Anybody think Orwell wasn't that good of a socialist?

[MellowViper]

I re-read Animal Farm, and I thought there were some good analogies, but I hated the whole premise of farm animals representing the proletariat. Farm animals are bread to be stupid and dependent on human beings, and, in a way, the book was being used to say that the proletariat needs their bourgeois superiors to live or else you'll get a bunch of bores running the show. Maybe this wasn't the intention, but the fact that the US used this book to drop over Sandanista supporters as propaganda didn't help and shows its easy for capitalists to miss the finer points. The fact that some animals were too inherently stupid to learn the Animal version of the Internationalle and just ended up shouting conformist slogans didn't seem like the most constructive criticism of the psychological conditions that exist under authoritarianism either.

I do have to say that the end of the book predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union rather well. The pigs got on top of the hierarchy and became capitalists at the end, and the animals couldn't tell the humans apart from the pigs and the pigs from the humans. This is not dissimilar to how former apparatchiks privatized government cooperatives, really industry that should have been given directly to the people working int hem, for their selves and became the new oligarch class.

I saw some movie remake with Kelsey Grammar as Snowball and Patrick Stewart as the voice of Napoleon, and it was terrible. It basically had a Reaganite modification to the end, where it collapsed under its own weight, and a nice looking American family listening to American rock n' roll comes in and takes over the means of production and makes life better for the animal proletariat. Its ironic that they used the family farm as a symbol of American Capitalism. The truth is that Industrial farms have been running family farms out of business and into the cities since the postbellum period.

edited:

Anyway, that's just on example why I'm not sure whether he was a good socialist or not. I don't know whether capitalists are just interpreting his work wrongly or if he had a latent arrogance against the rest the working class that shows up in his work. I haven't really read much of his stuff. I'd like to know a bit more from people who have.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hmm. Is this thread about Orwell himself (as the title suggests), or just the merits of Animal Farm?

[MellowViper]

Hmm. Is this thread about Orwell himself (as the title suggests), or just the merits of Animal Farm?

Its about Orwell himself. I was just using Animal farm as an example. If you wanna add to it, feel free. I'm sorry about getting off topic with the movie.

[Nolan]

One of capital's most well-known propagandists wasn't that good of a socialist? What is this world coming to? :crying:

[Widerstand]

Wasn't Orwell all "DEMOCRACY = GOOD; TOTALITARIANISM = BAD; NAZI = TOTALITARIAN = BAD; USSR = TOTALITARIAN = NAZI = BAD?"

[MellowViper]

One of the capital's most well-known propagandists wasn't that good of a socialist? What is this world coming to? :crying:

I'm not really saying he was or wasn't. I just want to evaluate him. I probably should have made that more clear in the OP. I started reading Homage to Catalonia, and he recalled his Spanish comrades as being lazy and wanting to put things off. That was another thing that made me think he was biased against the working class that he claimed to stand up for. He did note that the clothes manufactured from the cooperative run textile factories were of a good quality though. I thought he was really on the anti-religious side and a bit psychotic in the way he wanted to burn down Spanish churches.

[graymouser]

Orwell really didn't understand class dynamics; I read Down and Out in Paris and London not long ago, and his portrait of the life of the staff in the Parisian hotels clearly was a huge influence on his portrait of the "Proles" in 1984. He saw the tedium of the worker as an unending process, never being able to conceptualize that the internal pressures would build up until they escaped in some form or other. This is why his portraits of the totalitarian society in 1984 continue on forever instead of grinding to a halt under their own internal pressures, as a Marxist would have pointed out.

Orwell's own convictions were somewhat flimsy; outside his obvious affinity for the Spanish revolution, his positive vision of socialism was very much lacking. Animal Farm and 1984 are almost exclusively read out of context and without any regard for socialism. I don't think there would be much meaning to being an "Orwellian socialist" in this day and age, as he really contributed little except for some anti-Stalinist novels that practically slid into anti-Communism.

[MellowViper]

Wasn't Orwell all "DEMOCRACY = GOOD; TOTALITARIANISM = BAD; NAZI = TOTALITARIAN = BAD; USSR = TOTALITARIAN = NAZI = BAD?"

Yah, pretty much, and I agree with him on that for the most part. I think he should have offered up something more positive to say that could have helped Russia turn its system in a more positive direction though.

[Nolan]

Wasn't Orwell all "DEMOCRACY = GOOD; TOTALITARIANISM = BAD; NAZI = TOTALITARIAN = BAD; USSR = TOTALITARIAN = NAZI = BAD?"

He was the liberal equivalent of Goebbels. The left needs to find a charlatan to write pretty stories.

[graymouser]

He was the liberal equivalent of Goebbels. The left needs to find a charlatan to write pretty stories.
Orwell was at his best a centrist, but it is totally dishonest to call him a liberal, much less to compare him to Goebbels. His anti-Stalinism bled into anti-Communism but he remained a socialist, simply not the kind who is worthy of emulation.

[Nolan]

Orwell was at his best a centrist, but it is totally dishonest to call him a liberal, much less to compare him to Goebbels. His anti-Stalinism bled into anti-Communism but he remained a socialist, simply not the kind who is worthy of emulation.

He was a centrist and a socialist? And please. In Animal Farm he used a strawman of Marxism and in 1984 he implied that the USSR and Nazi Germany were "the same thing" by making strawmen of both of them. The three factions in his book are all identical ideologically but they hate each other. The implication is obvious. He shows no understanding of either ideology when directly referring to them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, he took a bullet for socialism (and yeah, that's what he was defending in Spain). So I give him credit for that. I also think that 1984 is an entertaining novel. I wasn't all that impressed with Animal Farm.

That's about the extent of my opinion in regards to him, though.

[graymouser]

He was a centrist and a socialist?
"Centrism" in the vocabulary of Marxism has a specialized meaning, of elements that vacillate between reformism and revolutionary socialism. I was using it in this meaning. Orwell was part of the Independent Labour Party in Britain and fought for the POUM in Spain, both of which were centrist organizations.


And please. In Animal Farm he used a strawman of Marxism and in 1984 he implied that the USSR and Nazi Germany were "the same thing" by making strawmen of both of them. The three factions in his book are all identical ideologically but they hate each other. The implication is obvious. He shows no understanding of either ideology when directly referring to them.
Orwell was a third campist - this was a position that really existed within the socialist movement. Plenty of people on this site are third campists. I don't agree with them but your assessment of Orwell here is downright intellectually dishonest.

[Widerstand]

Orwell was a third campist - this was a position that really existed within the socialist movement. Plenty of people on this site are third campists. I don't agree with them but your assessment of Orwell here is downright intellectually dishonest.

What is a "third campist"?

[MellowViper]

Well, he took a bullet for socialism (and yeah, that's what he was defending in Spain). So I give him credit for that. I also think that 1984 is an entertaining novel. I wasn't all that impressed with Animal Farm.

That's about the extent of my opinion in regards to him, though.

I'll give him credit for that too.

[graymouser]

What is a "third campist"?
The "third camp" was a position adopted in the twentieth century by a number of socialist tendencies - against both the ostensibly democratic capitalist countries, and the Stalinist countries. The slogan "Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism" is a summation of the third camp perspective.

[Widerstand]

The "third camp" was a position adopted in the twentieth century by a number of socialist tendencies - against both the ostensibly democratic capitalist countries, and the Stalinist countries. The slogan "Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism" is a summation of the third camp perspective.

So basically, Trots, Left Comms, etc.?

[MellowViper]

I also heard he was kind of a racist and misogynist. http://exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/ The author in this notes a certain level of contempt for the Burmese when he was working as an imperial, police officer.

Whether that's the case or not, I notice how right wingers like to claim that people who are charged with a hate crime for racially motivated violence are being tried for a thought crime under the liberal, Orwellian super state. Some things just aren't worthy of defense.

[9]

"Centrism" in the vocabulary of Marxism has a specialized meaning, of elements that vacillate between reformism and revolutionary socialism. I was using it in this meaning. Orwell was part of the Independent Labour Party in Britain and fought for the POUM in Spain, both of which were centrist organizations.


Orwell was a third campist - this was a position that really existed within the socialist movement. Plenty of people on this site are third campists. I don't agree with them but your assessment of Orwell here is downright intellectually dishonest.

Orwell opposed the Allies during WWII?

from wikipedia:


Orwell also submitted his name to the Central Register for war effort but nothing transpired.It doesn't appear to jibe with your description of him as a "third campist". As you know, opposing Stalinist imperialism obviously isn't enough to qualify him as a "third campist" if he supported Britain (putting him in the "first camp").

[Widerstand]

I also heard he was kind of a racist and misogynist. http://exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/ The author in this notes a certain level of contempt for the Burmese when he was working as an imperial, police officer.

Urgh. I wouldn't call it contempt. More of ... well it is hard to describe. He was aware that the Burmese and him were in an antagonist situation because he was an imperialist officer involved in the occupation of their land, even though he didn't support the imperialist occupation. Read his short story "Shooting an Elephant", it expresses how he perceived this 'antagonism' quite well, imo.


Whether that's the case or not, I notice how right wingers like to claim that people who are charged with a hate crime for racially motivated violence are being tried for a thought crime under the liberal, Orwellian super state. Some things just aren't worthy of defense.

It's because tolerance has been turned into a virtue and subsequently been taken to such absurd extremes that tolerance towards intolerance is glorified as the ultimate act of tolerance, thereby giving way for all sort of repressive, reactionary attitudes, and also trying to strip class struggle off it's antagonist nature, effectively disarming it to irrelevance:

"I think you're full of shit and your state is shit."

"That's fine if you disagree, we are tolerant. You can disagree, that's good."

"Uhm...so..."

"Yes, it's okay."

[L.A.P.]

Orwell was a third campist - this was a position that really existed within the socialist movement. Plenty of people on this site are third campists. I don't agree with them but your assessment of Orwell here is downright intellectually dishonest.


The "third camp" was a position adopted in the twentieth century by a number of socialist tendencies - against both the ostensibly democratic capitalist countries, and the Stalinist countries. The slogan "Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism" is a summation of the third camp perspective.

Well since you're a trotskyist, doesn't that make you a third campist?

[9]

^No. Most Trotskyists supported the USSR in WWII. "Ortho-trots" defend that position.

[MellowViper]

It's because tolerance has been turned into a virtue and subsequently been taken to such absurd extremes that tolerance towards intolerance is glorified as the ultimate act of tolerance, thereby giving way for all sort of repressive, reactionary attitudes, and also trying to strip class struggle off it's antagonist nature, effectively disarming it to irrelevance:

"I think you're full of shit and your state is shit."

"That's fine if you disagree, we are tolerant. You can disagree, that's good."

"Uhm...so..."

"Yes, it's okay."

Yah, that's a pretty stupid sentiment. If you really have a general belief that people should tolerate each other and get along within a democratic society, then the last thing you'll do is tolerate intolerant positions that are against that. Its sort of like the ACLU defending the right of neo-nazis to hold marches in Jewish neighborhoods. Yah, I will say that they have a right to say what they wanna say, even if that entails taking away my right to say what I want to say, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to defend their rights. If I was the head of the ACLU, in the case of helping the Klan, I'd be like "I wish you the best, but I have better things to do". When they help racist organizations, people lose respect for them. The white supremacists think they're chumps, and everyone else hates them for defending fascists. I'll check out "Shooting an Elephant".

[graymouser]

Well since you're a trotskyist, doesn't that make you a third campist?
Yeah, no. Orthodox Trotskyists took a critical support stance of the USSR.

And I do stand corrected on Orwell's position in WWII, but his subsequent stance was closer to the third camp than the Shachtmanites who became shameless apologists for imperialism.

[Barry Lyndon]

graymouser, Red America is foaming at the mouth with hatred toward Orwell because Orwell attacked his beloved Stalin. That's the long and short of Red America's analysis of the issue, nothing more.

Perhaps Orwell was cynical about socialism's prospects after he witnessed the Stalinists repress a promising socialist revolution in Spain. Not exactly the right conclusion perhaps, but can you blame him?

[Magón]

I like Orwell, and I like his criticism of Socialism. Every ideology needs a critic, and it's even better when that critic is actually of that ideology. It shows that the person isn't (probably) full of bullshit and has an actual understanding of the ideology, rather than say someone off Stormfront or the US Republican/Democratic Pary who gets told shit, and then starts criticizing for the wrong reasons.

[Invader Zim]

He was a centrist and a socialist? And please. In Animal Farm he used a strawman of Marxism and in 1984 he implied that the USSR and Nazi Germany were "the same thing" by making strawmen of both of them. The three factions in his book are all identical ideologically but they hate each other. The implication is obvious. He shows no understanding of either ideology when directly referring to them.

Animal Farm is not about Marxism however much Stalinists and the CIA wished to present it as such.


The three factions in his book are all identical ideologically but they hate each other. The implication is obvious.

Actually they all make war with each other as a means of social control over their own population, the ideological 'differences' are irrelevent to the purpose of the war. This is pretty explicit; perhaps you should (re)read the book?


I also heard he was kind of a racist and misogynist.

Not especially, certainly not by the standard of a great many of his contemporaries. Indeed Orwell was actually highly, and publically, dispaging of the anti-semitism he observed in Britain, etc.

As for being a misogynist, doubtless that ties into the oft repeated lie that Orwell was a rapist.


As you know, opposing Stalinist imperialism obviously isn't enough to qualify him as a "third campist" if he supported Britain (putting him in the "first camp").

I think this misses they key issue, was Orwell's motive to support Britain or to oppose Nazism?

[penguinfoot]

in 1984 he implied that the USSR and Nazi Germany were "the same thing" by making strawmen of both of them

I don't know how you got the impression that two of the three superpowers in 1984 are supposed to represent Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, unless you only read the book in the most cursory or superficial manner. Eurasia is said to encompass both historic Germany and Russia, for a start, hence the name, and I read the book as being about the emerging world-system in 1948, when it was written, including the alliance between Britain and the United States, along with the increasing social regimentation that Orwell saw as being common to all the major countries of the world, including the liberal democracies. Consider it a forerunner of some of Marcuse's critiques, if you will. If I remember correctly Orwell writes at one point when discussing the origins of the unending wars between the three superpowers that Eastasia was established later than the other two and it seems hard to interpret that except by assuming that Orwell is talking about the impending prospect of a new government being established in China and changing the balance of power in the region, due to the CPC nearing victory in 1948.

I would advise you read the book again and pay more attention this time.


One of capital's most well-known propagandists wasn't that good of a socialist?

There has also been a tendency for capitalism to seek to manipulate expressions of rebellion (including the insightful works of social and political criticism that Orwell produced) and use them as tools for the stabilization of the status quo or as anti-communist critiques. Consider 'This Land is Your Land' as an example - what was originally a radical song has been turned into a key part of nationalist ideology in the United States. The fact that capitalism does this is no fault of the creators of these cultural entities and is certainly not a reason to reject them.

[9]

I think this misses they key issue, was Orwell's motive to support Britain or to oppose Nazism?

I don't think it's an important question what his subjective intention was. I mean, if I start cheering for drones to pound Afghanistan, does it really matter whether subjectively its because I "support the US", or because I "oppose the Taliban"? No.

[penguinfoot]

I don't think it's an important question what his subjective intention was. I mean, if I start cheering for drones to pound Afghanistan, does it really matter whether subjectively its because I "support the US", or because I "oppose the Taliban"? No.

It is important, because we often find in politics that, on a superficial level, we are in agreement with some other political actor on a particular issue, but that our theoretical bases are very different, and that we need to explain those bases in order to distinguish ourselves from others who operate from entirely different assumptions. For example, both socialists and right-libertarians support open borders (in the main, anyway) but a socialist would never argue that their position is based on the view that having no border controls will result in greater economic efficiency or serve to make the labour market more competitive. Lenin himself was conscious of how both socialists and Malthusians could support abortion and birth control and was very eager to explain how the reasons the Malthusians had for doing so were actually reactionary.

[Zanthorus]

So basically, Trots, Left Comms, etc.?

It's generally said to be Trotskyists who accepted either the 'Bureaucratic Collectivist' or 'State Capitalist' analysis' of the USSR and it's sattelites. Orthodox Trotskyists stood for the defence of the Soviet Union. I've never seen the label 'third camp' applied to Left-Communists, as it's sort of useless since all of the Communist Left was opposed to Stalinism, Fascism and Democracy. From what I've seen it's only used to designate heretical Trotskyists.


It is important, because we often find in politics that, on a superficial level, we are in agreement with some other political actor on a particular issue, but that our theoretical bases are very different, and that we need to explain those bases in order to distinguish ourselves from others who operate from entirely different assumptions. For example, both socialists and right-libertarians support open borders (in the main, anyway) but a socialist would never argue that their position is based on the view that having no border controls will result in greater economic efficiency or serve to make the labour market more competitive. Lenin himself was conscious of how both socialists and Malthusians could support abortion and birth control and was very eager to explain how the reasons the Malthusians had for doing so were actually reactionary.

I'm pretty sure most other people who supported the British side were against Nazism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Orwell reminds me of a Christopher Hitchens type, only not as blatantly stupid.

[penguinfoot]

I'm pretty sure most other people who supported the British side were against Nazism.

Probably, but even then, there's a need to consider underlying theoretical bases. I (and presumably you as well) think that there was no rational reason for any socialist to support Britain in WW2, because even the most pseudo-progressive rationale for doing so would ultimately rest on a false distinction between fascism and other forms of bourgeois dictatorship. However, I still think it's important to draw a distinction between those who, on the one hand, supported Britain because they wanted Britain to retain her place in the world as one of the main imperialist powers, or those capitalist who stood to lose in the event of Britain losing the warm and those, on the other hand, in the official Communist Party and across the left more generally, who supported the British war effort because they thought that the Nazi threat to the working class, in Britain and other countries, was sufficiently dangerous to warrant support for the British state, which included temporarily calling on workers in the Empire to give up their struggles for national liberation and enroll in the British colonial military forces. I do not think that Orwell supported Britain out of any special love for the British empire, even though he might have had some patriotic instincts. Even amongst different political currents who have historically had a positive attitude towards the British empire, I would still argue in favor of making distinctions - the Tory right should not be lumped together with the Fabians, for example, however critical of the latter we might be.

[9]

It is important, because [textwall]
I don't think its important with regard to the question at hand, which is "was Orwell a good socialist?" The fact that he supported his own ruling class in WWII is more than enough for me to conclude that the answer is categorically "no", regardless of the theoretical basis for his social patriotism (which isn't to suggest that the theoretical basis is unimportant in general).


Lenin himself was conscious of how both socialists and Malthusians could support abortion and birth control and was very eager to explain how the reasons the Malthusians had for doing so were actually reactionary.I seem to recall Lenin's position on birth control being that it was "neo-Malthusianism". Lenin was a brilliant revolutionary, but his positions on sexual questions were generally shit. Anyway, its completely off topic.

[penguinfoot]

I don't think its important with regard to the question at hand, which is "was Orwell a good socialist?" The fact that he supported his own ruling class in WWII is more than enough for me to conclude that the answer is categorically "no", regardless of the theoretical basis for his social patriotism (which isn't to suggest that the theoretical basis is unimportant in general).

I agree that there are never good justifications for socialists supporting their own ruling classes in imperialist wars, and that Orwell having done this means that he shouldn't be considered a good example to follow. But I still don't think that the issue is quite so categorical as you suggest. An issue that I would consider very important for drawing lines within the left in European countries at the moment is the attitude we take towards islamophobia and particularly the increasingly aggressive attempts of governments in countries like France and the Netherlands to restrict religious dress, in public places especially. Now what we've seen, unfortunately, is that in a number of instances certain left organizations have flinched when it comes to opposing the islamophobic policies of their ruling governments - Lutte Ouvriere, for example, give critical support to the 2004 ban on wearing religious clothing (and exhibiting religious symbology more generally) in schools.

This was a terrible position, in my view, at least as bad as Orwell having supported Britain in WW2. But does this mean that we should throw LO and other organizations which took the same stance in with the racists and fascists who spread lies about the supposed "islamification" of Europe and who support the use of physical violence and intimidation against Muslims? No, of course not. When people like the LO support islamophobic policies, we argue with them, as socialists who have differing perspectives. When fascists do the same, we reject them, we recognize them as the class enemy. Likewise, our approach to Orwell should be to consider him as a socialist who made some poor political decisions and had a degree of underlying patriotism. We should not consider him in the same light as enthusiastic proponents of British imperial interests, like Churchill and the Tory right.


I seem to recall Lenin's position on birth control being that it was "neo-Malthusianism". Lenin was a brilliant revolutionary, but his positions on sexual questions were generally shit. Anyway, its completely off topic.

It's not off-topic at all, it's also concerned with what we should do when faced with two political actors who would the same position for different reasons, whether that means the wrong position (as with Orwell and WW2) or the right one (as with the Bolsheviks and birth control). As for Lenin's view, he was completely clear:

"It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses. Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another. Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htm

[Zanthorus]

This was a terrible position, in my view, at least as bad as Orwell having supported Britain in WW2.

I think you've hilariously blown the veil issue out of all proportion. Please inform us how a ban on clothing is as bad as supporting an Imperialist massacre?


Likewise, our approach to Orwell should be to consider him as a socialist who made some poor political decisions and had a degree of underlying patriotism.

Likewise, our approach to Friedrich Ebert and the SDP Reichstag delegates who voted for war credits should be to consider them as socialists who made some poor political decisions and had a degree of underlying patriotism.

[Widerstand]

Likewise, our approach to Friedrich Ebert and the SDP Reichstag delegates who voted for war credits should be to consider them as socialists who made some poor political decisions and had a degree of underlying patriotism.

Let's have a combo:

Likewise, our approach to Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP followers who voted for total war and the final solution should be to consider them as socialists who made some poor political decisions and had a degree of underlying patriotism.

[penguinfoot]

I think you've hilariously blown the veil issue out of all proportion. Please inform us how a ban on clothing is as bad as supporting an Imperialist massacre?

I don't think there's anything hilarious about the veil issue, as you put it, and nor do I think it should just be described as a clothing ban. I don't expect a Left Communist to be able to appreciate the idea of socialists engaging with all the struggles that affect the state of the working class rather than just those which fit into your narrow conception of class struggle (namely, only those struggles that take place directly at the point of production, which excludes the anti-war struggle, the anti-racist struggle, struggles around the defense of the gains that women have been able to make under capitalism such as the pro-choice struggle) but the state attacks that are being carried out against Muslim populations and the rights of Muslim women in particular are of key importance because they serve to create divisions within the ranks of the working class, unless they are challenged. The prevailing climate of Islamophobia can't be seen as something that only exists in people's heads as a set of attitudes, it also manifests itself in the increasing physical attacks that have been carried out against Muslims (and again, especially Muslim women who wear the veil in public) and it's also important that we place Islamophobia in the context of the War of Terror, both in that the policies directed against Muslims inside the imperialist countries are justified with reference to a perceived global threat of Islamism and in that mistrust of Muslims within the imperialist countries is used as a justification for atrocities against the inhabitants of the countries that have come under imperialist attack.

The basic issue here is that you think that the only struggles that are worth the attention or intervention of communists, are, as I said, those that fit into a relatively confined understanding of what class struggle is, whereas my view is that class struggle extends beyond struggles at the point of production, it also encompasses other struggles, including the struggle against Islamophobia, and that the role of socialists in these struggle should be to articulate the ways in which they arise from the contradictions of capitalist society and reflect irreconcilable class interests. I don't think we're ever going to agree.


Likewise, our approach to Friedrich Ebert and the SDP Reichstag delegates who voted for war credits should be to consider them as socialists who made some poor political decisions and had a degree of underlying patriotism.

This is a fair response, but I do think there's a distinction - what warranted such an aggressive response to people like Ebert was the fact that they played an active and concrete role in supporting the war effort of Germany whereas Orwell, whilst having a patriotic impulse of the same kind, did not actively support imperialism in the same way, in that his support was more or less ideological, rather than having material consequences.


Likewise, our approach to Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP followers who voted for total war and the final solution should be to consider them as socialists who made some poor political decisions and had a degree of underlying patriotism.

Did you really think this was an intelligent argument? Seriously?

[Widerstand]

Did you really think this was an intelligent argument? Seriously?

If you will explain to me what an "intelligent" argument is, I will tell you whether or not I think it was one.

[penguinfoot]

If you will explain to me what an "intelligent" argument is, I will tell you whether or not I think it was one.

I don't see what it added to the discussion, or how it made any sense. I accept that Z's argument concerning Ebert was fair because the SPD is undeniably part of the history of the revolutionary left, however great its betrayals in 1914 might have been, whereas the view that the Nazis were socialists is an argument of the contemporary right, the right-wing fringe, even, which has no basis in historical fact. I find that comparisons with the Nazis in debates are generally problematic because the history of Nazi Germany and the Nazi party is too complex to be reduced to a set of simple assertions and one-line statements. You're also wrong on factual grounds in that the Nazis never voted to pursue total war (strictly speaking, the adoption of total war occurred relatively late, only with the creation of the Volkssturm in late 1944) because decisions within the Nazi party-state were not made through the democratic process, although I suppose that's beside the point.

[Widerstand]

I think you are largely unfamiliar with the concept of "ad absurdum."

edit: I don't really care either, proceed with your ramblings.

[Zanthorus]

The basic issue here is that you think that the only struggles that are worth the attention or intervention of communists, are, as I said, those that fit into a relatively confined understanding of what class struggle is, whereas my view is that class struggle extends beyond struggles at the point of production, it also encompasses other struggles, including the struggle against Islamophobia, and that the role of socialists in these struggle should be to articulate the ways in which they arise from the contradictions of capitalist society and reflect irreconcilable class interests. I don't think we're ever going to agree.

No, this really has nothing to do with it. The issue here is that you think a ban on clothing is as bad as people slaughtering each other in the defence of their respective nation states. And I don't think class struggle is about point of production struggle, I'm a sympathiser not a member of the ICC.


This is a fair response, but I do think there's a distinction - what warranted such an aggressive response to people like Ebert was the fact that they played an active and concrete role in supporting the war effort of Germany whereas Orwell, whilst having a patriotic impulse of the same kind, did not actively support imperialism in the same way, in that his support was more or less ideological, rather than having material consequences.

If what warranted the aggressive response was the active role they played in the war effort, why did Lenin so vigorously denounce Kautsky, who even came to oppose the war? Why would he attack marginal figures like Kropotkin for supporting the war effort against Germany? Why would he even attack the positions of Trotsky or Luxemburg who were anti-war?

The simple answer is because there is a class line between all shades of pacificism and social-imperialism, and the transformation of the world imperialist war into a revolutionary civil war.

[Pawn Power]

is being a "good socialist" like being a "good Christian?"

[Invader Zim]

I don't think it's an important question what his subjective intention was. I mean, if I start cheering for drones to pound Afghanistan, does it really matter whether subjectively its because I "support the US", or because I "oppose the Taliban"? No.

A false comparison, given the difference between the two.