Animal Farm, my opinion.

[tehAdmrl]

So, I know that Orwell is a bit controversial on this site however I'm going to talk about his book anyway. Also as I talk about the book I will refer to the pig characters as there real world counter parts in quotes, seeing as the book is doing the whole allegory thing and the characters are parodies of the real people.
Finally for those who don't know, the characters match up as follows (My interpretation): Snowball -Trotsky, Napoleon - Stalin and Squealer - Lenin (also the Soviet propaganda machine but let's forget about that for now).

I have recently started reading Animal Farm for my High school English class and I must say it is a rather good and interesting book. However the books under playing of "Lenin" in the actual Bolshevik Revolution is a bit odd. "Lenin" is only portrayed to have done very little to do with the revolution. Perhaps the book should have swapped the roles of "Lenin" and "Stalin". Though the struggle between "Stalin" and "Trotsky" is still done quite well regardless. But I digress, despite my enjoyment the book certainly goes the path of saying that Communism is: revolution - Marxism - Stalinism - done. Also despite the fact that the book is short and the characters are all animals, it does skip out on the mass complexities of what happened as well as how much more there just is to go in to that a book of this nature could have easily done very well.

Wait, maybe I don't like it after all.

Thoughts?

Edit:
Squealer is the propaganda machine, I'm sorry for the confusion, I made this when I was very tired.

[RedHal]

that's why I keep saying, as much as some rev lefties want to embrace Orwell as a sociailist, his two most famous works have been used as some of the best propaganda against communism. I too had to read Animal Farm and 1984 in my highschool english class, and it was basically a course in anti communism.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I liked his book 'Burmese Days'.

[YouthLiberation]

I haven't read "Animal Farm", but that and "Brave New World" is used way to much by Anti-communists. I mean it is as if people can't criticize any aspect of society that they fault Socialism for without citing one of these books.

[The Jay]

that's why I keep saying, as much as some rev lefties want to embrace Orwell as a sociailist, his two most famous works have been used as some of the best propaganda against communism. I too had to read Animal Farm and 1984 in my highschool english class, and it was basically a course in anti communism.

That is only true if you consider what he was arguing against Communism.

[RedAtheist]

Finally for those who don't know, the characters match up as follows (My interpretation): Snowball -Trotsky, Napoleon - Stalin and Squealer - Lenin (also the Soviet propaganda machine but let's forget about that for now).

Squealer is not Lenin. Squealer cooperated with Napoleon. Lenin was dead when Stalin was in power and would not have wanted to play a subservient role to Stalin even if he was alive. Prior to Stalin's rise to power, Lenin was the leader of the revolution not some propaganda spreading flunky (which is the role that Squealer played throughout the text.)

Some have argued that Old Major was meant to represent both Lenin and Marx. This is a possibility, but my personal opinion is that Lenin was not represented in the text. Orwell wanted to write about the conflict between Trotskyism and Stalinism, not about Lenin's ideology. Thus he did not need to have a Lenin character in there. Instead he made his Trotsky character, Snowball, the leader of the revolution.


But I digress, despite my enjoyment the book certainly goes the path of saying that Communism is: revolution - Marxism - Stalinism - done.

That's what the bourgeoisie want you to think the book was saying. There is nothing in the actual text which suggests Napoleon's rise to power was innevitable. The society the animals create is presented in a highly positive light prior to Napoleon's rise. Read Chapter 3 again if you do not believe me.


Also despite the fact that the book is short and the characters are all animals, it does skip out on the mass complexities of what happened as well as how much more there just is to go in to that a book of this nature could have easily done very well.

Animal Farm is by no means a complete account of the Russian Revolution, but it is not suppose to be. Not everyone, especially in Orwell's day, had the time to read big thick books on revolution. This book is there to give people a very basic general idea of what happened and to make a critique both of capitalism and totalitarianism.

[Geiseric]

So, I know that Orwell is a bit controversial on this site however I'm going to talk about his book anyway. Also as I talk about the book I will refer to the pig characters as there real world counter parts in quotes, seeing as the book is doing the whole allegory thing and the characters are parodies of the real people.
Finally for those who don't know, the characters match up as follows (My interpretation): Snowball -Trotsky, Napoleon - Stalin and Squealer - Lenin (also the Soviet propaganda machine but let's forget about that for now).

I have recently started reading Animal Farm for my High school English class and I must say it is a rather good and interesting book. However the books under playing of "Lenin" in the actual Bolshevik Revolution is a bit odd. "Lenin" is only portrayed to have done very little to do with the revolution. Perhaps the book should have swapped the roles of "Lenin" and "Stalin". Though the struggle between "Stalin" and "Trotsky" is still done quite well regardless. But I digress, despite my enjoyment the book certainly goes the path of saying that Communism is: revolution - Marxism - Stalinism - done. Also despite the fact that the book is short and the characters are all animals, it does skip out on the mass complexities of what happened as well as how much more there just is to go in to that a book of this nature could have easily done very well.

Wait, maybe I don't like it after all.

Thoughts?

Umm Old Major, the pig who inspires all of them and dies, is Lenin. Squealer is the GPU propaganda machine.

Orwell was himself a socialist, being against Stalinism isn't being anti socialist. He was shot while he was in the P.O.U.M. international brigade, which is more than 99% of people on this forum will do with their lives. If anything Stalin was the anti socialist, seeing as he executed more communists than Hitler.

[MP5]

that's why I keep saying, as much as some rev lefties want to embrace Orwell as a sociailist, his two most famous works have been used as some of the best propaganda against communism. I too had to read Animal Farm and 1984 in my highschool english class, and it was basically a course in anti communism.

I remember when we had to read Animal Farm for literature class. Only a few people besides myself actually knew what the Russian revolution was or if the USSR even existed! Most people in the class besides maybe 4 others and myself could not understand symbolism at all and this was in grade 10 ffs. I couldn't believe that most people in the class could not understand it and thought it was just a book about animals living on a farm! That says alot about the state of the school system we had.

But yes Animal Farm when taught in high school is used as anti-Communist propaganda for the most part. It is not intended to be anti-Communist at all but rather anti-authoritarian and anti-Stalinist. Granted we where taught nothing about Socialism, Communism or Anarchism at all much less the different tendencies within each of them. The only thing they taught us was Communism is evil and Capitalism is good :rolleyes:. The only reason i knew was because i read up on all of this myself and i was a Socialist even back in my teenage years. That was not exactly popular at all back in the mid to late 90's.

Orwell is not anti-Communist it's just that his works like Animal Farm and 1984 have been twisted by Capitalists as being anti-Communist so that is hardly Orwell's fault. He was a dedicated Socialist right up until the end and the Spanish civil war only made him believe more in non authoritarian Socialism. I love Animal Farm as well as 1984 and have been meaning to read a few more of his books as well.

[Red Enemy]

Animal Farm was a clever analogy to the Russian Revolution, done form an anti-Stalinist perspective. Orwell's point was his opposition to totalitarianism, and what the revolution degenerated into. I really liked the book as well, and think Orwell did well to write it. One could also argue that it covertly took a shot at socialism in one country by limiting this revolution to just that Farm. Though Orwell had no choice, considering it was an analogy to what really happened. I guess that comes with the territory...I digress.

It was an anti-Stalinist book, and regardless of the abuse it gets by capitalist educational institutions, it remains a good book, written by a dedicated socialist and revolutionary.

[l'Enfermé]

Animal Farm was a clever analogy to the Russian Revolution, done form an anti-Stalinist perspective. Orwell's point was his opposition to totalitarianism, and what the revolution degenerated into. I really liked the book as well, and think Orwell did well to write it. One could also argue that it covertly took a shot at socialism in one country by limiting this revolution to just that Farm. Though Orwell had no choice, considering it was an analogy to what really happened. I guess that comes with the territory...I digress.

It was an anti-Stalinist book, and regardless of the abuse it gets by capitalist educational institutions, it remains a good book, written by a dedicated socialist and revolutionary.
Dedicated socialist and revolutionary? You mean a Labour Party-supporting reformist, right? The same guy whose last act in his life was snitching on communists and socialists to British intelligence, right? Evil totalitarianists, like Charlie Chaplin!

Ahahahahahahahahah.

[Red Enemy]

Dedicated socialist and revolutionary? You mean a Labour Party-supporting reformist, right?Coming from a Kaut who wants these "Labour party-supporting reformists" in their own party.

Though, getting shot in the neck fighting fascists in Spain on the side of Marxists and Anarchists makes him a pretty shitty guy.


The same guy whose last act in his life was snitching on communists and socialists to British intelligence, right? Evil totalitarianists, like Charlie Chaplin!

Ahahahahahahahahah.Yeah, I have no real concern that he ratted out Stalinists. No different than ratting out any other non-socialist organ.

[Jimmie Higgins]

that's why I keep saying, as much as some rev lefties want to embrace Orwell as a sociailist, his two most famous works have been used as some of the best propaganda against communism. I too had to read Animal Farm and 1984 in my highschool english class, and it was basically a course in anti communism.lol, in high school history classes, the Russian revolution is used as ant-communist propaganda!

And in my opinion, in the USSR, Marxism was used as anti (small c) communist propaganda and education.

So bad interpretations of anything is possible. In most art and literature there are contested views on meaning. What makes "animal farm" a curious case though is that they tend to misrepresent something allegorical where the text is less open to various meanings.

It seems pretty clear that the alegory does not critique russia by saying it was a unjust revolt against decent order, but the it was a perversion of a genuine revolt in which the bad society was then reintoduced. the bad pigs are bad because they ally with the oppressors and begin to act like them. In addition, the book was initially rejected by publishers during WWII for being Trotskyist and against the USSR because at that point the politics in the uk supported the USSR. So I think it's certainly an anti Stalinist text, but not anti communist and certainly not pro capitalist.

[MP5]

Dedicated socialist and revolutionary? You mean a Labour Party-supporting reformist, right? The same guy whose last act in his life was snitching on communists and socialists to British intelligence, right? Evil totalitarianists, like Charlie Chaplin!

Ahahahahahahahahah.

He fought in Spain on the side of the Spanish republic and nearly got killed by getting shot in the neck by some fascist ****. If this was not bad enough the Stalinists accused the POUM as well as the Anarchists of collaborating with the fascists which was the biggest load of shit ever and proved to be the downfall of the Communist party in Spain. Orwell and the rest of the POUM basically became hunted down by both the fascists as well as the Stalinists.

If he did happen to pass on information about the Stalinists (and i would like to see a reference for that by the way) it was justified considering that the POUM and the Anarchists where hunted down and used as scapegoats by the Stalinists.

Yet in spite of all this he was still a dedicated Socialist and revolutionary. He damn near died for the cause which is far more then you can say.

[l'Enfermé]

Coming from a Kaut who wants these "Labour party-supporting reformists" in their own party.
Nice try, but no. Though you are welcome to continue making shit up. I'm neither a Kaut nor do I want labour-party supporting reformists in my class's party. My tendency has been pretty clear that membership in the party should be restricted to only those that agree with the party's explicitly Marxist minimum-maximum programme. But you can keep up the dishonesty and ignore that. Your musings regarding our political positions are obviously more important than ours. You can fuck off with your constant passive-agressiveness, though. It's not my problem that you embarrassed yourself by calling Orwell a dedicated socialist and a revolutionary(even though even he didn't consider himself a revolutionary; he was a very explicit reformist, he was less of a revolutionary and socialist then the German reformists that killed Liebknecht, Luxemburg and other Spartacists). He was a prominent Labour Party supporter. Not a revolutionary. A Labourite.

And do you not see the hypocrisy and irony in calling me out for being a reformist in the same thread where you called an actual reformist a revolutionary and dedicated socialist? Gee, man.

Though, getting shot in the neck fighting fascists in Spain on the side of Marxists and Anarchists makes him a pretty shitty guy.So he did one good thing and that somehow erases a lifetime of being a snitching anti-communist prick? How many Republicans were shot in the neck during the Spanish Civil War? Chetniks shot by Italian fascists are revolutionaries too now, right? Since when does being shot by fascists automatically promote one to the rank of revolutionary guru?



Yeah, I have no real concern that he ratted out Stalinists. No different than ratting out any other non-socialist organ.Stalininsts? If you don't know a single thing about Orwell's list, why the fuck are you pretending that you do? Why are you pretending you are some sort of authority on this question? Clearly, you aren't. Orwell's list wasn't just "Stalinists". It included pseudo-Trots like Deutscher, Irish Republicans and Connollyists like Peadar O'Donnel, Social-Democrats, Fabianists, anti-imperialists and Pan-African communists like George Padmore, pacifists, anti-fascists, etc, etc.

You and your fellow Orwell-apologists demonstrate the same type of anti-communist hypocrisy as Stalinists. Let's support anti-communist snitches if they write mean things about Stalin. Fucking brilliant. Communists don't accept critiques of Stalinism by liberals, reformists, and opportunists. We have our own critiques, critiques that aren't influenced by bourgeois ideology like Orwell's. Valid critiques, not moralistic, ahistorical and idealistic anti-dialectical bullshit.

[Red Enemy]

Nice try, but no. Though you are welcome to continue making shit up. I'm neither a Kaut nor do I want labour-party supporting reformists in my class's party.Sure you are/do.


My tendency has been pretty clear that membership in the party should be restricted to only those that agree with the party's explicitly Marxist minimum-maximum programme.Nope, I read that DNZ and others were supporters of allowing reformists in the party, so long as they were proletariat.


But you can keep up the dishonesty and ignore that. Your musings regarding our political positions are obviously more important than ours.They are.


You can fuck off with your constant passive-agressiveness, though. It's not my problem that you embarrassed yourself by calling Orwell a dedicated socialist and a revolutionary(even though even he didn't consider himself a revolutionary; he was a very explicit reformist, he was less of a revolutionary and socialist then the German reformists that killed Liebknecht, Luxemburg and other Spartacists).Ha! Surely you can prove your claim.


He was a prominent Labour Party supporter. Not a revolutionary. A Labourite.Lots of "Marxists" and other "revolutionaries" participated in the Labour party.


And do you not see the hypocrisy and irony in calling me out for being a reformist in the same thread where you called an actual reformist a revolutionary and dedicated socialist? Gee, man.Nope. How was he a reformist again?



So he did one good thing and that somehow erases a lifetime of being a snitching anti-communist prick?Anti-Stalinist. I know you've like to unite the revisionist left, but come on.


How many Republicans were shot in the neck during the Spanish Civil War? Chetniks shot by Italian fascists are revolutionaries too now, right? Since when does being shot by fascists automatically promote one to the rank of revolutionary guru?That's a poor analogy. Considering who Orwell fought with and what he fought for.


Stalininsts? If you don't know a single thing about Orwell's list, why the fuck are you pretending that you do? Why are you pretending you are some sort of authority on this question? Clearly, you aren't. Orwell's list wasn't just "Stalinists". It included pseudo-Trots like Deutscher, Irish Republicans and Connollyists like Peadar O'Donnel, Social-Democrats, Fabianists, anti-imperialists and Pan-African communists like George Padmore, pacifists, anti-fascists, etc, etc. A bunch of non-Marxists. Oh, the horror.


You and your fellow Orwell-apologists demonstrate the same type of anti-communist hypocrisy as Stalinists. Now Stalinists are anti-Communists.


Let's support anti-communist snitches if they write mean things about Stalin.Who says I support him? I just called him a revolutionary and a socialist. Never called him a Marxist hero... he is no Kautsky, comrade. We can't all vote for war credits.


Fucking brilliant. Communists don't accept critiques of Stalinism by liberals, reformists, and opportunists. We have our own critiques, critiques that aren't influenced by bourgeois ideology like Orwell's. Valid critiques, not moralistic, ahistorical and idealistic anti-dialectical bullshit.
Pardon?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Coming from a Kaut who wants these "Labour party-supporting reformists" in their own party.

Comrades, there is no need to put things in this manner, it is flameish and not conducive for debate... Especially over literature which is often much more politically significant than disagreements over political parties [/Oscar Wilde].

But as for the general argument around Orwell, I think that his work should not be judged by what later happened in his life. It's ultimately an attempt to retroactively make his books suspect and I just don't think that's a useful way to look at things.

Steinbeck was sympathetic liberal when it comes to the us communist movement, and then later became anticommunist. Uptown Sinclair was a supporter of debs and a socialist who then became rather conservative and a supporter of the us in Vietnam. Does this make the jungle or grapes of wrath any less significant? Maybe a better is Brecht who was a Communist, his works are brilliant IMO and no made less significant even though I disagree with his support of the East German government later in life.

I think something I dislike about animal farm is that even though I don't think it's anticommunist, it is very pessimistic. I think this is a reflection of the experience of the Stalinists in Spain and then a clampdown on speech and open criticism (of the uk or ussr) in the uk with WWII. I'd speculate that this pessimism was the same reason many prewar pro communists became postwar apoliticals or postmodernists (or proto postmodernists I guess) and probably had something to do with unprincipled things Orwell did in the last year of his life.

[helot]

How was he a reformist again?


Orwell was a social democrat iirc which of course is inherently reformist.

[MP5]

Orwell was a social democrat iirc which of course is inherently reformist.

He described himself as being a Democratic Socialist. So nope not a reformist. I can't fucking believe to this day people still get that wrong.

[helot]

He described himself as being a Democratic Socialist. So nope not a reformist.

I stand corrected then.




I can't fucking believe to this day people still get that wrong.


You say that like it matters and drives you insane.

[MP5]

You say that like it matters and drives you insane.

Naw just pisses me off a wee bit when people get things like that wrong.

[helot]

Naw just pisses me off a wee bit when people get things like that wrong.


I get lots of things wrong... Hell, i've not even read animal farm. I'm not much of an Orwell fan

[Hermes]

I don't really know that much about Orwell's personal life, to be honest, but I'm not sure you can use his fight against Nationalist Spain, more specifically as a part of POUM, as a rallying point. If I remember correctly, when he got to Spain he had no idea about the different brigades and simply ended up joining POUM because that was what he found first.

It's been a while since I've read Homage to Catalonia, though, so I might be mistaken. Apologies if that's the case.

[Geiseric]

Nice try, but no. Though you are welcome to continue making shit up. I'm neither a Kaut nor do I want labour-party supporting reformists in my class's party. My tendency has been pretty clear that membership in the party should be restricted to only those that agree with the party's explicitly Marxist minimum-maximum programme. But you can keep up the dishonesty and ignore that. Your musings regarding our political positions are obviously more important than ours. You can fuck off with your constant passive-agressiveness, though. It's not my problem that you embarrassed yourself by calling Orwell a dedicated socialist and a revolutionary(even though even he didn't consider himself a revolutionary; he was a very explicit reformist, he was less of a revolutionary and socialist then the German reformists that killed Liebknecht, Luxemburg and other Spartacists). He was a prominent Labour Party supporter. Not a revolutionary. A Labourite.

And do you not see the hypocrisy and irony in calling me out for being a reformist in the same thread where you called an actual reformist a revolutionary and dedicated socialist? Gee, man.
So he did one good thing and that somehow erases a lifetime of being a snitching anti-communist prick? How many Republicans were shot in the neck during the Spanish Civil War? Chetniks shot by Italian fascists are revolutionaries too now, right? Since when does being shot by fascists automatically promote one to the rank of revolutionary guru?

Stalininsts? If you don't know a single thing about Orwell's list, why the fuck are you pretending that you do? Why are you pretending you are some sort of authority on this question? Clearly, you aren't. Orwell's list wasn't just "Stalinists". It included pseudo-Trots like Deutscher, Irish Republicans and Connollyists like Peadar O'Donnel, Social-Democrats, Fabianists, anti-imperialists and Pan-African communists like George Padmore, pacifists, anti-fascists, etc, etc.

You and your fellow Orwell-apologists demonstrate the same type of anti-communist hypocrisy as Stalinists. Let's support anti-communist snitches if they write mean things about Stalin. Fucking brilliant. Communists don't accept critiques of Stalinism by liberals, reformists, and opportunists. We have our own critiques, critiques that aren't influenced by bourgeois ideology like Orwell's. Valid critiques, not moralistic, ahistorical and idealistic anti-dialectical bullshit.

You're causing a shitstorm about hearsay. The list of people he gave the BBC information agency was a list of people with vague leftist leanings. They were not prosecuted because of Orwell's "list," which you equate to a McCarthyist plot.

And your disrespect for somebody who was in the spanish civil war is ironic seeing as you will probably never be shot in an armed conflict against fascism.

[Geiseric]

I don't really know that much about Orwell's personal life, to be honest, but I'm not sure you can use his fight against Nationalist Spain, more specifically as a part of POUM, as a rallying point. If I remember correctly, when he got to Spain he had no idea about the different brigades and simply ended up joining POUM because that was what he found first.

It's been a while since I've read Homage to Catalonia, though, so I might be mistaken. Apologies if that's the case.

He could of joined the fascists though but he didn't, how much more proof do you need? He obviously supported the unions and workers organizations from the get go.

[Hermes]

He could of joined the fascists though but he didn't, how much more proof do you need? He obviously supported the unions and workers organizations from the get go.

I'm really not saying that, though. I'm saying that, the argument that he was obviously a radical socialist specifically because he fought for POUM, and not for the central government, isn't incredibly strong because he had no idea there was such a distinction, or what it meant, etc (again, I might still be wrong re: this).

I should have made it more clear, by quoting MP5's post, apologies.

Obviously I'm not saying he just decided Republican/Nationalist on a coin-flip.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nice try, but no. Though you are welcome to continue making shit up. I'm neither a Kaut nor do I want labour-party supporting reformists in my class's party. My tendency has been pretty clear that membership in the party should be restricted to only those that agree with the party's explicitly Marxist minimum-maximum programme. But you can keep up the dishonesty and ignore that. Your musings regarding our political positions are obviously more important than ours. You can fuck off with your constant passive-agressiveness, though. It's not my problem that you embarrassed yourself by calling Orwell a dedicated socialist and a revolutionary(even though even he didn't consider himself a revolutionary; he was a very explicit reformist, he was less of a revolutionary and socialist then the German reformists that killed Liebknecht, Luxemburg and other Spartacists). He was a prominent Labour Party supporter. Not a revolutionary. A Labourite.

[...]

Stalininsts? If you don't know a single thing about Orwell's list, why the fuck are you pretending that you do? Why are you pretending you are some sort of authority on this question? Clearly, you aren't. Orwell's list wasn't just "Stalinists". It included pseudo-Trots like Deutscher, Irish Republicans and Connollyists like Peadar O'Donnel, Social-Democrats, Fabianists, anti-imperialists and Pan-African communists like George Padmore, pacifists, anti-fascists, etc, etc.

Comrade, I didn't know he snitched on non-Stalinist socialists to British intelligence. :blushing:

But yes, thanks for addressing the slander that we somehow support the liquidationist notion of small-l labourite reformists in a worker-class movement.

[Invader Zim]

If you don't know a single thing about Orwell's list, why the fuck are you pretending that you do?

Hmm.

"The same guy whose last act in his life was snitching on communists and socialists to British intelligence, right?"

The list did not go to any branch of British intelligence. As I have explained on this board before, there were three discreet Intelligence agencies in Britain at that time: the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), the Security Service (MI5) and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). The various military service ministries, such as the War Office, Air Ministry and Admiralty, also included intelligence departments. Orwell's list did not pass to any of these agencies or departments. Rather it went to a Foreign Office 'grey' propaganda department called the Information Research Department. The IRD had a research section, which has been labelled as an 'intelligence' section, but this only works in the most loose, small 'i', application of the term - e.g. like the 'home intelligence' reports of the Ministry of Information. The aim of this department was to gather information, but not for the purpose of political or economic espionage, but instead to act as the basis for pro-British and anti-Soviet propaganda literature for dissemination by the Foreign Office.

It is also the case that the IRD underwent considerable transformation over its lifespan. In the late 1940s, under the Attlee government, is was a relatively modest affair with a mandate of counter-propaganda from the Stalinist bloc. However, under Tory governments it became a decidedly more aggressive organization, complete with a 'dirty tricks' department.

But regardless, it was not in the 1940s, or at any time thereafter, an intelligence agency according to any meaningful definition of the term or when viewed side-by-side with an actual foreign intelligence agency, like SIS.

And this leads us into the previous assertion you make, that Orwell 'snitched'. This is, in fact, a gross misrepresentation of Orwell's list. It was not a 'hit list', with either the design or function, of attracting unwanted official attention to the activities of the individuals on it. Rather the list was about IRD employment policy - the list was a group of individuals that Orwell believed would be unsuited to the task of penning IRD propaganda literature. Orwell provided no secret or clandestine information. He provided no names of individuals who did not have considerable public profiles and whose work and views were not well known and in the public sphere. Describing what he did as 'snitching', as in telling the authorities something about another individual he believed they did not already know, is simply in error.


Evil totalitarianists, like Charlie Chaplin!

I hope you see the contradiction here. You contend that Orwell 'snitched' to British intelligence, a list of names of 'communists and socialists', yet the only name you can think of, was of one of the most high-profile actors in the world, whose political views were well known, and who lived far beyond the reach of the British government. Plainly, the inclusion of Chaplin, indicates precisely what the list was all about - a group of individuals whom it would be unwise, or a waste of time, to ask to write for the IRD. Not the provision of a secret list of underground communists Orwell had derived from spying on the left-wing community.


He was a prominent Labour Party supporter.

No, he wasn't. He supported the Independent Labour Party which was a member party of the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre. And as for his revolutionary credentials, as others have noted, he took a bullet defending a revolution and dodged Stalinist machine gunners attempting to usurp a revolution. Seems pretty pro-revolutionary to me.


So he did one good thing and that somehow erases a lifetime of being a snitching anti-communist prick?

Wait, earlier you were talking about the list as being his 'last dying breath', and now you're contending that his list comprises a 'lifetime of being a snitching anti-communist prick'. Confused yourself? How can we help untangle you?

[DROSL]

I'm currently reading it in school. That, with all the stuff that the teachers are trying to brainwash us with, its awful. We are no longer able to make our own opinions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm currently reading it in school. That, with all the stuff that the teachers are trying to brainwash us with, its awful. We are no longer able to make our own opinions.In school, all opinions are equally valid... but some opinions are more equal than others, eh?:laugh:

[Orange Juche]

that's why I keep saying, as much as some rev lefties want to embrace Orwell as a sociailist, his two most famous works have been used as some of the best propaganda against communism. I too had to read Animal Farm and 1984 in my highschool english class, and it was basically a course in anti communism.

It's not Orwell's fault that teachers who use these books in this way are intellectually and historically stunted.

[Akshay!]

2 things:

1) I don't see Animal Farm and 1984 as anti-communist. They're anti-Stalinist, anti-authoritarian, and most importantly they're anti-capitalist!! (but, unfortunately, nobody thinks about them that way).

2) His book Homage to Catalonia is wayyyy better than both AF and 1984 combined. I don't know why it's not as famous though. Maybe because of his Anarchist Communist point of view..

[Art Vandelay]

You're causing a shitstorm about hearsay. The list of people he gave the BBC information agency was a list of people with vague leftist leanings. They were not prosecuted because of Orwell's "list," which you equate to a McCarthyist plot.

First off he wasn't the one causing the shit storm, the troll was. Secondly I didn't realize the part in bold made it any better, fucking disgusting a 'communist 'would defend that.


And your disrespect for somebody who was in the spanish civil war is ironic seeing as you will probably never be shot in an armed conflict against fascism.

Yes because one's revolutionary cred is exemplified by how many bullets they have taken fighting fascism regardless of what they were fighting for (a Spanish bourgeois republic, which was by its very nature anti-proletarian); by all means, the bourgeois republicans were more revolutionary then Marx, seeing as how they took more bullets for the 'cause.' Seriously, drop this nonsense, before I lose my temper.

[The Idler]

Don't listen to the ad hominems, Animal Farm is a great allegory regardless of Orwell's own political activity.

[Geiseric]

First off he wasn't the one causing the shit storm, the troll was. Secondly I didn't realize the part in bold made it any better, fucking disgusting a 'communist 'would defend that.



Yes because one's revolutionary cred is exemplified by how many bullets they have taken fighting fascism regardless of what they were fighting for (a Spanish bourgeois republic, which was by its very nature anti-proletarian); by all means, the bourgeois republicans were more revolutionary then Marx, seeing as how they took more bullets for the 'cause.' Seriously, drop this nonsense, before I lose my temper.

What nonsense? So that's what the spanish civil war was about according to you, a bourgeois republic? A lot more changed than the structure of the bourgeois state with fascism, but I don't really have to explain that. The revolutionary workers who shed their blood for spains unions, and for most of them the idea of socialism, deserve a lot more respect than some of the armchairs we have around who are dissing Orwell, who was in fact a socialist who did nothing but set the record straight.

[Nevsky]

I respect Owell both for his courage in the spanish civil war and his skills as a writer. However, I really dislike the ideological sideeffects of his famous novels."Animal Farm" was pretty much the equivalent of Khruschev's secret speech in the world of literature. Its clumsy, superficial anti-stalinism served as propaganda tool for liberal anti-communists and further divided the communists themselves.