1984, good book

[La Comédie Noire]

Geroge Orwell is an astounding writer, but let me tell you read it on your own and make your own conclusions because if you read it in school they'll plainly say "It's anti - communist" and nothing more about the lessons of blind patriotism and extreme totalierism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Did you ever wonder why they make it standard reading in most US highschools?

<_<

[La Comédie Noire]

Yeah I know whenever we read Animal Farm they have a field day with communism until your raise your hand and say "excuse me&#33; thats Stalinism it&#39;s critiqueing"

[rioters bloc]

i&#39;d read animal farm before, but when they taught us at school they weren&#39;t anti-communist at all. they made it clear that it was parodying russia, and that russia wasn&#39;t actually a communist state.

i don&#39;t really remember how they taught 1984 to us.

orwell was staunchly anti-communist though from what i hear.

but he was also anti-statist which is why many of his views resound with mine.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

I read Animal Farm in school and 1984 in college.

In both cases I more or less ignored my teachers and made my own interpretations.

[Des]

yet to read either of them...

everyone else i know read it during school - taught to them by the teachers.. but my school didnt.. umm.. i did indeed goto a rather shitty school...

i&#39;ll pick them up...

i heard orwell was really leftist...

[Roses in the Hospital]

Orwell is one of my favourate writers of all time, but he wasn&#39;t anti-communist, he against totallitarianism, whatever form it took

May I also recommend Down and Out in Paris and London and Homage to Catalonia too, both of which are well worth reading.

Has anyone read Road to Wigan Pier, it&#39;s a book I&#39;ve got, but never got round to reading yet...

[bolshevik butcher]

Orwell certainly wasn&#39;t anti-comunist, he fought for the socialists in spain. Another could writer who fought int he spannish civil war was laurie lee, i&#39;d highly reccomend his autobiography trilogy, cyder with rosie, as i walked out one morning and a moment of war. Which deal with his upbrining in a poor english peasnat village in the 1920s and how he went on to travel through spaina nd fight in the civil war.

[tatu]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell

Soon after the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, Orwell volunteered to fight for the Republicans against Franco&#39;s Nationalist uprising. As a sympathiser of the Independent Labour Party (of which he became a member in 1938), he joined the militia of its sister party in Spain, the anti-Stalinist far-left POUM (Workers&#39; Party of Marxist Unification), in which he fought as an infantryman. In Homage to Catalonia he described his admiration for the apparent absence of a class structure in the revolutionary areas of Spain he visited. He also depicted what he saw as the betrayal of that workers&#39; revolution in Spain by the Spanish Communist Party, abetted by the Soviet Union and its secret police, after its militia attacked the anarchists and the POUM in Barcelona in May 1937. Orwell was shot in the neck near Huesca on May 20, 1937, an experience he described in his short essay "Wounded by a Fascist Sniper", as well as in Homage to Catalonia. He and his wife Eileen left Spain after narrowly missing being arrested as "Trotskyites" when the communists moved to suppress the POUM in June 1937.

[La Comédie Noire]

So Orwell was a crtique of Communism but that doe&#39;snt mean he didn&#39;t think it was a good Idea. Well anyways, If Bush ever tries to ban books prepare to hide Orwell&#39;s works under your floor boards.

[Goatse]

I&#39;ve read Animal Farm a few times, really enjoyed it. Yet to read 1984, but I think there&#39;s a copy of it somewhere round my house.

[Amusing Scrotum]

1984 is possibly the best book I&#39;ve ever read.

Its also probably, the best critique of Stalinism written. Even though it takes the form of fiction, the basis for the story is undoubtebly Stalins&#39; Russia.

Also, I always thought Orwell was an Anarchist, and that is why he went to Spain.

[Latifa]

I would be inclined to believe he was an anarchist as well. I also think 1984 is one of the best books ever. How coincedental.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it."
- George Orwell, Why I Write

[Ultra-Violence]

I loved 1984 very much it had everything love,action,suspense etc............
but in my own opinion its not only a critiuqe of stalin but also a warning about the future.

for example here in L.A its becoming more and more like "BIG BROTHER" is watching us every where in libarys on the streets malls etc....... theirs cameras every were and cops taking pictures of us.....also the goverment know what websites you go to in the libary and waht books you check out.......so something else to think about commrades.

:hammer:

[Le People]

I have both books and they rock. Animal Farm is an entertaining little story about what went wrong in the ussr, 1984 is a study in extreme stalinist personality cultism. Orwell was a socailist, alomost a Trotskyist, who loathed stalinism.

[poster_child]

I really enjoyed both books, Animal Farm and 1984.

Animal Farm was upsetting though, because it shows how communism has such great potential, as in the beginning. Things were perfect, until it got fucked up. It shows how it really can be, until someone becomes greedy.

1984 was great- it&#39;s as if Orwell had a crystal ball into the future. It&#39;s amazing how he even percieved the invention of "computers" in the 1940&#39;s. It&#39;s even more amazing how people allow themselves to be constantly watched in the name of "anti-terrorism".

He truly is one of the greatest authors of all time.

[Bannockburn]

1984 and Animal farm however is also a book of Western liberal democracy as well. Your teachers fail to tell you about that. The Irony of it all is that Orwell is warning us of propaganda among other things and the books are usually exactly for that.

A good example is Orwell&#39;s preface to Animal farm. The preface was about freedom of the press. However Orwell was critiquing both Stalinist and Western press policy. Likewise because of this, his preface was censored. Not a lot of difference between the two.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Regicidal [email protected] 30 2005, 12:40 AM
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it."
- George Orwell, Why I Write
take in mind that "democratic socialism" does not mean he was a social democrat. Lenin described himself as a democratic socialist.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Likewise because of this, his preface was censored.

Where was it censored?

[RedStarOverChina]

To be honest I&#39;m not very impressed abut 1984. I got bored of it pretty much all the way till the end.


"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it."

I dont think anywhere in his novel 1984 did he point to taht notion---which makes me quite discontent about him.


Did you ever wonder why they make it standard reading in most US highschools?
Because that book is very nihilistic. What it implies for people is simply the message that, what u get in the capitalist system is as good as it gets.

The Bourgeois rulers liked that about the novel. It discourages people into thinking that there can be no change for the better.

[Ultra-Violence]

Because that book is very nihilistic. What it implies for people is simply the message that, what u get in the capitalist system is as good as it gets.

The Bourgeois rulers liked that about the novel. It discourages people into thinking that there can be no change for the better.

what do you mean by this comment commrade sure in the end its the same "GOVERMENT" but goerge in the book implie that the proles are the only ones who can you know start a revolution so i think goergy boy is telling us to "EDUCATE THE WORKING CLASS" that should be our first priorety they are the revoltion&#33; :hammer:

[Roses in the Hospital]

I dont think anywhere in his novel 1984 did he point to taht notion---which makes me quite discontent about him.

Read it again. One of the overwhelming messages is that &#39;hope lies in the proles&#39;, i.e that only the masses, rather than individuals, can make a significant change...

[Hegemonicretribution]

Animal Farm was written as a satire of the Russian revolution as many have indicated. 1984 Was written by Orwell as a warning to his son. This grave predictions were intended to give his son an idea of what he may be up against. Forget whether or not it is communist, it is also nationalist and fascist. Orwell ponted out elsewhere his more defined beliefs, there was no case to slap you in the face with it here.

[RedStarOverChina]

i think goergy boy is telling us to "EDUCATE THE WORKING CLASS" that should be our first priorety

Educate the poor so that they can support bourgeoisie saviors and fight against the unruly commies? What a deal&#33; :lol:


One of the overwhelming messages is that &#39;hope lies in the proles&#39;, i.e that only the masses, rather than individuals, can make a significant change...

Yes but WHAT KIND of change? The change towards a "free" society...much like what we have today, most readers will say. <_<


Regardless of Orwell&#39;s intentions, the aftermath of his novels are trememdously to our disadvantage. I&#39;ve had tons of people making reference to those novels as a "proof" that a communist society sucks. And that was exactly what Georgy tried to achieve, IMO.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:31 PM
Regardless of Orwell&#39;s intentions, the aftermath of his novels are trememdously to our disadvantage. I&#39;ve had tons of people making reference to those novels as a "proof" that a communist society sucks. And that was exactly what Georgy tried to achieve, IMO.
I suggest you read more of his work then, of course right wingers will take bits and use it to their advantage. Your summary is like saying we can&#39;t say Cambodia is bad because we just show how commnism is bad. Orwell is a true leftist before his time. Whilst he was to some extent shunned for not towing the left wing line of tyhe time, he was one of the first to speak out against what we should prevent the movement from becoming. He did this well, it is western society that has put its own spin on this, and used it to their advantage.

Nietzsche has been used to justify genocide, the bible for the crusades, Darwin for primitivism and Orwell for the persecution of commies......It wouldn&#39;t matter if Orwell wrote a brilliantly Utopian novel, the powers taht be would alter the perception of it so it met their own ends. Make up your own mind about it, but for Context just read a bit of background about Orwell.

[Black Dagger]

......It wouldn&#39;t matter if Orwell wrote a brilliantly Utopian novel, the powers taht be would alter the perception of it so it met their own ends.

But sometimes (such as now), it is not a case of the ruling class distorting ideas to serve their own ends, but of ideas being reactionary from the get-go.



Make up your own mind about it, but for Context just read a bit of background about Orwell.

Orwell took a turn away from communism after the spanish revolution, he was not a communist.

[Pawn Power]

Since RedStar is absent, George Orwell--Reactionary? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097859426&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&), from The RedStar2000 papers.
This is a good article on the reactionary habits of Orwell.

[RedJacobin]

Orwell was a snitch, a racist, and an anti-semite. Don&#39;t know what leftists see in his work, regardless of what they think of Stalin. The following is an article from the Nation, pulled from the archives (http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002w48/msg00058.htm) of the Marxism list.


The Nation, Dec 7, 1998
Alexander Cockburn, "Beat the Devil"
St. George&#39;s List

In our last installment we left the two most notable anti-Communist
literary figures in postwar England about to enjoy a country weekend
together, with George Orwell visiting Arthur Koestler&#39;s cottage in
Wales. This was Christmas 1946. Also present were Koestler&#39;s second
wife, Mamaine, and her twin sister, Celia Kirwan. Orwell took a shine to
Celia and indeed proposed to her soon after they were back in London.
She turned him down.

The most notorious component of the subsequent transactions was the
remission by Orwell to Kirwan of a list of the names of persons on the
left whom he deemed security risks, as Communists or fellow travelers.
The notoriety stems from the fact that Kirwan worked for the Information
Research Department, lodged in the Foreign Office but in fact overseen
by the Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6.

When Orwell&#39;s secret denunciations surfaced a couple of years ago, there
was a medium-level commotion. Now, with the publication of Peter
Davison&#39;s maniacally complete twenty-volume collected Orwell, the topic
of Orwell as government snitch has flared again, with more lissome
apologies for St. George from the liberal/left and bellows of applause
from cold-warriors, taking the line that if Orwell, great hero of the
non-Communist left, named names, then that provides moral cover for all
the Namers of Names who came after him.

Those on the non-Com left have rushed to shore up St. George&#39;s
reputation. Some emphasize Orwell&#39;s personal feelings toward Kirwan. The
guy was in love. Others argue Orwell was near death&#39;s door,
traditionally a time for confessionals. Others have insisted that Orwell
didn&#39;t really name names, and, anyway (this was Ian Hamilton in the
London Review of Books), "he was forever making lists"-a fishing log, a
log of how many eggs his hens laid-so why not a snitch list?

Christopher Hitchens hastened into print in vanity Fair with a burrito
con todo of these approaches. "Orwell named no names and disclosed no
identities." Actually, he did both, as in "Parker, Ralph. Underground
member and close FT [fellow traveler]? Stayed on in Moscow. Probably
careerist." Presumably these secret advisories to an IRD staffer whom
Hitchens describes as not only a "trusted friend" and "old flame" but
also-no supporting evidence offered for this odd claim-"a leftist of
heterodox opinions" had consequences. Blacklists usually do. No doubt
the list was passed on in some form to American intelligence agencies
that made due note of those listed as fellow travelers and duly
proscribed them under the McCarran Act.

Hitchens speaks of Orwell&#39;s "tendresse" for Kirwan. He insists Orwell
"wasn&#39;t interested in unearthing heresy or in getting people fired or in
putting them under the discipline of a loyalty oath," though as opposed
to the mellow tendresse for secret agent Kirwan, he had "an acid
contempt for the Communists who had betrayed their cause and their
country once before and might do so again."

Here Orwell would surely have given a vigorous nod. Orwell&#39;s defenders
claim that he was only making sure the wrong sort of person wasn&#39;t hired
by the Foreign Office to write essays on the British way of life. But
Orwell made it clear to the IRD he was identifying people who were
"unreliable" and who, worming their way into organizations like the
British Labor Party, "might be able to do enormous mischief." Loyalty
was the issue.

There seems to be general agreement by Orwell&#39;s fans, left and right, to
skate gently over Orwell&#39;s suspicions of Jews, homosexuals and blacks,
also over the extreme ignorance of his assessments. Of Paul Robeson he
wrote, "very anti-white. [Henry] Wallace supporter." Only a person who
instinctively thought all blacks were anti-white could have written this
piece of stupidity. One of Robeson&#39;s indisputable features, consequent
upon his intellectual disposition and his connections with the
Communists, was that he was most emphatically not "very anti-white." Ask
the Welsh coal miners for whom Robeson campaigned.

If any other postwar left intellectual was suddenly found to have
written mini-diatribes about blacks, homosexuals and Jews, we can safely
assume that subsequent commentary would not have been forgiving. Here
there&#39;s barely a word about Orwell&#39;s antiSemitism-"Deutscher (Polish
Jew)," "Driberg, Tom. English Jew," "Chaplin, Charles (Jewish?)," on
which the usually sensitive Norman Podhoretz was silent in National
Review and which Hitchens softly alludes to as "a slightly thuggish
side"-or about his crusty dislike of pansies, vegetarians, peaceniks,
women in tweed skirts and others athwart the British Way. Much of the
time he sounds like a cross between Evelyn Waugh, a much better writer,
and Paul Johnson, as in Orwell&#39;s comment that "one of the surest signs
of [Conrad&#39;s] genius is that women dislike his books." The racist drivel
about Robeson and about George Padmore--"Negro. African origin? Expelled
CP about 1936. Nevertheless pro-Russian. Main emphasis anti-white"
--arouses no comment.

Then there&#39;s the IRD, an outfit that, at the time of Orwell&#39;s
listmaking, was strenuously reaching out to Ukrainian nationalists, many
of whom had enthusiastically assisted the Nazi Einsatzgruppen as they
went about liquidating Jews and Communists. One IRD man working in this
capacity was Robert Conquest, a big Orwell fan and Kirwan admirer. I
discussed his role in an exchange with him in The Nation in 1989, one I
remember Hitchens said he&#39;d read closely, which makes his studiously
vague reference in The Nation to "something named the Information
Research Department" disingenuous. Conquest, in the TLS, cites a letter
of Orwell&#39;s to Koestler as evidence that Orwell was well aware of what
the IRD was up to with the Ukrainians and approved.

When someone becomes a saint, everything is mustered as testimony to his
holiness. So it is with St. George and his list. Thus, in 1998 we have
fresh endorsement of all the cold war constructs as they were shaped in
the immediate postwar years, when the cold war coalition from right to
left signed on to fanatical anti-Communism. The IRD, disabled in the
seventies by a Labor Foreign Minister on the grounds it was a sinkhole
of right-wing nuts, would have been pleased.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I still think his roles against revolutions is partly because he thought things would go a certain way. Perhaps the only one he would be comfortable with is one spearheaded by him. This is maybe true of all of us, I would be counter-revolutionary in some cases, in fact there are not many groups I would back to prevent another poor regime. We have to look at who Orwell sold out.

Although I will not defend him to the hilt, I do not idolise him, and as a Marxist should be in regards to everything, I am critical. Thanks for posting that piece, there were parts that I had never come accross before. In relation to some of what I said (unless someone proves otherwise) I stand corrected. ;)

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

Animal Farm was great.

1984 was sex, and then torture.

Very kinky. Very boring.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:21 AM
This is maybe true of all of us, I would be counter-revolutionary in some cases, in fact there are not many groups I would back to prevent another poor regime.
There&#39;s a difference between refusing to back revolutions and handing member lists filled with racist and anti-semitic rantings to agents of imperialist states.