I've been arguing this for years. "The web" is device agnostic - the agent of the user sets the width, text size, font, and other properties as needed.
All these websites that work on X*Y screen size of J, K, and L devices are the result of "web developers" who have a J, K, or L device with an X*Y screen trying to make a flyer. And I work in the industry, albeit on the server side.
I mentioned this point on HN once or twice in the past, and the response has been pretty much "nobody's going to do that, learn to live with our fixed width articles, you outdated dinosaur!" :)
I read your comment and I found myself having an annoyed feeling in response.
I tried to dig into my own emotions to figure out why, and I realized that I am annoyed by the fact that the second-most comment (at my time of viewing) was completely unrelated to the content, and drew attention towards some details of the presentation that do not really have a lot of value.
I worry that this opinion will not be broadly accepted here at HN, but I am annoyed by the upwelling of opinion that a web experience is only valuable if it is presented in an experience that meets the observers definition of "performant" or "fast" or "JavaScript-free".
This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's review of 1984, which is far and away the funniest book review I've ever read. I generally share Asimov's evaluation of the quality of the writing.
Absolutely unrelated to the article, but does anyone else hate prefaces?
I was a big reader (bk-before kids) and once read a preface that was so thoroughly shit that I almost didn't read the book. I ended up skipping the whole thing, and the book was excellent, had me from the first line!
From then on I never, or very rarely read a preface. I would value others opinions on this cause I just can't see the point of them.
The link for example; what benefit to the story would that be if you read it before animal farm? To me it would wreak the story, totally full of spoilers and also, putting forth the authors understanding of his own work, which in turn reduces the readers freedom of interpretation.
In summary, should prefaces actually be postfaces? (connected by a little perforated strip which can be removed and fucked in the bin)
I absolutely agree with you. Worst IMHO are the prefaces written posthumously that talk about the impact and interpretation of the book.
It's like they don't want you to make up your own mind, but simply experience this "award-winning" experience. Which may also be the reason prefaces are at the front and not the back of the book.
Very interesting read and some timely quotes for the present as well:
"But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?"
In the Western world, its contribution pales in comparison to the efforts of actual fascism. Fortunately, our institutions have (for now) managed to survive both the beer gut putsch, and the failed president-for-life orchestrating it last year. Unfortunately, they've proven very resistant towards efforts at extracting the police state mentality of... Well, our police.
In for-internal-consumption Russian/Soviet propaganda, a lot, but that's nothing new. Declaring enemies of eastern block imperialism 'fascists' has been a rallying cry for repression in the region for quite a while. Orwell himself had quite a bit of first hand experience with that in Spain, as did Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc, etc.
Unless the rejuvenation process had profoundly re-engineered his beliefs and his nationality, he'd be a grudging Labor Party supporter with a column in the New Statesman, same as he ever was.
In the 1930s socialism was still a rather new experiment and the Soviet Union was a shining example of its success to most of the socialist and leftist elites. In fact the Soviet Comintern planted seeds for communist and socialist movements around the world. They were responsible for fueling many revolutions and civil wars around the world at a time where US foreign policy was isolationist and dealing with the Great Depression. One such tactic was to embed sympathetic agents into major publications like the New York Times and win public favor through propaganda and other disinformation. Walter Duranty was a journalist who won Pulitzers for his flowery depictions of the Soviet Union. So fast forward today nothing has changed and even though we are aware of it nothing will change. If anything the reach of bad actors is far superior than ever before. Reddit, Twitter, Facebook is full of disinfo targeted at both the left and right and also coming from official sources. It not just crazy anonymous accounts. Sadly, this will never change and I am not sure there is any antidote for these human flaws.
Are you implying that "to embed sympathetic agents into major publications" is the work of a bad actor? If so, are you aware that nearly all major news sources today are pushing agendas?
Here's a tip: filter out any news organization that publish stories on "look at these suffering children" in regards to any conflict or current event. That's not news, that's agenda-pushing. There's a bunch of additional filters you can use, but when you're done you're left with a bunch of ill-informed blogs, speculation, and if you're lucky a few eye-witness accounts of a single event out of dozens of events which make up the conflict.
The preface was written at an odd moment in time when the UK and the Soviet Union were allied, for the simple reason that in times of war the enemy of my enemy (Hitler's Germany) is my friend. Two short years later the Cold War began and pointed criticism of Russia became much more palatable.
Meanwhile, it's 2022, and we're firing orchestra conductors because they're Russian and not denouncing Putin sufficiently vigorously.
You're phrasing it as if 'we're firing any orchestra conductors' but anyone with half a brain is able to figure out who that guy is and what are his past political involvements:
Yes, he appeared for a TV ad for Putin in 2012. Why is this suddenly a firing offence in 2022? Does he bear personal responsibility for what Putin's doing today?
Denouncing McCarthyism in 1950, Truman said, "In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have."
This is an extraordinarily disingenuous summarisation of that link.
A more accurate summary - he has publicly supported Putin on every single major policy. He supported annexing South Ossetia (2008), criticised Pussy Riot (2012), defending Putin’s anti gay bill (2013), annexing Crimea (2014).
Just to drive the point home, here’s what he had to say about the anti-gay legislation - “In Russia we do everything we can to protect children from paedophiles. This law is not about homosexuality, it targets paedophilia.” This is a man so abhorrent that he was equating LGBT with paedophilia.
And you summarised that as “oh he just did an ad, what’s wrong with that”.
Even now he could save his job by putting out some platitude like “I support a peaceful resolution to the conflict” but he won’t because he supports whatever Putin does.
Let me be clear - it is ok for me and others to not want to associate with such a person. It is ok if all of us prefer not to go to a performance by him. If the production companies think they’ll find it impossible to fill seats because too many people will stay away, then it is ok for them to pick someone else.
This isn’t censorship, it’s just people not associating with those who support unjustified wars.
> McCarthyism
I don’t know why it’s necessary to explain this to an adult in 2022 but McCarthyism is explicitly about persecution by the government. Not ordinary citizens preferring not to associate with you. The First Amendment prevents the government from making laws which abridge the freedom of speech, it doesn’t force private citizens to be your friends and supporters after you say anything.
Sure, the orchestra can fire or not fire the guy, and they can also do so on the basis of whether they think this will fill seats. What really rubs me the wrong way here is the performative "you're with us or you're against us" demand for a written denouncement: AFAICT he has not said a peep either way about the Ukraine invasion, he is just being required to publicly renounce his past beliefs to keep his job.
For what it's worth, you're also doing some pretty selective reading of the link: he's Ossetian himself, claims he never actually signed the Crimea annexation statement, and the Pussy Riot/LGBT stuff is really an irrelevant tangent here.
Finally, no, McCarthyism was not (just) about government persecution, things like the MPAA blacklist on "Communist" actors and directors were private initiatives, and artists bore much of the brunt of that particular witchhunt.
The MPAA blacklist was a direct consequence of the House Unamerican Activities Committee investigations into Hollywood. It wouldn’t exist but for government intervention. The blacklist itself did not violate the first Amendment, but the actions of HUAC did.
Look, you’re hell bent on claiming mUh CaNcEl cUlTuRe for this poor conductor. Apparently he never supported any violence and doesn’t condone the current invasion either. Ok, let him just say that. Until then, I and other like minded individuals want nothing to do with with him. If you feel strongly about it, write to the various orchestras and tell them how you and your many freedom loving friends will fill the seats.
Please don't post this low-effort nonsense. If you cared about the object-level question, you can check easily enough: https://www.whois.com/whois/orwell.ru. (Spoiler: no, not using namecheap.)
Really, this is a transparent attempt to bring that topic into unrelated threads. Let the namecheap-bashing stay in the namecheap-bashing threads.
I think it is relevant because it shows how this content can be affected by it. I think you will agree how this is not something that should be off the internet, Animal Farm is more relevant then ever.
I have commented that denial of a communication service is a mistake, but even so, a bunch of Ukrainians objecting to providing a service to invading Russians is clearly different than the sort of thing described in "Animal Farm".
I've always wondered if Europe's decline into totalitarianism was halted all on its own due to the natural "swinging of the pendulum" as they call it, or if it was due to American hegemony over the world, and the fact they basically had the whole of Europe under military occupation until the fall of the Soviet Union.
Is today's rise of totalitarianism in Europe simply the swinging of the pendulum, or is it due to the waning of power in the American empire, and therefore the return of Europe to its natural, equilibrium state?