Originally posted by Comrade
[email protected] 11 2006, 09:30 PM
It does when he quits his job, then moves to Paris living as a peasant.
That doesn't make one anything politically, except maybe a lumpen!
Considering Hitler did something similiar, that doesn't say much for Orwell now does it? ;)
It also does if the same cop later travels to Spain to fight fascists, because of the authoritarian nature of fascism.
Really? It seems to me that everyone in Europe was either an anti-fascist in those days, or they were a fascist. That doesn't make one an "anti-authoritarian", now does it? I fight fascism, and I am not anti-authoritarian. Was Churchill anti-authoritarian? How about Norman Bethune?
It does if the same cop even later in life writes the most infamous attack on authoritarianism in modern literature.
It was an attack on fascism and Marxism-Leninism for sure, but not a very scientific one. You seem to have fallen into the same mistake as so many others: you've forgotten that 1984 is just fiction! You might as well tell people to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn for an accurate picture of the USSR well you're at it!
Moreover it does when the same cop later writes that he hated being a cop and that he believes he was wrong in his youth, people do learn from mistakes.
Only later to become a snitch and infamous anti-communist. Bla bla bla, you still haven't showed how Orwell's theory or practice was "anti-authoritarian".
And how do you work that out? As a writer on political matters we can and are able to gauge his political views based on his writings. Why would he write, on numerous occasions, that he despised imperialism and colonialism if in fact he did not?
Like I said, it all sounded more like an appology then any denouncement of the beloved British empire. I didn't see him calling for Indian, African, etc. peoples to rise up and kill their oppressors the British, let alone go and fight on their side! When he fought against Spanish fascism he was still fighting on the side of Britain. I don't see how Orwell was ever anything more than a leftish British agent.
Like i said, you will never be convinced, you have damned Orwell already, which blinds you even from the obvious and well established truth of the matter, Redstar is just as bad, but at least he actually raises an argument. Which is something we are still awaiting from you
My argument was for you to take that quote from Orwell, and explain how it is "anti-authoritarian". At this point, I'm going to have to ask you to explain what you think autoritarianism is. I think you are mixing it up with totalitarianism, which we could certainly argue that Orwell was selectively anti-totalitarian. I would say that he never proved himself significantly anti-colonialist/imperialist and that colonialism is in many ways worse then totalitarianism.
I haven't damned Orwell, he is one of my favourite writers. His works influenced the way I write fiction and self-reflection. This doesn't change who he was. You seem to want Orwell to be something more than he was.
No... I am saying he is wrong, Orwell was an anti-authoritarian, certainly in the period he was writing, fact.
Prove me wrong then. Pretend you are writing an essay on Orwell, and in one part of the essay you are showing how he was an anti-authoritarian. Use one paragraph to explain what authoritarianism and/or anti-authoritarianism is, if possible site a source on it. In another paragraph, use that quote from Orwell, and explain how it shows he is anti-authoritarian. Site some of his actions or anything else that shows this.
If you don't mind doing this, maybe you can convince me.
Considering Hitler did something similiar, that doesn't say much for Orwell now does it? ;)
But Hitler, as opposed Orwell, supported the Fascists in Spain. Orwell on the other hand supported the Republic. Orwell was anti-authority, Hitler founded a totalitarian government. Orwell was a socialist, Hitler was a proto-fascist. A world of difference.
Orwell dispised Hitler, Stalin and all of their ilk. The reason for that is simple because he dispised the uniting factor between them, they were authoritarians and ran authoritarian/totalitarian governments, and you tell us he was not anti-authoritairan? :rolleyes:
Really? It seems to me that everyone in Europe was either an anti-fascist in those days, or they were a fascist.
Perhaps they were, but out of a population in the UK which numbered around 40 million, only a few thousand of these largely anti-fascists travelled to Spain to fight against the fascist forces, the most fanatical antifascists.
So what exactly is your argument, you are saying that because Churchill was anti-fascist yet authortiarian, Orwell must follow suit? What a ridiculous piece of circular logic. Why don't you try and build a case against Orwell, as opposed to attemping, with clearly flawed logic, to pull holes in his defence?
It was an attack on fascism and Marxism-Leninism for sure, but not a very scientific one.
Wrong, it was an attack on authoritarian government, which happens to include contemporary examples of both those ideologies, but it was certainly not a metephore for any specific ideology.
you seem to have fallen into the same mistake as so many others: you've forgotten that 1984 is just fiction! You might as well tell people to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn for an accurate picture of the USSR well you're at it!
Speak for your self. It was never a description of the USSR, it was an imagined 'future' of the world based on 1948 trends. Which is why it cannot be an attack on any specific nation or ideology, rather just the nature of authoritarianism.
Only later to become a snitch
I have already addressed this inaccurate accusation, which, I note you still haven't responded to.
you still haven't showed how Orwell's theory or practice was "anti-authoritarian".
Actually I have, but you choose to ignore the mountain of evidence and cling to your clearly unsubstanciated view.
Like I said, it all sounded more like an appology then any denouncement of the beloved British empire.
'Beloved empire'?
"I had already made up my mind that Imperialism was an evil thing,"
"I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British."
"I was stuck between my hatred of the empire,"
You want me to continue?
[b]I didn't see him calling for Indian, African, etc. peoples to rise up and kill their oppressors the British, let alone go and fight on their side!
Again, if you had read Orwells accounts of his early life, he explains that point remarkably well, his views had not been completely formulated until much later in life. Note that much later in life, he did go and try and fight against imperialist fascist oppressors. Oh and please, inform me your latest military excursion to Iraq. Obviously you must be a pro-British/American imperialist because you are not in Iraq battling the 'evils' of imperialism. :rolleyes:
When he fought against Spanish fascism he was still fighting on the side of Britain.
What? Britain had no military interests and made no endevours in the Spanish civil war, indeed the British government actively stopped and imprisoned those Britons who attempted to fight in the Spanish civil war. Orwell, like thousands across Europe went as a private citizen to Spain and faught for the Spanish republic as a revolutionary. They were in favour Franco ans his forces in the Spanish civil war, thus Orwell behaving as he did was clearly against the wishes of the British government of the period.
My argument was for you to take that quote from Orwell, and explain how it is "anti-authoritarian".
That isn't an argument.
At this point, I'm going to have to ask you to explain what you think autoritarianism is.
The belief of an individual or body which expects, demands and often enforces obidience to the state.
I think you are mixing it up with totalitarianism,
Well you would be wrong. Totalitarianism is different in that it advocates the regulation of nearly all aspects of society, public life and private life.
However, Hitler, Mussolini (despite bringing the term to notariety), Franco, etc, unlike Stalin, did not enact or even desire a totalitarian regime, at least not nearly to the same extent. Yet Orwell opposed all most strenuously, thus rulling out the argument that he was anti-totalitarianism as opposed to authoritarianism.
This doesn't change who he was.
Yet you have offered not a shred of evidence or even argument to substanciate your view of how and who he was. You make claims, yet you do not support them with evidence.
Prove me wrong then.
I certainly thing I have. But what is more important is that you demand that I prove you wrong, when you have made zero argument to prove your self correct. Until you do so, your position is unsubstanciated.