Animal Farm [Archive]

RedJacobin

13th December 2005, 00:56

Orwell was no leftist. He was a snitch, a racist, and an anti-Semite. He wasn't worth a hair on Paul Robeson's head.

There seems to be general agreement by Orwell's fans, left and right, to
skate gently over Orwell'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'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's barely a word about Orwell'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's comment that "one of the surest signs
of [Conrad'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.
read more: st. george's list by alex cockburn (http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002w48/msg00058.htm)

polemi-super-cised

13th December 2005, 01:17

I've always thought that Animal Farm is a masterpiece.

Obviously, as an allegory of the Russian Revolution, it has to be overwhelmingly negative. Having said that, I still think it depicts Communism (the ideal) in a favourable light: even though corruption and tyranny destroy the revolution, there is still the glorious moment of victory when the Jones' are driven off the farm. And initially, all seems to be working well.

Orwell's warning is against authoritarianism - the exploitation of the workers by tyrants, and the betrayal of the revolution by greedy, power-hungry thugs. Aren't these concepts subscribed to by most leftists?

Rockfan

13th December 2005, 02:27

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2005, 11:38 AM
Orwell was a Democratic Socialist?

In my discussion with my friends, they too brought up that it wasnt anti-communist but anti-Stalinist, and I didnt know if I agreed or not. I read it in the vein that it was criticizing communism in general, implying that Communism would always cause a totalitarian/Stalinist dictatorship. This was the misconception I thought Orwell had, but I should probably do more research on him before I throw him into the category of your typical anti-Communist.
Get a copie that comes with a short passage about Orwell. It is a masterpeaice that has unfortunatly just been used in schools etc to potray communism as always becoming totalitarian.

Organic Revolution

13th December 2005, 02:32

orwell was an anarchist by the way

More Fire for the People

13th December 2005, 03:11

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 12 2005, 08:32 PM
orwell was an anarchist by the way
I wasn't aware anarchist had lowered themselves to pulling shit out of their ass to present as fact.

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 know it. -- George Orwell

Red Menace

13th December 2005, 04:53

i haven't read it, in a while. I think this now, and i was too stupid to know at the time but i think it was about communism. you have the animals, and they revolt against their "Oppresors" and they are now in control. they appoint the leaders the pigs. they are fine at first, then i believe wasn't it that they started developing rules, and it soon became what they hated in the first place. the pigs became a dictatorship like so many once communist states. the animals revolted and killed the pigs, but again they needed a leader once more i think thus creating a cycle. please tell me if im wrong

Rockfan

13th December 2005, 08:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:53 PM
i haven't read it, in a while. I think this now, and i was too stupid to know at the time but i think it was about communism. you have the animals, and they revolt against their "Oppresors" and they are now in control. they appoint the leaders the pigs. they are fine at first, then i believe wasn't it that they started developing rules, and it soon became what they hated in the first place. the pigs became a dictatorship like so many once communist states. the animals revolted and killed the pigs, but again they needed a leader once more i think thus creating a cycle. please tell me if im wrong
A pig makes a speech (Lenin) and tells the animals to rise up, he then dies, they rise up and form a new system with two pigs in joint leadership (Trotsky and Starlen) and a serise of rules are put up. Then a series of events happening from russian history e.g. WW2, industrialisation and the trotsky pig is exiled and the rules start to change, in the end the rules end up as everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Thats a quick reveiw I might have missed some stuff.

Roses in the Hospital

13th December 2005, 14:53

Orwell was no leftist. He was a snitch, a racist, and an anti-Semite. He wasn't worth a hair on Paul Robeson's head.

...and Karl Marx thought that homosexuality was a product of bourgeois decadance, does that mean he wasn't a leftist either...

orwell was an anarchist by the way

He may have fought for an anarchist party in the Spanish Civil War, but that was more by fluke than anything else, as has already been pointed out he was more of a democratic socialist than anything else...

"I have no particular love for the idealised 'worker' as he appears in the bourgeois Communist's mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on."
-George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia

ComradeOm

13th December 2005, 14:59

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 13 2005, 02:32 AM
orwell was an anarchist by the way
Considering that he turned reformist rather than anarchist when confronted by the authoritarianism of the CPs I doubt that.

Doshka

13th December 2005, 15:21

[QUOTE]Don't get me wrong, I still think the book, and the author, both suck.

I think that this is by far one of the stupidest comments ever made about Orwell or any of his books. I realize that everyone here would like to be the best and biggest leftist/communist there is, but trashing a great piece of literature and its writer are not exactly the brightest way to go about this. In fact, that is probably one of the most superficial ways to go about this. You want to be a communist, you do it on your own accord, not by grabbing a book you have read and making a lame comment about it.

Orwell is a great writer. That is not up to question. He is witty, and very brilliant, and that is all there is to it. Whether you agree with his political stances or not is completely irrelevant. Having an intelligent debate on his writerly skills is one thing, but to say stupid statements like he "sucks" is totally another. I am not saying that we should accept all known writers as brilliant and that is that. But not one person who has criticized him here has mentioned a valid reason that relates to his writing at all. Diego Armando, you are just as bad as Comrade Corinna.

As far as his stances are concerned, I happen to agree with Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor and polemi-super-cised completely. We should not be fighting Orwell because he rejects totalitarianism. I would think that that is not something any of us support, nor is it a communist ideology.

Orwell was no leftist. He was a snitch, a racist, and an anti-Semite. He wasn't worth a hair on Paul Robeson's head.

Well fats, to the best of my knowledge, you cannot be a racist. Racist is an adjective, not a noun. As far as Orwell being a "snitch", I am not sure I understand. He was a thief? Or do you mean he told on his friends? I do not think that he is either, nor do I think you understood the word when you wrote it. Either way, I do not see what that has to do with either his political stances or his literature. I am not even going to go into the "anti-Semite" comment, because I truly think that it is moronic. I am an Arab, and as such, a Semite and he does not offend me. If you meant to say anti-Jewish, then I'd like to see how, and I would also like you to somehow relate this to his literature in some relevent way. If you cannot do this, then maybe you should not have mentioned it. I think that that term has become far too popular in recent years. It must be the word of the year. And it is abused. Like the word "Nazi", it is a taboo, and it is used as a label for anyone that people want to discredit. Which is a cheap way to go about a debate.

One quotation by a person who obviously does not care for Orwell at all does not prove anything. The statements Orwell is quoted for could very well have been taken out of context. He remains a great writer. This does not mean that there are not other great writers.

In the end, I think it is important for us to realize that a writers personal life/choices have absolutely nothing to do with the value of their work. Hitler's favorite composer was Wagner, who is a known Nazi by belief. Does that make his music any worse? I do not think so. I do not think it touches on his music at all. Mozart was a womanizer and an asshole to his family. Again, he is still a great musician. Salvadore Dali was a COCKY sonofa*****, quoted for saying something along the lines of "I thank my god every morning that he gave the world Salvadore Dali". Dali's art is still brilliant. Hemmingway was a known bullfighter. Dostoyevsky a religious, conservative bastard. Virginia Woolf a suicidal nutcase, as was Sylvia Plath. Woody Allen married his step-daughter. All of these people are still phenomenal artists. I think you get my point. Which is mainly that this thread has very little basis. Everone is entitled to his/her opinion's on literature, but you just look like a moron when you say them without backing them up with something substancial.

The Grey Blur

13th December 2005, 16:30

Animal Farm is a brilliant book

redstar2000

13th December 2005, 18:45

Originally posted by Doshka+--> (Doshka)Orwell is a great writer. That is not up to question. He is witty, and very brilliant, and that is all there is to it.[/b]

Nonsense.

After his unfortunate experiences in Spain, he drifted into "hack work" for the ruling class.

Animal Farm is a poorly written work and 1984 is just trash...it should be called "anti-socialist realism".

Rage Against The Machine
Animal Farm is a brilliant book.

No, it's a reactionary piece of shit.

George Orwell -- Reactionary? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097859426&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Orwell Again??? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1105929449&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

TheComrade

13th December 2005, 21:31

Animal Farm is a poorly written work and 1984 is just trash...it should be called "anti-socialist realism".

Any particular reason? Try and substansiate with your own reasoning rather than other peoples in the form of links!

Animal Farm is not poorly written. It is a carefully woven piece of text - the changes are subtle and gradual - and accuratly portray the brutality of a Stalinist regime. The use of animals is clever - the use of a story, bringing in human emotions is particularly effective because it actually means something to ordinary people (unlike like leftist jargon and manifestos.) So he could have written an essay, a dissertation, on how from his experiences he didn't believe Communism worked effectively but far fewer people would want to read that, it's boring and would age very quickly (again, like the many leftist manifestos) but because it is a story, because it is actually about human emotions and actions (although carried out by animals) it will stand the test of time and remain a significant book for decades to come.

Red Menace

13th December 2005, 21:57

Comrade Corinna

13th December 2005, 22:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:21 PM

[QUOTE]Don't get me wrong, I still think the book, and the author, both suck.

I think that this is by far one of the stupidest comments ever made about Orwell or any of his books. I realize that everyone here would like to be the best and biggest leftist/communist there is, but trashing a great piece of literature and its writer are not exactly the brightest way to go about this. In fact, that is probably one of the most superficial ways to go about this. You want to be a communist, you do it on your own accord, not by grabbing a book you have read and making a lame comment about it.

Orwell is a great writer. That is not up to question. He is witty, and very brilliant, and that is all there is to it. Whether you agree with his political stances or not is completely irrelevant. Having an intelligent debate on his writerly skills is one thing, but to say stupid statements like he "sucks" is totally another. I am not saying that we should accept all known writers as brilliant and that is that. But not one person who has criticized him here has mentioned a valid reason that relates to his writing at all. Diego Armando, you are just as bad as Comrade Corinna.

As far as his stances are concerned, I happen to agree with Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor and polemi-super-cised completely. We should not be fighting Orwell because he rejects totalitarianism. I would think that that is not something any of us support, nor is it a communist ideology.

Orwell was no leftist. He was a snitch, a racist, and an anti-Semite. He wasn't worth a hair on Paul Robeson's head.

Well fats, to the best of my knowledge, you cannot be a racist. Racist is an adjective, not a noun. As far as Orwell being a "snitch", I am not sure I understand. He was a thief? Or do you mean he told on his friends? I do not think that he is either, nor do I think you understood the word when you wrote it. Either way, I do not see what that has to do with either his political stances or his literature. I am not even going to go into the "anti-Semite" comment, because I truly think that it is moronic. I am an Arab, and as such, a Semite and he does not offend me. If you meant to say anti-Jewish, then I'd like to see how, and I would also like you to somehow relate this to his literature in some relevent way. If you cannot do this, then maybe you should not have mentioned it. I think that that term has become far too popular in recent years. It must be the word of the year. And it is abused. Like the word "Nazi", it is a taboo, and it is used as a label for anyone that people want to discredit. Which is a cheap way to go about a debate.

One quotation by a person who obviously does not care for Orwell at all does not prove anything. The statements Orwell is quoted for could very well have been taken out of context. He remains a great writer. This does not mean that there are not other great writers.

In the end, I think it is important for us to realize that a writers personal life/choices have absolutely nothing to do with the value of their work. Hitler's favorite composer was Wagner, who is a known Nazi by belief. Does that make his music any worse? I do not think so. I do not think it touches on his music at all. Mozart was a womanizer and an asshole to his family. Again, he is still a great musician. Salvadore Dali was a COCKY sonofa*****, quoted for saying something along the lines of "I thank my god every morning that he gave the world Salvadore Dali". Dali's art is still brilliant. Hemmingway was a known bullfighter. Dostoyevsky a religious, conservative bastard. Virginia Woolf a suicidal nutcase, as was Sylvia Plath. Woody Allen married his step-daughter. All of these people are still phenomenal artists. I think you get my point. Which is mainly that this thread has very little basis. Everone is entitled to his/her opinion's on literature, but you just look like a moron when you say them without backing them up with something substancial.
You don't have to imply that because I didnt like the book that I am ignorant! I read it assuming Orwell was just another reactionary anti-communist bastard who wanted to prove that Communism would ALWAYS become totalitarian. However, if you look at it another way, its really the totalitarian aspect he was criticizing.

I personally did not enjoy reading Animal Farm, I wouldnt go as far as to say it was a piece of shit and nobody should read it, but I didn't like it. That's just my opinion- which doesnt make me more or less intelligent or communist or whatever. I didn't like his writing style.

I also think that Lenin was a poor writer, but I still agree with a lot of his ideas. It's just a matter of opinion.

anomaly

13th December 2005, 23:37

I strongly disagree with Redstar. I recently read 1984 and loved it. It wasn't really about the Soviet Union at all, but rather on Orwell's thoughts on what the 'official left' in Britain could become given time (he considered the British Labour Party the official left, while Orwell was part of the 'dissident left'). With the power the Labour Party had after the war, one can see why he thought this. Of course, the novel is bitterly anti-Stalinist, but Stalinists are just stupid fucks anyway, to be perfectly frank. He felt Britain was heading down the Stalinist road. Given this, what reason have you, Redstar, for this rather unique opinion?

As far as Animal Farm goes, it's simply a critique of the Soviet Union, written as a satire. One may say he 'glorifies' Trotsky, but given the atrocities done by Stalin, including exiling Trotsky, who can blam him? Trotsky, in many socialist's eyes at that time, was a martyr, betrayed by Stalin. I rather enjoyed it as a critique of the Soviet Union.

Oh, and yes, of course, Orwell was, clearly, a democratic socialist. In fact, he said that every novel he wrote was an attempt at anti-totalitarianism, not 'anti-socialism'.

polemi-super-cised

13th December 2005, 23:41

Animal Farm is a poorly written work and 1984 is just trash...it should be called "anti-socialist realism".

I don't think either piece is poorly written. And more importantly, I don't think either piece is 'reactionary' - not in my reading of the texts, anyhow. Orwell presents two harrowing visions of future "Communist" (?) society, sure enough; but given the context that he wrote in, I see them both as (justifiable) "warnings" against the abuse of power rather than an attempt to deny the potential of the revolution.

They are essentially "fables". And in such tales, "good" and "evil" (manifested in various 'dramatis personae') are always locked in some struggle or another: Orwell chooses to comment on "society" through the political arena.

In '1984', the "good" is represented by Winston Smith and his striving for truth and justice - the "evil" by Big Brother and the horrendous 'IngSoc'. Always, the "hope" is that the proletarians will realise their latent power and rise up, crushing the oppressive "Socialists".

As has been mentioned, in 'Animal Farm' the "evil" is in the betrayal of the revolution, not inherent in the revolution itself. I always thought of that as a positive to take from the book.

Maybe your reading is different...

redstar2000

14th December 2005, 02:17

Originally posted by TheComrade+--> (TheComrade)Try and substantiate with your own reasoning rather than other people's in the form of links![/b]

Try clicking on the links and you'll see whose reasoning I am offering as "substantiation". :lol:

anomaly
Given this, what reason have you, Redstar, for this rather unique opinion?

My reasoning is set forth in the links posted above.

Perhaps my opinion "is unique" at this time...I really don't know.

I do know that it doesn't bother me at all. :P

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

RedJacobin

14th December 2005, 06:56

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 13 2005, 02:53 PM

Orwell was no leftist. He was a snitch, a racist, and an anti-Semite. He wasn't worth a hair on Paul Robeson's head.

...and Karl Marx thought that homosexuality was a product of bourgeois decadance, does that mean he wasn't a leftist either...
first, where does Marx say that "homosexuality is a product of bourgeois decadance"? that's the first time i've heard that.

and second, the issue here isn't whether Orwell was expressing racist, anti-Semitic sentiments in private correspondence.

he wrote racist, anti-Semitic remarks on a list of "subversives" that he HANDED OVER TO THE BRITISH STATE. he wanted to help british imperialism destroy the careers and lives of people on the left -- people like Paul Robeson -- because of real or imagined connections to Communists.

so much for taking a stand against "Big Brother," eh?

also, if anyone knows, it'd be interesting to discuss Orwell's opinion on Ireland and its struggle for liberation, given his tendency towards British nationalism.

RedJacobin

14th December 2005, 07:21

ANIMAL FARM PARODY

I haven't read it, but this parody of Animal Farm looks like it does a good job mocking Orwell's reactionary politics. It's called "Snowball's Chance" (http://www.roofbooks.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=93780100836410) by John Reed (yes, the guy is really named John Reed).

NY Times, Nov. 25, 2002
A Pig Returns to the Farm, Thumbing His Snout at Orwell
By DINITIA SMITH

What if Snowball had his chance? An American novelist has written a parody
of "Animal Farm," George Orwell's 1945 allegory about the evils of
communism, in which the exiled pig, Snowball, returns to the farm and sets
up a capitalist state, leading to misery for all the animals. The book,
"Snowball's Chance" by John Reed, is being published this month by Roof
Books, a small independent press in New York. And the estate of George
Orwell is not happy about it.

William Hamilton, the British literary executor of the Orwell estate,
objected to the parody in an e-mail message to the James T. Sherry, the
publisher of Roof Books, saying, "The contemporary setting can only
trivialize the tragedy of Orwell's mid-20th-century vision of totalitarianism."

"The clear references to 9/11 in the apocalyptic ending can only bring
Orwell's name into disrepute in the U.S.," Mr. Hamilton wrote. Reached by
phone, he said he had nothing more to add to the message.

"Snowball's Chance" is being published at a time when Orwell's reputation
has been under attack because of revelations that in the late 1940's he
gave the British Foreign Office a list of people he suspected of being
"crypto-Communists and fellow travelers," labeling some of them as Jews and
homosexuals as well. One of those condemning Orwell has been the writer
Alexander Cockburn, whose father, Claud, a British journalist and member of
the Communist Party, was a bitter foe of Orwell's.

"How quickly one learns to loathe the affectations of plain bluntishness,"
Mr. Cockburn writes in an introduction to Mr. Reed's novella. "The man of
conscience turns out to be a whiner, and of course a snitch."

Coming to Orwell's defense in a book published in September, "Why Orwell
Matters" (Basic Books), Christopher Hitchens calls Orwell "a great
humanist" whose opinions still hold water. "It has lately proved possible
to reprint every single letter, book review and essay composed by Orwell,"
he writes, "without exposing him to any embarrassment."

The debate is set to continue this evening, when Mr. Hitchens is scheduled
to appear at Cooper Union with Simon Schama, James Miller and the New
Yorker writer Bill Buford for "Orwell Now," a symposium presented by the
PEN American Center.

Mr. Reed said he was watching the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on
television in his East Village apartment on Sept. 11 when the idea came to
him to rewrite the Orwell classic. "I thought, `Why would they do this to
us?' " he remembered. "The twin towers attack showed us that something is
wrong with our system, too."

He decided, he said, that the world had a new form of evil to deal with,
and it was not communism. It was the evil, he said, within American
corporate capitalism itself, and American arrogance in protecting its
interests in the Middle East oil fields. To Mr. Reed, "Animal Farm" was the
ultimate expression of pro-capitalist ideology. "It has inoculated
generations of schoolchildren against the evils of communism," Mr. Reed said.

Mr. Reed says he is definitely one of those in the anti-Orwell camp. "I
really wanted to explode that book," he said of "Animal Farm." "I wanted to
completely undermine it."

In Orwell's allegory, the animals go hungry and are worked to death for the
benefit of their communist pig masters. In the final scene the animals gaze
into the window of the farmhouse watching the pigs cavorting with their
human oppressors and can no longer tell the two apart.

Mr. Reed decided to turn Orwell's classic back on itself. In his parody
Napoleon, the Stalinist pig dictator of "Animal Farm," dies, and his old
rival, Snowball, returns transformed into a corporate capitalist dressed in
cuff links and a blazer. "Tonight, I present an animalage of such erudition
that all the wisdom of the village is now ours," Snowball says, announcing
a new, decidedly free-market credo for the farm: "All animals are born
equal * what they become is their own affair."

The farm initially expands under capitalism. The animals get hot water and
air-conditioning, start wearing clothes and begin walking on their hind
legs. The farm encroaches on the territory of the neighboring woodland
animals. The pigs bomb the beaver dams and disrupt the free flow of water *
make that oil * in the forest. Eventually the farm's ecology is destroyed
by overdevelopment, and it is turned into one giant Disney theme park,
complete with confessional sideshows.

The woodland creatures, led by the beavers * read Islamic fundamentalists *
incensed at the destruction of their environment, attack the twin
windmills, which power the farm and are a stand-in for the towers of the
World Trade Center. The book ends with the farm animals crying out for
revenge against the fundamentalists: "`Kill the beavers! Kill the beavers!
Kill! Kill!"'

Mr. Sherry said he believed that he had the right to publish the book under
a 1994 Supreme Court ruling that in some cases protects parody as a form of
free speech. Last year a federal appeals court in Atlanta overturned a
publication ban on "The Wind Done Gone" by Alice Randall, a retelling of
Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind" from the point of view of a slave,
on the ground that it was a political parody.

"Snowball's Chance" is the 33-year-old Mr. Reed's second novel. His first
was "A Still Small Voice" (Delacorte, 2000), an allegory about the Civil
War. He is a native New Yorker who grew up in TriBeCa, the son of artists.
As a child, Mr. Reed said, he used to play in the spaces under the twin
towers, and their destruction had a particular resonance for him.

Despite the brutal ending of "Snowball's Chance," Mr. Reed said, he still
thinks "capitalism has a better chance of working than communism," but "it
would be a true capitalist system rather than a conglomerate system."

"We would have an America of true democracy, with equal protection under
the law for all," he said.

RedJacobin

14th December 2005, 07:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:21 PM
Well fats, to the best of my knowledge, you cannot be a racist. Racist is an adjective, not a noun. As far as Orwell being a "snitch", I am not sure I understand. He was a thief? Or do you mean he told on his friends? I do not think that he is either, nor do I think you understood the word when you wrote it. Either way, I do not see what that has to do with either his political stances or his literature. I am not even going to go into the "anti-Semite" comment, because I truly think that it is moronic. I am an Arab, and as such, a Semite and he does not offend me. If you meant to say anti-Jewish, then I'd like to see how, and I would also like you to somehow relate this to his literature in some relevent way. If you cannot do this, then maybe you should not have mentioned it. I think that that term has become far too popular in recent years. It must be the word of the year. And it is abused. Like the word "Nazi", it is a taboo, and it is used as a label for anyone that people want to discredit. Which is a cheap way to go about a debate.
did you read the article I posted underneath my original comment?

i think it describes Orwell's racism, snitching, anti-Jewish (correction accepted) sentiments quite well. it should tell you something that none of the Orwell supporters are denying the allegations, only making weak dismissals.

One quotation by a person who obviously does not care for Orwell at all does not prove anything. The statements Orwell is quoted for could very well have been taken out of context. He remains a great writer. This does not mean that there are not other great writers.
it's not just "one quotation" incriminating Orwell, it's an actual snitch list of "subversives" that he handed over to the British state, filled with the above-mentioned racist and anti-Jewish scribblings. don't you think it's just a tiny bit hypocritical that he does something like that, after doing all that moralizing about "fighting totalitarianism"?

In the end, I think it is important for us to realize that a writers personal life/choices have absolutely nothing to do with the value of their work.
volunteering to be a meat-puppet to help British imperialism destroy the careers of people on the Left is a political act, not some personal lifestyle choice.

TheComrade

14th December 2005, 17:16

ok we can argue for days on end that the book was a masterpiece, or it was a piece of shit, and it won't get us anywhere. i personally like it. but what i didn't get was when the animals admitted to the crimes and after they saw that they were being executed that they still continued to admit to their crimes. i would have kept my mouth shut

They were brainwashed - made to believe that they must admit to crimes, however small, because if they didn't the evil farmer would return. That and fear.

Doshka

14th December 2005, 19:49

Ok now I remember why I couldn't stand you before, redstar. It's because back then you were the arrogant little shit you are today and it's really quite annoying when you say such ignorant comments. I don't think you understand literature at all, or respect it. If you dont, that is fine, but I don't see why you are participating in a literary debate. absolutely nothing in your posts have anything to do with literature. Your crass comment about Orwell's writing being crap is such bullshit. Making a statement like that rquires you to support it with something of your own. If you have nothing of your own to support it with, than you do not have a deep enough knowledge or understanding of literature, which means that you should probably keep your fat mouth shut about what you don't understand. I mean you can go ahead and continue opening your mouth if you must, but it will only make you look like a bigger idiot than you do now. And you look like quite an idiot.

oh and, as far as your brilliant suggestion is concerned,

it should be called "anti-socialist realism"

I think I'll judge your literary appreciation from that masterpeice of an idea right there. But thanks for providing us all with such an amazing alternate title. I am sure they will choose that very one to adopt, if ever they decide to change it.

Fats, if what you have written is true, than that is disappointing. However, it does not at all prove any point about Animal Farm, or any other book written by Orwell for that matter. Political statment or personal one, it remains a statement, and no kind of statement touches upon a person's writing unless it is a written statement incorperated in the text. If it is anything else, than it is irrelevent. If you would like to turn this into a debate about Orwell the man, than that is another issue. So while your list of subversives may very well support your perception of his political stance, it is really unrelated.

I read it assuming Orwell was just another reactionary anti-communist bastard

That is a problem comrad. I am hoping you do not assume things about writers or people often. Why you would assume what you admitted you did about this is beyond me. Never assume. Take things as they are. Or at least as how they are portrayed.

we can argue for days on end that the book was a masterpiece, or it was a piece of shit, and it won't get us anywhere

I believe it will get us somewhere. If only to a slightly higher level of knowledge, it will get us somewhere.

Roses in the Hospital

15th December 2005, 00:56

It's because back then you were the arrogant little shit you are today

Come on, let's try and keep this civil...

Leif

15th December 2005, 03:06

I'm not exactily on either side of this debate.

Orwell claimed to be a Democratic Socialist, who wrote two books, 1984 and AF, which are required reading. I believe that 1984 indeed did discourage the people's revolution, but it could also be seen as another rejection of state capitalism as a metaphor for what the USSR was like. I believe that AF was More Anti Stalinist than anything elese. He framed positively the revolution itself, Snowball was a metaphor for Trotsky, Napolean Stalin, and Old Major as Marx. It criticized Napolean and Squaler yet promoted the ideas of Snowball. I cannot believe that AF was counter-revolutionary.

Another of Orwell's works I have read, Homage to Catalona, was alright. I remember a negative remark about Moors (northern Africans who fought for franco). Orwell faught for the POUM (Party Of Unification Marxists) with the Communist party and the Anarchists against Franco, then with the Marxists and Anarchists against the communists.

After reading Redstar's thoughts on Orwell, I don't have much of a changed opinion. He is still too revisionary in many aspects, and he very well may be a rascist, but some of his books are still definitely worthwile.

These two books, while revisionary , are better required reading than Ayn Rand.

symtoms_of_humanity

15th December 2005, 03:26

Personally I loved Animal Farm and 1984(although I have to re-read it, I reasd it 2 years ago and was confused by some parts), Animal Farm to me just shows the dangers of letting so called intellectuals run the workers after a revolution, it shows that the workers should be just left to themselves as communism is supposed to be, becuase they were all happy at first, until the pigs became authoritarian and greedy(such as taking all the apples, making alchol and getting drunk alot), such as things that did in fact happen in the SU(not the exact same of course, but with food and clothing and home(such as how the pigs got to sleep on beds and under covers and in Jones old home), So all in all I like the book and still recomend it to people to read

What still puzzels me is who is Old Major, is he supposed to be Lenin or Marx?

Guerrilla22

15th December 2005, 06:59

Did you have to read this book for school? I did, it completely contradicts the message of both books to force kids to read them.

redstar2000

15th December 2005, 16:53

Originally posted by Doshka
Ok now I remember why I couldn't stand you before, redstar. It's because back then you were the arrogant little shit you are today...

Unlike yourself, of course, exuding charm from every orifice. :wub:

I don't think you understand literature at all, or respect it.

Shouldn't that be "LITERATURE"? You know, as in the "HOLY TEMPLE OF GREAT LITERATURE" where ordinary mortals like myself must speak with reverence?

Your crass comment about Orwell's writing being crap is such bullshit. Making a statement like that requires you to support it with something of your own. If you have nothing of your own to support it with, then you do not have a deep enough knowledge or understanding of literature, which means that you should probably keep your fat mouth shut about what you don't understand.

As it happens, someone has been kind enough to provide me with a remarkably instructive link.

So here is "that great writer" George Orwell versus the proletariat...

Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern. They were born, they grew up in the gutters, they went to work at twelve, they passed through a brief blossoming-period of beauty and sexual desire, they married at twenty, they were middle-aged at thirty, they died, for the most part, at sixty. Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbours, films, football, beer, and above all, gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult. A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous; but no attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party. It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice. The great majority of proles did not even have telescreens in their homes. Even the civil police interfered with them very little. There was a vast amount of criminality in London, a whole world-within-a-world of thieves, bandits, prostitutes, drug-peddlers, and racketeers of every description; but since it all happened among the proles themselves, it was of no importance. In all questions of morals they were allowed to follow their ancestral code. The sexual puritanism of the Party was not imposed upon them. Promiscuity went unpunished, divorce was permitted. For that matter, even religious worship would have been permitted if the proles had shown any sign of needing or wanting it. They were beneath suspicion. As the Party slogan put it: 'Proles and animals are free.'

http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/1984/7?term=proles

Pretty "great" eh? Sure, it sounds as if it were written by some late Victorian preacher castigating working class "immorality". Sure, it reeks of that typically noxious combination of pity and moral superiority. And, of course, the reason that the proles "live like animals" is because it's "in their blood".

But hey, your teacher told you it was "great literature" so...you flop on your belly and worship it!

It's one of the curiosities of our time that "intellectuals" despise the working class for the very behaviors that they themselves engage in with marked enthusiasm.

What could be more mindless, after all, than uncritical celebration of reactionary ideas in the guise of "great literature"?

And you look like quite an idiot.

An accusation which I don't think you are really in any position to make. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

ComradeOm

15th December 2005, 18:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:53 PM
Pretty "great" eh? Sure, it sounds as if it were written by some late Victorian preacher castigating working class "immorality". Sure, it reeks of that typically noxious combination of pity and moral superiority. And, of course, the reason that the proles "live like animals" is because it's "in their blood".

But hey, your teacher told you it was "great literature" so...you flop on your belly and worship it!

It's one of the curiosities of our time that "intellectuals" despise the working class for the very behaviors that they themselves engage in with marked enthusiasm.
I don’t suppose you have a quote from Orwell on the proletariat that doesn’t come from a work of fiction? That said I don't doubt that Winston's view is similar to that held by the Soviet politburo members.

The "proles" in 1984 have been reduced to the status of lowest of the low and yet they don’t know it. Fed on a steady diet of patriotism, goods and a small degree of freedom they are kept in a perpetual state of ignorance. Efforts are made to ensure that they remain uneducated and disorganised. That is after all the greatest triumph of Big Brother – a state that dominates society to a degree that revolution or resistance is simply unthinkable.

As with all dystopian scenarios its merely a matter of keeping people under control. The Party members are subject to the stick while the proles are offered the carrot. You could argue that Orwell’s proles are every bit as revolutionary as today’s white collar workers.

anomaly

15th December 2005, 23:11

Yes, Redstar, are you remotely aware that the nice quote you took the time to post is, as ComradeOm said, from a work of FICTION. If you truly possess the fantastic wisdom of literature which you claim you do, atleast cite an actual example of what you call 'Orwell versus the proletariat'! Such responses are almost comical.

As ComradeOm went on to say, the proles being reduced to a level of animals is part of the STORY (remember, O Redstar, it is fiction after all). This was what Orwell was warning against, that such a scenario could, in the future, play out. As I previously stated, the entire book is speaking of what could happen should the 'official left' of Britain keep the power it had attained in the 1944 elections, especially with the Stalinist thinknig the party held. Indeed, if Oceania were truly 'classless', as one would perhaps expect a 'socialist' state to be, why the existence of the proles. Orwell illustrated that Soviet 'socialism' is a mockery, and that it does reduce the working people to the level of 'proles'. If you find this to be untrue, so be it, but be aware that you would be wrong.

polemi-super-cised

16th December 2005, 00:02

So here is "that great writer" George Orwell versus the proletariat...

'redstar2000', that lengthy quote "rocks"! It perfectly illustrates Orwell's skill at word-weaving; the prose is simply delightful. As to the content...

As has been mentioned, this is a work of fiction. It is a dystopia that is presented here - just what Orwell (like the rest of us) doesn't want to see happen in reality. Hence the "lessons" to be drawn from the piece (as well as Animal Farm) - not that the proles behave like animals; not that working towards "revolution" is futile; but rather an appreciation, that even a movement that has as it's stated aim the liberation of all mankind, can conceal power-hungry thugs and monsters in it's midst, and that this ought to be ruthlessly opposed!

Sentiments I'm sure you'll agree with. :)

In my view, that excerpt (and indeed the whole novel) confers "moral superiority" on the proletariat who achieve the class-consciousness necessary to transcend their primitive existence. He (Winston) looks down on the 'proletariat' because they do not fulfil the potential they have to change society. Earlier (I think - I don't recall the exact position of that section of text within "the whole"...), he (Winston) declares something along the lines of: "If there is any hope, it lies in the proles."

It is the success and triumph of "Ingsoc" (and the tragedy of Winston's all-too-real world) that they have managed to reduce this potential ("hope") to near-nil. That's how I read Orwell, anyhow... And I don't think my reading is "reactionary"! So there you go.

*Hurries off to re-read '1984'*

RedJacobin

16th December 2005, 03:45

Scott Lucas - Orwell biographer: George Orwell was not a socialist (http://www.newstatesman.com/200005290038). Click on the link to read the whole article. Here's an excerpt (emphasis added):

George Orwell was not a socialist.

Let's reiterate that for those advocates who hail Orwell as a good socialist but, in Orwellian doublethink, do so without examination of any of the political or economic tenets of socialism. Take, for example, the pre-eminent biographer Bernard Crick. He reassures us that Orwell is in the lineage of "English" socialists simply because of the belief that "only in a more egalitarian and fraternal society can liberties flourish and abound for the common people". Nasty old Marxism is marginal to this philosophy: no need for messy concepts such as redistribution of income or common ownership of property. Or how about the chronicler Michael Shelden who, in almost 500 pages, deals with the issue with the passing comments that Orwell was an "individualistic" socialist and "every movement needs its divisionists"? Or Peter Davison, the editor of the 20-volume set of Orwell's writings, who reduces his subject's "passion for what he saw as social justice" to the epitaph: "He was human (his most endearing characteristic)"?

Let's reassert it to turn back the dilution of socialism to Orwell's "decency" or "the indivisibility of citizenship and culture". For there is nothing peculiarly socialist about being decent. Those with no interest in politics - and even readers of the Spectator - can be kind to children and small animals. What "decency" does, as in John Atkins's statement that "the special connotation of this English word is a complex of English living and English attitudes", is draw a pernicious line between the "English" Orwell and those unfeeling, "intellectual" European socialists who are too concerned with scientific concepts such as surplus value and economic imperialism to be decent.

(clip)

Schlesinger and Orwell would try to distinguish themselves from later red-hunters by claiming that the threat from communists and fellow-travellers was not a takeover of power, but a siphoning of support from the Democratic and Labour parties, allowing the right to take power in the US and Britain. By 1949, however, Orwell was in the company of more ardent cold-warriors. Arthur Koestler, with whom Orwell had spent the Christmas holidays in 1945 and developed a scheme for the "League for the Dignity of the Rights of Man", had become more strident in his anti-communism after a tour of the US in 1948; eventually, he would become one of the founding members of the CIA-backed Congress for Cultural Freedom. Celia Kirwan, Koestler's sister-in-law and the target of Orwell's affection in 1946, had moved from the London literary world to the shadows of the Information Research Department.

So, Orwell found his true calling as an anti-communist liberal, telling Kirwan that "he was delighted to learn of [the IRD's work] and expressed his wholehearted and enthusiastic approval of our aims". So he not only gave her his list, apparently annotated by Koestler, and laid out for her a network of anti-communist writers including "hordes of Americans" through journals such as Commentary, New Leader and Partisan Review; he also approached the Voice of America and the US Army in Germany to ask them to finance the dissemination of his work.

And so he had posthumous success. His new friends in the IRD turned Animal Farm into a comic strip for the "developing" world of Asia and Latin America. By April 1951, Animal Farm and 1984 were the leading books in the State Department's psychological offensive, translated and published both overtly and covertly by American agencies. A year later, the US intelligence services obtained the rights to turn Animal Farm into a film. The price? Arranging for Orwell's widow, Sonia, to meet Clark Gable.
Animal Farm and 1984 are political novels. They should be critiqued on that basis, not just on Orwell's writing style or aethestic sense or whatever. What's their message?

If you're unclear about the message of his books -- the message he himself intended -- his actions clear it up quite well.

Orwell gave his "wholehearted and enthusiastic approval" to the British intelligence division that turned his work into Cold War propaganda.

There shouldn't be any ambiguity on the Left about his rotten legacy, regardless of what people think of Stalin/Trotsky.

redstar2000

16th December 2005, 08:03

ComradeOm and anolamy both defend Orwell's sermon against the proletariat as a work of fiction.

And it is always debatable whether or not a manifestly fictional narrative represents the author's "real views".

One way we try to "figure that out" is to see if the author includes any opposing views in his fictional narrative.

For example, I have read novels set in Germany during the period of the Third Reich that naturally incorporated articulate passages "defending Nazism". But the authors were clearly hostile to Nazism because their narratives included other passages which clearly revealed not only ugly Nazi realities but the actual existence of resistance against Nazism.

There is nothing in 1984 that suggests that any other reality is even possible. In fact, it's literally "unthinkable" due to the spread of "newspeak".

There is no reason to write such a narrative unless Orwell really believed it!

The same is true, of course, for Animal Farm...the revolution is always betrayed and things always end up worse.

It's "Orwell's Law" of history.

The "animals" were "better off" before the revolution. And the proles were also "better off" before IngSoc was established.

We're always "better off" just accepting things as they are.

Change is always "for the worse".

Originally posted by polemi-super-cised
It perfectly illustrates Orwell's skill at word-weaving; the prose is simply delightful.

Well, you should look at some printed collections of sermons from the late Victorian era...that is the origin of Orwell's "skilled word-weaving". Social reformers of that era also wrote like that.

And they, like Orwell, meant every word of it.

...that even a movement that has as it's stated aim the liberation of all mankind, can conceal power-hungry thugs and monsters in its midst...

Not just "can" but must!

In fact, the implication of Orwell's texts is that revolutionaries are "power-hungry thugs and monsters".

This is a spectacularly stupid idea...a "devil theory" of history that even the reputable bourgeois historians of his own era would have rejected with contempt.

-----------------------------

I want to express my gratitude to fats for the very informative link to the New Statesman piece on Orwell.

The "fictional" views of Animal Farm and 1984 show truly remarkable agreement with Orwell's actual "real life" practice.

Real or "fictional", Orwell was a reactionary.

Deal with it!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

black magick hustla

16th December 2005, 08:50

Saying that Orwell belittled the proletarians is very ignorant. In "Homage to Catalonia" he praised Barcelona because it was "a place really ruled by the proletariat". He sympathisized with the anarchists and he hoped that the trots and anarchists would have allied to create a new workers' state.

He fought with a marxist militia, for godsake.

Roses in the Hospital

16th December 2005, 10:02

Orwell gave his "wholehearted and enthusiastic approval" to the British intelligence division that turned his work into Cold War propaganda.

There shouldn't be any ambiguity on the Left about his rotten legacy, regardless of what people think of Stalin/Trotsky.

Given the way the POUM were screwed over by Stalin during the Spanish Civil War, it's hardly suprising that Orwell was not a supporter of the Soviet Union, that does not however, mean he wasn't a socialist...

ComradeOm

16th December 2005, 13:44

I really think that’s you’re reading too much into this Redstar. You’re seeing shadows where there are none.

In both 1984 and Animanl Farm the revolution occurs and all is good for a time. In Animal Farm it is the animals that overthrow the famrers (under the guidance of the pigs of course. Orwell did not have the luxury of your criticisms of Leninism) and it is only when the animals place too much trust in Napeoloen that the life takes a turn for the worse. In 1984, as far as we can possibly know from that society’s mangled history, it was the proletariat who placed the Party in charge, the proletariat who submitted to the yoke of Big Brother. The parallel with Soviet Russia is even clearer here.

In short these novels are not about the futility of revolution but about the betrayal of revolution.

On the issue of the man himself, is anyone really surprised that the liberal New Statesman would try to claim him for themselves? According to them Orwell was not a Marxist or even a socialist, he was a liberal in the Blair mould. I’m sure the man himself would love this “rectifying” of the past.

I rather suspect that Orwell “is in the lineage of English socialists” because he fought for the Marxists in Spain. I would’ve thought that you would’ve agreed with Orwell Redstar, after all aren’t you the one claiming that Marxist-Leninist’s aren’t actually communists?

RedJacobin

16th December 2005, 18:43

Originally posted by Roses in the Hospital+Dec 16 2005, 10:02 AM--> (Roses in the Hospital @ Dec 16 2005, 10:02 AM) Given the way the POUM were screwed over by Stalin during the Spanish Civil War, it's hardly suprising that Orwell was not a supporter of the Soviet Union, that does not however, mean he wasn't a socialist... [/b]
The Lucas article doesn't mention much about the Soviet Union. If you read it, it's pretty clear that support for the SU isn't one of its criteria for judging whether Orwell was a socialist or not.

ComradeOm
On the issue of the man himself, is anyone really surprised that the liberal New Statesman would try to claim him for themselves? According to them Orwell was not a Marxist or even a socialist, he was a liberal in the Blair mould. I’m sure the man himself would love this “rectifying” of the past.
I highly doubt that the New Statesman is trying to claim Orwell for itself. Who wants to identify with a snitch? Especially since Orwell included the former editor of the NS on his list of subversives. :lol:

Scott Lucas is just doing some good myth-busting.

Oh, and I see you quote James Connolly in your signature. Here's what Orwell had to say about the Irish liberation struggle. He takes a typical chauvinist position:

"Eire can only remain independent because of British protection."
source: Notes on Nationalism (http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat) -- a non-fiction, political commentary

How's that for "doublespeak"? It's no wonder Christopher Hitchens loves this guy. :lol:

Red Menace

16th December 2005, 21:54

i started reading the book again since this topic started. the raven talks about sugarcandy mountain. i know everything in that book represents something, so what does sugarcandy mountain represent?

Atlas Swallowed

17th December 2005, 00:05

Its anti-government period. All governments become corrupt left or right. Down with the state.

Craig

17th December 2005, 00:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 12:56 AM
Orwell was no leftist. He was a snitch, a racist, and an anti-Semite.
I've seen no real evidence of racism/antisemitism in Orwell's work. If you have, please point it out to me. I'd be very interested to see it. I can cite evidence of anti-racism, if you'd like.

As numerous people point out, he carried a gun and risked his life fighting the fascists in Spain (although, if I'm not mistaken, he served with the Trotskyists, not the anarchists as others have suggested here), which, I'm willing to bet, is more committment to the cause of anti-fascism than any person posting on this message board has demonstrated. It was the horrors of Stalinism that so disgusted him that he turned away from revolutionary socialism. It is a sentiment that is understandable (but not necessarily correct) to all but the most hardened of Stalin's apologists.

It should be noted that many of his critiques of Stalinism are critiques from the left. Take a look at Animal Farm; he was not terribly kind to the human characters whom he used to represent the capitalists. Only the most diehard, knee-jerk Stalinist could interpret that book as a defense of capitalism.

In the end, he named names to MI5. That is undeniable and perhaps unforgivable, but it doesn't change his literary legacy nor his contribution to the left.

(As a personal defense of the man, he died well before his 50th birthday, so we don't know how his politics would have evolved.)

DisIllusion

17th December 2005, 01:14

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 13 2005, 10:45 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 13 2005, 10:45 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Orwell is a great writer. That is not up to question. He is witty, and very brilliant, and that is all there is to it.

Nonsense.

After his unfortunate experiences in Spain, he drifted into "hack work" for the ruling class.

Animal Farm is a poorly written work and 1984 is just trash...it should be called "anti-socialist realism".

Rage Against The Machine
Animal Farm is a brilliant book.

No, it's a reactionary piece of shit.

George Orwell -- Reactionary? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097859426&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Orwell Again??? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1105929449&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's reactionary, but I will have to agree with you that it is pretty simple-minded. But after all, the story isn't even that long in the first place, it's a symbolic, condensed, history of the Soviet Union. It definitely doesn't go as deep as it could have, but maybe Orwell wasn't shooting to make audiences think that much, just to push his beliefs of the Soviet Union on them.

polemi-super-cised

17th December 2005, 02:12

Thanks for ignoring most of my post again, 'redstar2000'... <_<
Oh well.

... it is always debatable whether or not a manifestly fictional narrative represents the author's "real views".

One way we try to "figure that out" is to see if the author includes any opposing views in his fictional narrative.

There is nothing in 1984 that suggests that any other reality is even possible. In fact, it's literally "unthinkable" due to the spread of "newspeak".

As I mentioned, Orwell establishes the fight between "good" and "evil" (in '1984') by including the character of Winston Smith. Smith declares: "If there is hope, it lies in the proles." He rebels against the totalitarian dystopia created by 'Ingsoc', and pursues "objective truth", uncoloured by the party's meddling. So an alternative reality is possible, though the possibility is remote, after years of subjection to the brilliantly brutal regime of "the Party".

The conclusions of the novel suggest that the ultimate victory of "Ingsoc" is assured - in this scenario! Fiction would be pretty dull if "the good guys" won all the time, don't you think? Orwell's depictions of "the proles", and the character of "Napoleon" (in 'Animal Farm'), belong to the "evil" in his work - the "evil" we all recognise, and fundamentally oppose. I think you make the mistake of assuming that because the books hand the victory to "evil", this is ultimately "what Orwell thinks", and "what his books must mean".

I disagree. Both books are "fables", and in these literary constructs the narrative, however beautiful, is essentially irrelevant. What's important is "the lessons" that can be drawn from the piece. At a very superficial level, one might read along the lines of: "revolution fails; the 'bestial' proletariat is doomed." Look deeper, however, and you see: "revolution might fail, so be on your guard! The proletariat IS doomed, unless class-consciousness combines with political action so as to avoid the horrors of Stalin's Russia / Ingsoc's Oceania."

My comment on Orwell's prose, incidentally, was in praise of the style, not the specific content of that excerpt. I don't hold the view that the proletariat is an "animal mass", or whatever...

In fact, the implication of Orwell's texts is that revolutionaries are "power-hungry thugs and monsters".

This is a spectacularly stupid idea...a "devil theory" of history that even the reputable bourgeois historians of his own era would have rejected with contempt.

You're taking one fictional construct and recognising this as Orwell's world-view? That's just silly. 'Animal Farm' is analogous to the Soviet Union. So, reading the novel, we may reasonably conclude that Orwell's view of the Soviet Union is a negative one... His conception (or misconception) of proletarian revolution is wholly unaffected.

Just out of interest: do you think it's possible that there may be differing interpretations of texts at work here? I read 'Animal Farm' as a leftist masterpiece, and not alone; you (and others) don't. Surely if there is the potential for a text to be read in a revolutionary spirit, you can't simply dismiss the author as "reactionary"?

Reds

17th December 2005, 04:35

To anyone that knows of the spanish civil war did`t certin groups of anarchists side with the "stalinists".

RedJacobin

17th December 2005, 04:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:52 AM
I've seen no real evidence of racism/antisemitism in Orwell's work. If you have, please point it out to me. I'd be very interested to see it. I can cite evidence of anti-racism, if you'd like.
I was talking about the comments he wrote on the list, which are referenced in the Cockburn article I posted.

I know Shooting an Elephant (http://orwell.ru/library/articles/elephant/english/e_eleph) is supposed to be an "anti-Empire" essay but I have some serious problems with it. Why is it that his main complaint about the British empire in Burma is that it makes him feel guilty? Why is it that the message of the essay appears to be "Empire is bad because it tarnishes the British to be in contact with dumb, uncouth natives"? What about sympathy for the Burmese -- who are the real victims? What's up with calling them "evil-spirited little beasts"? Socialist internationalism it isn't.

We also know what he thought about Ireland.

The first test of internationalism is how a socialist approaches the imperialism of their own bourgeoisie.

It was the horrors of Stalinism that so disgusted him that he turned away from revolutionary socialism.
I haven't studied the Spanish Civil War deeply or read Homage to Catalonia, so I can't make a judgement on Orwell's assessment. I've read Harry Haywood's autobiography though. He also fought in Spain and his assessment was different.

Take a look at Animal Farm; he was not terribly kind to the human characters whom he used to represent the capitalists. Only the most diehard, knee-jerk Stalinist could interpret that book as a defense of capitalism.
But, why did the US and British governments see so much value in his work? Why did they actively promote it around the world? Are they diehard "Stalinists"? :lol:

I agree with redstar2000's analysis. Any criticism of capitalism in the book is nullified by the central message: making revolution is pointless because betrayal and worse conditions are inevitable.

Yeah, it's a totally ahistorical message -- and a convenient substitute for actually studying the history of the Soviet Union -- but it's easy to understand and repeat. It's also quite a powerful innoculation against communism for middle-class intellectuals who are on the fence and would otherwise be open to revolutionary ideas.

In the end, he named names to MI5. That is undeniable and perhaps unforgivable, but it doesn't change his literary legacy nor his contribution to the left.
I think it does change his literary legacy and whatever contributions to the left he made. If the Scott Lucas article is right, his popularity today was a result of his collaboration with imperialism. They put resources into promoting his books around the world, which he himself sought out. Continuing to hold up his legacy after that is ridiculous.

redstar2000

17th December 2005, 21:35

Originally posted by polemi-super-cised
Fiction would be pretty dull if "the good guys" won all the time, don't you think?

In real life, the "bad guys" nearly always win.

In fiction, the author is free to arrange matters differently...if s/he so desires.

Orwell didn't.

You're taking one fictional construct and recognising this as Orwell's world-view?

Neither you nor I nor anyone else can see "inside the head" of another living person...much less a dead man.

All we have to go on is what he wrote and what he did.

Just out of interest: do you think it's possible that there may be differing interpretations of texts at work here?

That's the "meat" of literary controversy, is it not?

Oh, I know there is much fuss made over "style" -- it's "beautiful" or it's "ugly", whatever.

But doesn't it really come down to: "I really like what this writer has to say" or "What this writer says is really a pile of disgusting crap"?

That may even be true for nearly all forms of artistic expression.

What we find "beautiful" is that with which we agree.

Music might be a legitimate exception to that "rule" -- since the non-verbal component predominates so drastically.

But think of cathedrals. Superstitious people imagine them "beautiful"...whereas to me, they are grim, dark monuments to ignorance and oppression and servility -- a standing insult to civilized people!

I would have them demolished as soon as possible "after the revolution".

Just as I would have Orwell "banished" to the "basement stacks"...and left to the criticism of mice.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Craig

18th December 2005, 07:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 04:41 AM

But, why did the US and British governments see so much value in his work? Why did they actively promote it around the world? Are they diehard "Stalinists"?
Haha, fair enough... I wouldn't call them Stalinist -- although the word "authoritarian" does come to mind, and in my opinion that's not terribly different.

As to why the US/Britain saw value: well, obviously there was an anti-Stalin message, and that was very useful for them!

I agree with redstar2000's analysis. Any criticism of capitalism in the book is nullified by the central message: making revolution is pointless because betrayal and worse conditions are inevitable.

I think you miss the possibility that Orwell was warning us against putting too much faith in the vanguard party. The coercive power of the state remains the same, no matter how red the flag of the group who wields that power.

Wanted Man

18th December 2005, 15:54

I'll leave the arguments on two books that I have only read shallowly, to other people. However, I can't help but laugh at people who keep screaming "He was not anti-communist, just democratic socialist!!!" May I remind you that democratic socialism = reformism? If George Orwell came on here saying "I'm a democratic socialist, I believe in reformism", he would probably be restricted. :lol:

The Grey Blur

18th December 2005, 19:31

Not neccessarily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Jacob

18th December 2005, 21:00

Orwell was surely an Unorthodox Democratic Socialist who sypathised with Trotskyite and Arachist ideals, such as individual freedom.

Animal Farm is about the events in the Soviet Union and in particular the rise of Stalinism, not Communism, Stalinism. And as for Orwell being anit-leftist, I strongly advise you read Homage to Catalonia. I have read Animal Farm and other Orwells books and I agree with what 'polemi-super-cised' says, 'Animal Farm' is a leftist masterpiece.

Monty Cantsin

18th December 2005, 21:35

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 13 2005, 02:32 AM
orwell was an anarchist by the way
He fought in the POUM which was a Trotskyists party, he considered himself a socialists. The Spanish civil war wasn’t an anarchists revolution it just had anarchists tendencies but they participated in a capitalists government anyways, I don’t know why you lot are so up on them.

Reading through this conversation has been quite interesting and people have put a lot of thought into issues surrounding Orwell. I was wondering if people could put forward articles on Orwell for the E-Zine. There are lots of things that could be written about, analysis of particular books or his action surrounding the civil war and later his spying activity.

Pilgrim

19th December 2005, 05:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:21 AM
ANIMAL FARM PARODY

I haven't read it, but this parody of Animal Farm looks like it does a good job mocking Orwell's reactionary politics. It's called "Snowball's Chance" (http://www.roofbooks.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=93780100836410) by John Reed (yes, the guy is really named John Reed).

NY Times, Nov. 25, 2002
A Pig Returns to the Farm, Thumbing His Snout at Orwell
By DINITIA SMITH

One of those condemning Orwell has been the writer
Alexander Cockburn, whose father, Claud, a British journalist and member of
the Communist Party, was a bitter foe of Orwell's.

"How quickly one learns to loathe the affectations of plain bluntishness,"
Mr. Cockburn writes in an introduction to Mr. Reed's novella. "The man of conscience turns out to be a whiner, and of course a snitch."

For anyone tempted to take Alexander Cockburn's remarks as in any way truthful, I suggest they read the following:

'(Louis) Fischer tried to defend himself by arguing that facts were facts and that his readers had the right to read the truth, but both (Mikhail) Koltzov and Cockburn would hear none of this. "Who gave (the readers) such a right?" Cockburn told his wife later. "Perhaps when they have exerted themselves enough to alter the policy of their bloody government and the Fascists are beaten in Spain they will have such a right."

Source: 'The First Casualty', Philip Knightley, Pan, 1989, page 196-7.

Knightley wasn't the first to have discovered Cockburn's willingness to tell absolutely any lie necessary to advance the Stalinist cause. Orwell outs Cockburn as a consummate liar and fraud in 'Homage To Catalonia'. Cockburn wrote from Spain under the name Frank Pitcairn. Cockburn/Pitcairn made a number of pro-Stalinist assertions regarding the uprising in Barcelona in May 1937. Orwell neatly debunks Cockburn/Pitcairn's assertions and exposes him as the fake he was.

Orwell writes: MrPitcairn does not tell us how and when it became clear that the POUM possessed scores of machine guns and several thousand rifles. I have given an estimate of the arms which were at three of the principal Poum buildings - about eighty rifles, a few bombs, and no machine guns; i.e. about sufficient for the armed guards which, at that time, all the political parties placed on their buildings. It seems strange, therefore, that afterwards, when the POUM was suppressed and all its buildings siezed, these thousands of weapons never came to light; especially the tanks and field guns, which are not the kind of thing that can be hidden up the chimney. But what is revealing in the two statements above is the complete ignorance they display of the local circumstances. According to Mr Pitcairn the POUM stol tanks 'from the barracks'. He does not tell us which barracks. The POUM militiamen who were in barcelona (comparatively few, since direct recruitment to the party militias had ceased) shared the Lenin barracks with a considerably larger number of Popular Army troops. Mr Pitcairn is asking us tobelieve, therefore, that the POUM stole tanks with the connivance of the Popular Army. It is the same with the 'premises' on which the 75mm guns were concealed. Those batteries of guns, firing on the Plaza de Espana, appeared in many newspaper reports, but I think we can say with certainty that they never existed.

All Alexander Cockburn is doing is simply persuing his father's vendetta. Orwell had his faults, certainly. But he wasn't a lickspittle apologist for the biggest mass murderer of modern times. He wasn't a blatant liar and propagandist masquerading as a journalist. And he wasn't bitter enough to continue any vendetta by using his own son to slander a man no longer alive to defend himself.

Claud Cockburn/Frank Pitcairn was all of those things.

RedJacobin

19th December 2005, 07:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:43 AM

For anyone tempted to take Alexander Cockburn's remarks as in any way truthful,
Alexander Cockburn wasn't writing about the Spanish Civil War. He was writing about Orwell's dealings with the British IRD.

So, which part of his remarks are untrue? Did Orwell not hand over a list of suspected Communists and fellow-travelers to the British state? Did Orwell not write down racist and anti-Semitic scribblings on the list?

There really isn't any controversial in the Alexander Cockburn piece I posted. They're all accepted facts, which the Orwell supporters do not dispute.

RedJacobin

19th December 2005, 07:40

This may be of interest to people following the thread:

‘Here is an excerpt from George Orwell’s list of possible ‘crypto-communists & fellow-travelers’ published in ‘The Complete Orwell’, edited by Peter Davison. Orwell, who initially intended the list to be private, jotted used shorthand notes. FT refers to fellow traveler; CP stands for Communist Party. Spelling and punctuation are as in the original. The parentheses are Orwell’s, and brackets show passages he crossed out. (Some names, like Upton Sinclair and Fiorello La Guardia, were crossed out altogether.) Mr. Davison inserted the dates of the subjects and the italicized explanations.’

CHAPLIN, Charles 1899-1977 (Anglo-American). (Jewish?). JOBS Films
CUNARD, Nancy 1896-1965. JOBS Anti-fascist & anti-imperialist organisations. Pamphlets. REMARKS Probably only sentimental sympathiser. Silly. Has money.
CROSSMAN, Richard 1907-74. JOBS MP (Labour) Coventry. Save Europe Now. Books. New Statesman helps to direct. Sunday Pictorial. REMARKS ?? Political climber. Zionist (appears sincere about this.) Too dishonest to be outright FT.
COLE, G D H 1889-1959. JOBS Economist, author of many books. REMARKS Sympathiser only. Shallow person. Diabetic. ??
DURANTY, Walter (Anglo-American) 1884-1957. JOBS American papers. Correspondent in USSR many years. Various books. REMARKS Discreet FT. Probably no organisational connection but reliable.
DAVIES, Joseph E (US) 1876-1958. JOBS Previously ambassador to USSR. ‘Mission to Moscow’ (& film of ditto.). REMARKS Very stupid.
FLANNER, Janet (US) 1892-1978. JOBS New Yorker (‘Genet’). REMARKS Previously violent red-baiter, changed views about war years. Dishonest careerist. Appears to have swung back somewhat recently (1949).
INGERSOLL, Ralph (US) 1900-1969. JOBS PM (editor) ‘Top Secret’ (anti-British). REMARKS Probably no organisational tie. Dishonest demagogic type.
LEWIS, C Day 1904-1972. JOBS Poet etc. Selector of Book Club (with Priestly & Daniel George). Orion (helps to edit). MOI during war. REMARKS Previously CP. Probably not now completely reliable. Said to have changed since Czech coup d’etat.
LIEBLING, A J (U.S.) 1904-63. JOBS New Yorker (‘Our Wayward Press’). REMARKS ?
NIEBUHR, (initials?) Reinhold. 1892-1971. JOBS Theologian (Protestant). REMARKS ? NB Two people of this name? I don’t believe the famous RN is a FT. He has a great deal of sense.
NEARING, Scott (US) 1883-1983. JOBS Old figure in the leftwing movement. Journalist & writer. REMARKS Qy. whether open CP member? I should have thought he had dropped out long ago, like J F Horrabin (whom I thought he rather resembled when I met him. A nice type.)
O’CASEY, Sean (Eire, lives in England) 1880-1964. JOBS Playwright. REMARKS Q open CP? Very stupid.
PRIESTLEY, J B 1894-1984. JOBS Novelist, broadcaster. Book Club selector. Appears to have changed latterly (1949). REMARKS Strong sympathiser, possibly has some kind of organisational tie-up. Very anti-USA. Development of last 10 years or less. Might change. Makes huge sums of money in USSR. ??
PEPPER, Claude (US) 1900-89. JOBS Senator. REMARKS Said to have modified views recently.
ROBESON, Paul (US Negro) 1898-1976. JOBS Actor, Singer. REMARKS ?? (People’s Convention.) Very anti-white. Wallace supporter. Henry Wallace, US Vice-President, 1941-45.
SPENDER, Stephen 1909-95. JOBS Poet, critic etc. Literary organisations of various kinds. (UNESCO). REMARKS Sentimental sympathiser, & very unreliable. Easily influenced. Tendency towards homosexuality.
SHAW, GB 1856-1950. JOBS Playwright. REMARKS No sort of tie-up, but reliably pro-Russian on all major issues.
STEINBECK, John (US) 1902-68. JOBS Novelist (‘The Grapes of Wrath’, etc.). REMARKS ?? Spurious writer, pseudo-naif. (*)
WALLACE, Henry 1888-1965. JOBS USA Previously vice-president. Editor in Chief New Republic. Many books (on farming etc.) Unofficial connection with PCA Progressive Citizens of America. REMARKS Probably no definite organisational connection. Very dishonest. (ie intellectually).

(*) He was wrong-headed in a number of his listings. Stephen Spender, whom Orwell labeled a ‘sentimental sympathizer’. In 1949, contributed an essay the next year to ‘The God That Failed’, an indictment of Communism. And some comments are simply appalling. The anti-Semitic and anti-homosexual overtones of his notes are clear.
source: George Orwell's List (http://orwell.ru/a_life/list/e/e_list.htm)

Pilgrim

19th December 2005, 07:58

Originally posted by fats+Dec 19 2005, 07:30 AM--> (fats @ Dec 19 2005, 07:30 AM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 05:43 AM

For anyone tempted to take Alexander Cockburn's remarks as in any way truthful,
Alexander Cockburn wasn't writing about the Spanish Civil War. He was writing about Orwell's dealings with the British IRD.

So, which part of his remarks are untrue? Did Orwell not hand over a list of suspected Communists and fellow-travelers to the British state? Did Orwell not write down racist and anti-Semitic scribblings on the list?

There really isn't any controversial in the Alexander Cockburn piece I posted. They're all accepted facts, which the Orwell supporters do not dispute. [/b]
I phrased my original remark harshly, I'll admit.

But while I would never condone Orwell's having snitched, even on Stalinists (a breed I roundly despise) I doubt very much that Alexander Cockburn can be considered as either an objective or impartial source. It looks to me as though Alexander Cockburn is motivated by a hatred of Orwell, and not by any desire to expose him as the font from which all evil flows. He's simply trying to carry on with his father's unfinished business.

And the remarks I made about his father I stand by, to the letter.

1984

18th January 2006, 13:23

Portuguese is my mother language, and I sincerely doubted that they are used as school books in the US and UK... Actually, I had no idea that both Animal Farm and 1984 could be seen as "anti-communist" or "reactionary".

:blink:

OK, at FIRST I did think that way, but now I see that the books are NOT saying that revolution would "pointless" because it would always end up like that - instead, I see them as a warning of what must be avoided AFTER revolution.

It's a pity that the bourgueoise will always use these books as anti-communist propaganda... especially by putting them on reading lists for KIDS at school, and manipulating their tender minds...

<_<

Angry Young Man

18th January 2006, 14:38

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 12 2005, 11:53 PM
I reckomend everyone who thinks Animal Farm or 1984 is capatalist propaganda should go out and read Homage to Catalonia or Down and Out in Paris and London, it might eventually get the message across that George Orwell was a leftist!
or 'the road to wigan pier'

Roses in the Hospital

19th January 2006, 16:43

But, why did the US and British governments see so much value in his work? Why did they actively promote it around the world? Are they diehard "Stalinists"? laugh.gif

Marx's writings on capatalism have often been used by right wing economics, I suppose that means he was a right winger too??? :D

In fiction, the author is free to arrange matters differently...if s/he so desires.

Orwell didn't.

Well given that in the Soviet Union the 'bad guys' did win, it would be a pretty shit satire to have the animals/winston overthrow them, which is why the ending to the cartoon of Animal Farm is so bad...

I can't help but laugh at people who keep screaming "He was not anti-communist, just democratic socialist!!!" May I remind you that democratic socialism = reformism

Never-the-less, the point is he was for the left not the right, as the original poster implied...

Did Orwell not hand over a list of suspected Communists and fellow-travelers to the British state?S

Just to clarify, the list was of people who for the most part had publically symptysed with communism who Orwell believed to be unsuitable to write for the IRD. It was not a list of secret communist activists whom Orwell believed should be supressed, as some people seem to be implying
. I don't know what Orwell's motivations were in handing over the list, nor can I defend him for doing so, but surely it isn't sufficient grounds for dismissing his contribution to the left...

Did Orwell not write down racist and anti-Semitic scribblings on the list?

Writing 'very anti-white' and 'Jewish?' in shorthand in a private note to a friend is hardly evidence of racism and anti-sematism...

I was wondering if people could put forward articles on Orwell for the E-Zine.

If I have the time I'll consider it...