George Orwell was a Filthy Grass - Anti-communist spy workin

[ernestolynch]

Darling of the fake-left, George Orwell, writer of state curriculum favourite books such as Animal Farm and 1984, was a lowdown treacherous agent of the British government.

He shopped his peers to the secret service for the king's shilling.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...-756227,00.html (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-756227,00.html)

July 25, 2003

Names on Orwell’s blacklist released
By Andrew Clennell



A LIST of suspected Communist sympathisers prepared for the British Government by George Orwell in 1949 was released yesterday. It includes the comedian Charlie Chaplin, the novelist J B Priestley and the actor Michael Redgrave.
Orwell wrote that the 38 people on the list were “cryptocommunists, fellow travellers or inclined that way”. He had been asked to help to counter communist propaganda.

One of those named, Peter Smollett, a Daily Express reporter, was later found to be a Soviet agent. Orwell described him as a “very slimy person”.

Norman MacKenzie, 82, a founding member of the SDP, is the only known survivor of the list.

The full list: Anderson, John; Aldred, (Christian name unknown); Beavan, John; Blackett, Prof P M S; Carr, Prof E H ; Chaplin, Charles; Crowther, J G; Childe, Gordon; Calder-Marshall, Arthur; Deutscher, I; Duranty, W; Driberg, Tom; Dover, Cedric; Goldring, D; Hooper, Major; Jacob, Alaric; Kohn, Marjorie; Litauer, Stefan; Morley, Iris; Macmurray, Professor John; Martin, H Kingsley; Mackenzie, Norman; McLeod, Joseph; Mitchison, N; Moore, Nicholas; McDiarmid, H; Mende, Tibor; Neumann, R; O’Donnell, Peader; Parker, Ralph; Priestley, J B; Padmore, George; Redgrave, Michael; Smollett (aka Smolka), Peter; Schiff, Leonard; Werth, Alexander; Young, Cdr E P and Stewart, Margaret.

So, any more Orwell fans out there? Defend this class warrior who was an upper-class anti-communist and imperialist agent.


(Edited by ernestolynch at 11:46 pm on July 26, 2003)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Mm, the link doesn't work.

[YKTMX]

Quote: from ernestolynch on 9:22 pm on July 26, 2003
Darling of the fake-left, George Orwell, writer of state curriculum favourite books such as Animal Farm and 1984, was a lowdown treacherous agent of the British government.

He shopped his peers to the secret service for the king's shilling.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...-756227,00.html (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-756227,00.html)

July 25, 2003

Names on Orwell’s blacklist released
By Andrew Clennell



A LIST of suspected Communist sympathisers prepared for the British Government by George Orwell in 1949 was released yesterday. It includes the comedian Charlie Chaplin, the novelist J B Priestley and the actor Michael Redgrave.
Orwell wrote that the 38 people on the list were “cryptocommunists, fellow travellers or inclined that way”. He had been asked to help to counter communist propaganda.

One of those named, Peter Smollett, a Daily Express reporter, was later found to be a Soviet agent. Orwell described him as a “very slimy person”.

Norman MacKenzie, 82, a founding member of the SDP, is the only known survivor of the list.

The full list: Anderson, John; Aldred, (Christian name unknown); Beavan, John; Blackett, Prof P M S; Carr, Prof E H ; Chaplin, Charles; Crowther, J G; Childe, Gordon; Calder-Marshall, Arthur; Deutscher, I; Duranty, W; Driberg, Tom; Dover, Cedric; Goldring, D; Hooper, Major; Jacob, Alaric; Kohn, Marjorie; Litauer, Stefan; Morley, Iris; Macmurray, Professor John; Martin, H Kingsley; Mackenzie, Norman; McLeod, Joseph; Mitchison, N; Moore, Nicholas; McDiarmid, H; Mende, Tibor; Neumann, R; O’Donnell, Peader; Parker, Ralph; Priestley, J B; Padmore, George; Redgrave, Michael; Smollett (aka Smolka), Peter; Schiff, Leonard; Werth, Alexander; Young, Cdr E P and Stewart, Margaret.

So, any more Orwell fans out there? Defend this class warrior who was an upper-class anti-communist and imperialist agent.


(Edited by ernestolynch at 11:46 pm on July 26, 2003)


Yes, naming political enemies and making their lifes miserable. Comrade Stalin would never have approved!

[Invader Zim]

But your web page proves nothing, it gives no link to the actualy archives, and its from a highly right wing and unreliable news source. So why should we believe that over Orwells lengthy left wing record, such as participating in the Spanish revolution on the side of the communists, writting loads of socialist propaganda and anti right wing material?

Also I find it a little unlikley since as Orwell died in 1950, after 3 years of serious lung deteriation from TB. For the last year or so of his life he was completely bed ridden, with very little ability to write anything. I believe that the only recorded documents made by Orwell in 1949-1950 was to finaly complete 1984 and write a work called, "Politics and the English Language". I very seriously doubt that he would have had the time or health to infiltrate the lives of suspected communists etc, considering he was quite literally on his death bed.

However that does not mean that you are not correct. Perhaps he did., but that is imaterial, as Orwell was not a communist, but a democratic socialist. He believed that communism (and accuratly at the time) was totalitarian in nature and went against the principals of Marx, and was to be avoided and feared. This was at the time of Stalin and his oppressive rule, so his fear of the "communists" (now considered as being marxist leninists rather than communists) or to be more accurate state capitalists was not unjustified. To inform the Government of those whome supported the totalitarian soviets, considering his ideology, is not a betrayal to anybody.

(Edited by AK47 at 1:25 am on July 27, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

Are Stalinists insulting Orwell...what a coincidence...

hahahaha

[redstar2000]

Orwell did write that letter; there's independent confirmation in Harper's Magazine...very far from being a right-wing source. He did not, however, "infiltrate" anything, being a very sick man in his final years.

Here's the real question: is it "ok" for revolutionaries to "shop" their political opponents to the government?

For example, my harsh opposition to both Leninism and reformism is well known on this board; would it be "ok" for me to "report" to the government that some individual is a "subversive" (perhaps causing them to lose their job or maybe even be arrested)? Or maybe cause them some other kind of difficulty with the police...suggest that they "might" be dealing drugs or that they "might" have child porn on their computer, etc.?

I suggest that real communists don't do that shit; that cooperation with the agencies of capitalist repression is forbidden under any circumstances with regard to others and inadvisible even where you alone are concerned. (That is, many a person is in prison today because they called the police to report a crime against them...only to have the police charge them with some unrelated offense.)

Stay away from those bastards; nothing good will come from getting mixed up with them.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:41 am on July 27, 2003
Orwell did write that letter; there's independent confirmation in Harper's Magazine...very far from being a right-wing source. He did not, however, "infiltrate" anything, being a very sick man in his final years.

Here's the real question: is it "ok" for revolutionaries to "shop" their political opponents to the government?

For example, my harsh opposition to both Leninism and reformism is well known on this board; would it be "ok" for me to "report" to the government that some individual is a "subversive" (perhaps causing them to lose their job or maybe even be arrested)? Or maybe cause them some other kind of difficulty with the police...suggest that they "might" be dealing drugs or that they "might" have child porn on their computer, etc.?

I suggest that real communists don't do that shit; that cooperation with the agencies of capitalist repression is forbidden under any circumstances with regard to others and inadvisible even where you alone are concerned. (That is, many a person is in prison today because they called the police to report a crime against them...only to have the police charge them with some unrelated offense.)

Stay away from those bastards; nothing good will come from getting mixed up with them.

:cool:

Orwell did write that letter; there's independent confirmation in Harper's Magazine...very far from being a right-wing source. He did not, however, "infiltrate" anything, being a very sick man in his final years.


Well you live and learn. However I stand by my assumption of his reasons, whether I agree with them or not I can see his motives.

But I agree with you that he most certainly did not infiltrate anything or anybody, for the reasons I gave about his health.

PS I dont think that staying away from George Orwell will be much of a challange... :biggrin:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Well I do give credit where credit is due. Redstar is 100 percent correct on this issue.


AK47,

Your ultra willingness to dismiss comrade Lynch's post as fiction until being put into place by RS is deplorable.
You obviously have no spine.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 7:49 am on July 28, 2003
Well I do give credit where credit is due. Redstar is 100 percent correct on this issue.


AK47,

Your ultra willingness to dismiss comrade Lynch's post as fiction until being put into place by RS is deplorable.
You obviously have no spine.

You obviously have no brain.

If you read my post I quite clearly said and I quote: -

However that does not mean that you (ernestolynch) are not correct. Perhaps he did.

Then I went on to write a paragraph on what I persieved to be his reasoning is if this was the case. If I choose to believe RS2000 then I do not see why you have a problem, except that you are angry from another thread, because you have been shown to be wrong, and are now entering other threads where I have been posting to have a "slag" at me.

You are a fool now bugger off to the foolish stalinist dream you have been living "before I was even born", and stop wasting my time, your ignorant tactics to get me angry will no work.

[Severian]

Basically, AK, you said that Orwell would never do such an awful thing, but if he did, it was OK.

I have a bit of a soft spot for Orwell and his writings, myself. Especially 'Homage to Catalonia' and 'Politics and the English Language'.

He started out as a social democrat, a bit better than some perhaps. He swung left while fighting in the Spanish Civil War. In "Homage to Catalonia" he's opposing Stalinism from the left - it wasn't hard for social-democrats to be left of Stalinism during that period.

Later, though, he started swinging right again. "Animal Farm" involves the new-class concept, and "1984" is all about the theory of bureaucratic collectivism, or oligarchical collectivism, the idea that Stalinism, fascism, etc. were all aspects of a new phase of society and a new totalitarian ruling class. A logical conclusion from this theory was that capitalism was better, and it's no coincidence that most of those who espoused this theory ended up giving their allegiance to the capitalist class.

OK, 1984's a work of fiction, and it's ambiguous whether Orwell was endorsing the theory or just exploring it. But the overall picture is that Orwell was accomodating himself to the ruling elite during the last years of his life. So the letter's no great surprise. Another example: During WWII, he made government broadcasts to India encouraging people there not to seek independence. ('Course, Stalinists went even further along those lines.)

Of course, he remained a "democratic socialist," as AK says. But there's no contradiction between being a "democratic socialist" and being a servant of capital, even helping carry out bloody repression against the working class. We don't even have to go back into the old history about Noske for that: Ask the Algerians about Mitterand, or Venezuelans about Carlos Andres Peres.

Orwell's eventual total sellout doesn't erase what was of political value in his earlier works, of course. That would be like rewriting history to erase "enemies of the people" from photographs.

And no political position can erase literary/artistic value.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Good try at backpeddling AK47.

No one is buying it mate. Once again you have been had. Stop whining like a pussy.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Severian on 7:04 pm on July 28, 2003
Basically, AK, you said that Orwell would never do such an awful thing, but if he did, it was OK.


You find where I said anything even remotly like that. What I actually said was that I found it hard to believe because: -

A) He was on deaths door by that stage of his life,
B) and even if he did he was not betraying anybody, his fealings towards totalitarianism were clear.

Good try at backpeddling AK47.

Sorry grand dad the only "pussy" round here is my pet cat, and I have not back peddaled at all, perhaps if you bothered to read posts instead of critisising their authors you would see that you are again wrong. Tell me is it getting to be habitual, being wrong?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Whatever you say son.


Backpeddle backpeddle.

Watch out behind you, you may trip over some baby carcasses left by comrade Stalin.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 2:29 am on July 29, 2003
Whatever you say son.


Backpeddle backpeddle.

Watch out behind you, you may trip over some baby carcasses left by comrade Stalin.

LOL you really are an idiot, you have no case so you revert to sarcasm, typical ignorant stalinist attitude.

[Severian]

Either of you want to comment on the meat of my post instead of going "nyah nyah nyah" at each other?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 05:04 PM
Either of you want to comment on the meat of my post instead of going "nyah nyah nyah" at each other?
Sorry dude...

However I did breiefly respond to what you posted...

You find where I said anything even remotly like that. What I actually said was that I found it hard to believe because: -

A. He was on deaths door by that stage of his life,
B. and even if he did he was not betraying anybody, his fealings towards totalitarianism were clear.

[chamo]

If you look at any biography on Orwell, you will find that it would have been impossible for him to do such a thing:

" In February 1946, Orwell published Critical Essays, which was published in the U.S. that April as Dickens, Dali and Others. He left London to live on the island of Jura, with his son and a nurse. There, he began Nineteen Eighty-Four, and grew ill. In December 1947, Orwell entered Hairmyres Hospital, near Glasgow. He returned to Jura in July 1948. In January 1949, he entered a sanatorium in Cranham, Gloucestershire. Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in June and was instantly a success. In September, Orwell was admitted to University College Hospital in London. He married Sonia Brownell on October 13. Orwell died on January 21, 1950 and was buried at the Church of All Saints, Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire."

So basically, he spent 1946-1949 living on the island of Jura, in the Hebrides. near death and working non-stop on 1984. Anyone with a knowledge of the geography of Britain will know that the Hebredeian islands of Scotland are very remote and at those times there would have been no telephone lines, very few visitors and a near non-existant post service. Then some more time in hospital until his death, where it would have been impossible for him to have any contact with the alledged communists.

[canikickit]

Thread in literature (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=11982).

Orwell's original preface to Animal farm (http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html)

Quote from the above link:


On the other hand, given his (thoroughly justified) hatred of Stalinism, it is possible that Orwell would have made, had he lived, the same ideological journey Burnham did, from leftist to Cold Warrior. His distrust of the Soviet Union was forged in the Spanish Civil War, where he witnessed the betrayal of the non-Stalinist Left by their pro-Russian "comrades". In the years after the Second World War, he argued that, if such was the choice, it would be better to be part of the American empire than under the thumb of Russia (probably true for an Englishman; a Guatemalan might disagree). And, despite a life spent emphasizing the importance of extending to our enemies the considerations and freedoms we consider indispensable for ourselves, Orwell then spent much of his last years drawing up and distributing lists of those of his fellow writers he considered to be Soviet pawns. One might wish to cut a dying man some slack over such McCarthyist behaviour, but, even so, for a long term champion of freedom and humanity to act thus suggests that the danger of sliding into "Fascist ways of thought", as he termed them, must be real indeed.

Orweel was a fantastic writer, and his works should be read by all. Nevertheless, I find his sell-out absolutely sickening, it pisses me off to no end. It doesn't detract from the messages of his books however.

In neither Animal Farm nor 1984 is there any criticism of communism (that I've noted, but I do enjoy being shown to be wrong). I've asked people before to point out some examples, but they have always failed to do so. What he criticises is totalitarianism, and class based societies. It is true that he looked to the Soviet Union as a basis for these criticisms, but whether that is accurate or not does not interest me.


"Animal Farm" involves the new-class concept, and "1984" is all about the theory of bureaucratic collectivism, or oligarchical collectivism, the idea that Stalinism, fascism, etc. were all aspects of a new phase of society and a new totalitarian ruling class. A logical conclusion from this theory was that capitalism was better, and it's no coincidence that most of those who espoused this theory ended up giving their allegiance to the capitalist class.

OK, 1984's a work of fiction, and it's ambiguous whether Orwell was endorsing the theory or just exploring it.

If you really found it ambiguous, perhaps you should read the books again.
I have no doubt that Orwell was against what he portrayed in those two books. Take these two quotes for example:

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which".

"If you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever".


A logical conclusion from this theory was that capitalism was better, and it's no coincidence that most of those who espoused this theory ended up giving their allegiance to the capitalist class.

I think a more logical conclusion is that Orwell was saying that what he portrayed was no better, or indeed worse than capitalism. 1984 is worse than today's capitalism, and if you watch Fox News you'll see the United States is trying it's best to move in that direction.


During WWII, he made government broadcasts to India encouraging people there not to seek independence.

I believe Marx and Engels did the same (I think redstar said so, at least).
It's true that Orwell worked for the BBC around this time, but he hated the work, and it was the inspiration for Winston's job in 1984. Orwell knew he was the mouthpiece for the empire, and he quit because of that.
I'm not excusing his actions, just adding to your sketchy details.

[CopperGoat]

you guys don't remember that Animal Farm was almost not published because he heavily criticized Winston Churchill for being with Stalin, and most publishers didn't want to publish because of that.

[chamo]

That wasn't precisley the reason for it not being published at first, during the war. If you read the preface for the English edition entitled "The Freedom of the Press" you will see it is because he criticises the Soviet government, and as during the war Britain needed to be on good terms with the Soviets to fight the Nazis and didn't want to upset them in any way. When Orwell presented the book to the publisher, the publisher got a little scared and decided to inform the Ministry of Defence, who sent him the letter thus:

"I mentioned the reaction I had had from an important official in the Ministry of Information with regard to Animal Farm. I must confess that this expression of opinion has given me seriously to think... I can see now that it might be regarded as something which it was highly ill-advised to publish at the present time. If the fable were addressed generally to dictators and dictatorships at large then publication would be all right, but the fable does follow, as I see now, so completely the progress of the Russian Soviets and their two dictators, that it can apply only to Russia, to the exclusion of the other dictatorships. Another thing: it would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are."

[CopperGoat]

Oh ok then, hmm well then that's a bummer...

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:50 AM
If you really found it ambiguous, perhaps you should read the books again.
I have no doubt that Orwell was against what he portrayed in those two books.

You're missing my point. Since it's literature and not nonfiction, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on whether he's endorsing Burnham's (originally Bruno R's) theory of bureaucratic collectivism in 1984 - the theory explained in the "Theory of Oligarchic Collectivism" book within the book. Basically, the question is whether he's saying societies like this are likely. Obviously he didn't think they were desirable.


I think a more logical conclusion is that Orwell was saying that what he portrayed was no better, or indeed worse than capitalism. 1984 is worse than today's capitalism, and if you watch Fox News you'll see the United States is trying it's best to move in that direction.


The world of 1984 has all of capitalism's vices and none of its virtues, and most importantly it has little or no hope for change. Despite whatever tendencies capitalism might have to internally evolve in this direction, I think there's little question which side one is supposed to take in a conflict between the U.S. and a society perceived as being like "1984."

And we have experimental evidence, if you will, as to which way most supporters of the "bureaucratic collectivism" theory evolved politically. A quote in your post mentioned Burnham, he's the ultimate but far from the only example of this. Basically, neoconservatism was created by ex-leftists who defected under the influence of the "bureaucratic collectivism" and "new class" concepts. These theories were also factors in the formation of Cold Warrior social democracy - also known as "State Department Socialism" - Max Schachtman was a good example of this tendency.

[Durruti]

He was an anarchist you fucking dick. Read Homage to Catilonia and you'll see him bash the state and authority (ALL OF IT). Your as narrow minded as any Nazi, fuckwit.
"Oh! He's not 100% Aryan! he must be a Jewish Agent!" "Oh, he said something aginst the Party! He must be a British Agent!"
Fascism is all the same, and if people make slaves out of other people it doesn't matter if they say they're on the left or the right! Those who enslave the worker while claiming to empower the worker betray him twice! A communist despot is twice as bad as a capitalist, and just like a Nazi.

[Severian]

Heh. Actually, in "Homage to Catalonia" Orwell writes that whoever wins the Civil War, Spain will likely be a dictatorship, so it might as well be a dictatorship of the working man. That's almost a direct quote. Not a terribly anarchist thing to say.

That was the leftmost swing of a left social-democrat, of course.

[Durruti]

If you actually read the book you'd realize he was talking about the Communists or the Fascists, not the anarchist revolt. It wasn't a war between Anarchists and Fascists, so much as a war between Communists (who managed to take control of the government late in the conflict) and Fascists who were both against anarchists (though the Communists claimed to be on the side of the anarchists, and though the anarchists only wished to fight the Fascists). He makes that expressly clear the dynamics of the conflict, and the fact that he was fighting for a worker's Spain.
That statement was in support of the Communists (not against the anarchists), but given the choice between anarchism and dictatorship I think he made it quite clear what side he was on. How many times did he say he was shot at by the Communists just for fighting along side trotskities? You did read where he blamed the Communist's hault on revolutionary activities for loosing the war (and rightfully so).

[sliverchrist]

lots of love here to be sure. :)

aaaahhhh...comraderie

[Durruti]

lol, yeah... Sorry. Orwell is one of my heros.

[BOZG]

Orwell was not an anarchist and never claimed to be. He considered himself a democratic socialist and as far as I know, he may have been a little more radical in his youth.



What he criticises is totalitarianism, and class based societies.

Exactly. He used the Soviet Union as the basis for writing at the time but that his books were meant to apply to any sort of totalitarian society, whether left or right.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 07:28 PM
Orwell was not an anarchist and never claimed to be. He considered himself a democratic socialist as far as I know.
Yes, that is correct.

[Durruti]

Orwell was not an anarchist and never claimed to be. He considered himself a democratic socialist and as far as I know, he may have been a little more radical in his youth.
Fair enough, I guess I read too much into his defence of the CNT/FAI and his statement that he'd rather fight along side the Anarchists than the trotskities...
Anyway, I think the point being made is that not everyone who's anti-authoritarian is a spy for the capitalists.

[chamo]

What are you onto you FBI grass? You seem to be as if you're about to squeal.

You're either with us or against us!
:ph34r:

[the SovieT]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 09:05 AM
Heh. Actually, in "Homage to Catalonia" Orwell writes that whoever wins the Civil War, Spain will likely be a dictatorship, so it might as well be a dictatorship of the working man. That's almost a direct quote. Not a terribly anarchist thing to say.

That was the leftmost swing of a left social-democrat, of course.
if the republicans had won in the spanish civil war the dictatorship of the proletariat would most certainly be implemented...

perhaps Orwell was too "leftist" to understand that hum? ;)

[Conghaileach]

Orwell came to truly despise Stalinism after his experiences in the Spanish civil war. During the second world war, he gave his services to the British government (making radio broadcasts and such) as a way of continuing his fight against fascism.

He made a list of writers, whom he considered Stalinist, who he thought shouldn't be allowed to get published, go on air, etc. because he didn't want them spewing their Stalinist crap.

It's sad really that he did it, but he despised all forms of authoritarianism, whether it be right or "left".

[BOZG]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 16 2003, 04:19 AM
if the republicans had won in the spanish civil war the dictatorship of the proletariat would most certainly be implemented...
A dictatorship of the proleteriat would only have been implemented, if the Republican leadership could have been overthrown because the majority of them were counter-revolutionary, petit-bourgeois bastard and feared a revolutionary situation as much as they feared fascism.

[Cassius Clay]

George Orwell was a grass? Well ofcourse he was. Neither do I particularly hold it against him, he wasn't a Communist and I dont think ever claimed to be as such. He had a bad experience in the Civil War and thus decided to blame it all on the 'Stalinists'. Shame that thousands of Internationalists disagree with him and his version of events. There was a South Bank Show programme on him recently and it was the first programme which began to question the 'myth of Orwell' I wouldn't be surprised if far more came out in the years ahead.

Now he may of been a good writer and some of his stuff may be progressive (like the 'Road to Wigan Pier') but fact is fact. He was a Cold Warrior who used the same scare tactics as Joe McCarthur, whatever he thought this 'Authoritarianism' was it cannot be said a man like Charlie Chaplin represented it. Does anyone honestly think people like Brecht, Robeson, DuBois and Shaw admired Stalin and the USSR because it was 'Authoriatarian'? Give me a break. The Imperialists love Orwell because his view of the world was just like theres and he served them. Whether he did this delibartly or thought he was fighting some 'Evil' and was on the 'good side' doesn't really matter.

My adive on Orwell as a writer. Ignore Animal Farm and other crap while acknowledge and credit the guy for stuff like 'Doublespeak' and 'War is Peace'. I guess the old anti-Communist ended up doing something good in his generally messed up life.

Here's to you Mr Orwell. I'm sure the world's workers and oppressed peoples will crush the forces of Tyranny and Authoritarianism. What's more their beggining to do it but regretably they aint taking their inspiration from you but rather some pig called, oh now what was his name? :D

[Severian]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 16 2003, 03:19 AM
if the republicans had won in the spanish civil war the dictatorship of the proletariat would most certainly be implemented...


"BornOfZapatasGuns" is right in his response to this. Certainly neither the Republican government nor the Spanish Stalinists had any intention of allowing a workers' revolution, before or after the war, nor did they claim to.

Additionally, the only way to win the Spanish Civil War was to "implement" workers power.