[Jedi72]

"Among the intelligentsia, it hardly needs saying that the dominant form of nationalism is Communism — using this word in a very loose sense, to include not merely Communist Party members, but ‘fellow travellers’ and russophiles generally. A Communist, for my purpose here, is one who looks upon the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it his duty t justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Obviously such people abound in England today, and their direct and indirect influence is very great."

I find this somehow hard to believe. I can buy that the British intelligensia was probably full of people who thought communism was a good philosophy. But outright supporting Russia as their homeland? That doesnt make sense, unless there was some huge ex-patriation of Russian intelligensia types to other countries?

[Spooky23]

Remember that Britain at the time was a nation in transition. Essentially bankrupted by the war, still impacted by WW1, an empire in moral and financial collapse, and a legacy social order falling apart.

The Soviets appeared to be an answer to those problems, as they had replaced the most reactionary of legacy states with a new thing. Also, comintern was a thing that invested a lot of resources into influencing western thinking.

[jhbadger]

There were really was a belief among orthodox Western Communists that the Soviet Union was the future and that Stalin was a great man. They often became Rusophiles who learned Russian and went on trips to the Soviet Union where they were given carefully controlled tours which made the place seem like Utopia. That was different from just a belief in Communism -- as Orwell notes, there certainly were the Trotskyists, who believed that Lenin's revolution in the USSR had been betrayed by Stalin, but they had their own parties and organizations (and weren't that numerous).

[dalbasal]

Orwell is being obtuse when he says "nationalism."

What he meant is some flavour of what we'd call "ideologist" today, whether or not the ideology has much to do with nations or nation states. Communism was a major political movement all over europe (and the world) at the time. Most labour movements considered themselves communists.

Anglo-American liberalism was the biggest ideological faction, but Orwell doesn't seem to count that as "Nationalism." After that, communism probably was the biggest faction in universities in 1945.

[icebraining]

But it's not just Communism, it's Russia itself. I see it even today among some members of our national Communist Party (which was historically Stalinist). They not only irrationally¹ defended the USSR, as they transferred that to current Russia and Putin. It truly boggles the mind.

And they are not Russians, or particularly care about the land or the people, it's a support of the Russian nation specifically.

¹ By irrationally, I mean what Orwell describes - defending actions they would never defend in other countries and ignoring inconvenient facts

[mantas]

Those people just love to support enemy of their enemy. It's mind boggling how many mental hoops they're willing to jump.

As eastern european, it was very sad to meet fellow europeans who didn't like that my country got away from monstrosity that was USSR and couldn't care about suffering of people as long as it helped to move forward their idolised ideology. Meanwhile they pretended to be "progressive" and caring about "common man" whatever that is...

[icebraining]

Well, in our case it's a bit more complicated, because here, the USSR was actually helping the common man. We were living in a right-wing dictatorship ourselves and the communist party, which was one of the most important groups fighting against it (and whose members were tortured and sent to concentration camps in Africa), got a lot of help from the USSR.

I was born after the transition, so it's easy for me to separate the issues (and to understand that good deeds are not always done for good reasons), but to the people who lived it, there is a real dissonance that is hard to deal with.

[mantas]

Did communist party built at least single successful country in Africa?

It's like saying that Nazis helped a common man in Germany. And they did! Life for a common German man definitely got better in mid-late 1930s. But at a cost..

Regarding USSR, that help to far away countries was one of the reason why it fell. Life in USSR was shitty (maybe not Africa-shitty, but still). And people were unhappy that resources are sent away instead of improving their lives. There were plenty of jokes that there's no food or merchandise since some revolutioner dude in South America or Africa eats or wears them.

[fwdpropaganda]

> ¹ By irrationally, I mean what Orwell describes - defending actions they would never defend in other countries and ignoring inconvenient facts

I just wanted to comment on your use of "irrational". That's a bad definition (meaning no connection with how people use the word). Every nationalist in every nation attacks others for things that they themselves would do if it benefited them. If the attacks work it's very rational.

[icebraining]

I agree that it can be used as a rational tactic, but I don't think it's the case here; as Orwell mentions, it's more of a process of self-deception. It doesn't actually work - those I know can't even convince their fellow party members.

[dalbasal]

This is true, obviously very true in his time. I think it is inevitable though, one becomes a symbol of the other.

Were the east european liberals of the 70s & 80s not obsessed with America? Cowboys, rockstars, blue jeans, holywood gangsters...

[rsynnott]

At the time, no form of nationalism was particularly popular in the UK, but there’d certainly be more people who were keen on Soviet Communism than on Naziism, the two big contenders at the time.

So, if you asked 100 members of the ‘intelligentsia’ which form of nationalism they preferred, 95 might say ‘none thanks’, with the other 5 opting for Soviet communism.