George Orwell

[abbielives!]

1984, good book or the greatest?

[Sir_No_Sir]

A good number of people here hate it.

I absolutely loved it though, finished it in like a day and a half. Could not put it down.

[Janus]

This book has been discussed many times:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52234&hl=1984
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47887&hl=1984
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40866&hl=1984
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=19193&hl=1984
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41232&hl=1984
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=11943&hl=1984
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=11685&hl=1984
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=11613&hl=1984
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=11431&hl=1984

[Angry Young Man]

Awesome book. I did a linguistic analysis of it for my English Language coursework. I've never Enjoyed coursework as much as that before or since. I did the bit in Ch IX where Winston and Julia get caught becuase I can remember exactly how I felt when I first read it: I was on a bus and picked up my book, then I read "You are the dead" and nigh shat myself.

Even if you don't agree with his politics (which would be strange on a left-wing forum) you can appreciate his prose. When it comes to evocative prose, I'd put Orwell up there with Shakespeare. That's probably why I didn't like "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway." I need to get a copy of "Homage".

[manic expression]

I read it. I found it a pure waste of time.

[Political_Chucky]

Really? I liked it. It was time consuming for me, but it was an interesting story. Especially the part when Winston gets captured :o Anyone that said it was a waste of time better not come on here later on with some crappy book suggestions however :|

[FOREVER LEFT]

Literary critics like Shakespearean Harold Bloom don't find the 1984's prose up to par. Bloom called it "a very badly written good book."
Check out his book on Orwell in his modern critical interpretation series.

[Exovedate]

I thought it was a great book that was excellently written. I enjoyed how it showed that a crucial step in converting a society to socalism is the transfer of power to the proletarians. 1984 really showed that if this step is not carried out, the resulting society can be so very far from the type of society we are working towards.

EDIT: definately a good book, although not the greatest

[Chocobo]

I didn't find the book really too amazing, but thats only because I already agree with the anti-totalitarian outlook and understood most of its symbolism to the USSR. I bet it would be great for anyone interested in learning about the USSR or so and were seeking a break from straight facts to fictional allegory.

Also, the love story in it.....I did like. I know a lot of critics say it was plain and rather simple but eh, these revolutionary books get me stoked on each part of them. Couldn't help myself but smile at each meeting of Winston and Julia.

[Mariam]

Orwell's non-fiction work is much better.

[Sir_No_Sir]

Wasn't Orwell a socialist?

[El Chavo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:58 pm
Wasn't Orwell a socialist?
Yes he was a socialist. Read his book Homage to Catalonia. It will blow you away.

[Ander]

To be honest, I never completely read 1984. I am going to read it very shortly as I have it here at home.

Homage to Catalonia, though, now that is a good book.

[Delta]

Homage to Catalonia is awesome, just awesome.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I havnt, as of yet, read it but iv heared a rap version of it? I guess its an anti-lenninst sort of thing? Am i corect, because George Orwell was a socialist....so i, as a left communist, should like it?

[Janus]

I guess its an anti-lenninst sort of thing?
It's meant to be anti-totalitarianism and anti-Stalinist.

Past threads on this:
Animal Farm (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55209&hl=+Animal++Farm)
Animal Farm on film (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52547&hl=+Animal++Farm)
Animal Farm (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48045&hl=+Animal++Farm)
Animal Farm (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43949&hl=+Animal++Farm)
Animal Farm (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31866&hl=+Animal++Farm)

[Comrade Marcel]

FFS! I have already recommended that someone post a sticky of Orwell so we don't keep getting stupid threads that look something like this 99% of the time:


I herd animul fram/1984 is communist/anti-communist, i nver red it but they arg making me in skul. I want 2 wathc the moviee of ti. Wut d u all thin?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24, 2007 10:10 pm
FFS! I have already recommended that someone post a sticky of Orwell so we don't keep getting stupid threads that look something like this 99% of the time:


I herd animul fram/1984 is communist/anti-communist, i nver red it but they arg making me in skul. I want 2 wathc the moviee of ti. Wut d u all thin?
Yup, will do. I was trying to reduce the number of stickies, but this will save a lot of annoyance and repetition, so here goes.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+April 25, 2007 02:33 am--> (Mujer Libre @ April 25, 2007 02:33 am)
Comrade [email protected] 24, 2007 10:10 pm
FFS! I have already recommended that someone post a sticky of Orwell so we don't keep getting stupid threads that look something like this 99% of the time:


I herd animul fram/1984 is communist/anti-communist, i nver red it but they arg making me in skul. I want 2 wathc the moviee of ti. Wut d u all thin?
Yup, will do. I was trying to reduce the number of stickies, but this will save a lot of annoyance and repetition, so here goes. [/b]
Thanks, it's gotten pretty annoying. Now, someone should post links to all the 1984 threads, and hopefully we won't have to have the same old boring discussions again. :D

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+April 25, 2007 05:18 am--> (Comrade Marcel @ April 25, 2007 05:18 am)
Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 25, 2007 02:33 am

Comrade [email protected] 24, 2007 10:10 pm
FFS! I have already recommended that someone post a sticky of Orwell so we don't keep getting stupid threads that look something like this 99% of the time:


I herd animul fram/1984 is communist/anti-communist, i nver red it but they arg making me in skul. I want 2 wathc the moviee of ti. Wut d u all thin?
Yup, will do. I was trying to reduce the number of stickies, but this will save a lot of annoyance and repetition, so here goes.
Thanks, it's gotten pretty annoying. Now, someone should post links to all the 1984 threads, and hopefully we won't have to have the same old boring discussions again. :D [/b]
I took the lazy way out. But now, thanks to Janus, all the links are in one thread. And it's pinned! Hurray.

[A.J.]

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 18, 2007 12:58 am
I read it. I found it a pure waste of time.
,|,, fist yourself.

[Angry Young Man]

Anyho. You said about his non-fiction. Who's read "Road to Wigan Pier"?

I know Yorkshire and Lancashire (particularly the latter) aren't quite as glamourous as Catalonia, but he goes there to find out about the conditions of the working man. Then he slags off intellectual "socialists" (i.e. social democrats like fabians). Very good.

[CurlyTheCommunist]

A badly written good book eh? I would classify Nineteen Eighty Four as a superbly written great book. Yes, his prose is fairly simple, but eloquently written none the less.

I would also reccomend Keep The Aspidistra Flying his book about a man (Gordon Comstock) who makes an independant choice to place himself into poverty to escape the "Capitalist money trap", great commentary on societys attempt to normalise a persons aspirations.

[welshred]

I have read the road to wigan pier, I thought it was a great read. A bit dated now perhaps but still an excellent book.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:50 pm
I would also reccomend Keep The Aspidistra Flying his book about a man (Gordon Comstock) who makes an independant choice to place himself into poverty to escape the "Capitalist money trap", great commentary on societys attempt to normalise a persons aspirations.
This is Orwells best work of fiction IMO.

[Lenin II]

The greatest. I thought it was very well-written and held my interest. I think it cannot be pinned down as a criticism of any ONE thing: it is a critical portrayal of Stalinism, totalitarianism, Leninism gone awry and the cult of personality. I don't think it was meant to target communism itself, at least not true communism, but rather what could happen if the idea was abused. We can also interpret it as a caution against the excessive power of any government.

It also shows the raw evil of nationalism, and of religon. in the book, we are told Big Brother is always watching us, the same way God is, to make sure we "behave." if we do not we are sent to be tortured (hell).

Still the most disturbing book I have ever read.

[yns_mr]

I've just read the Animal Farm by George Orwell. Even if you haven't read the book, you probably have an idea about it...

He criticizes Stalin in the book.

What are your thoughts about the book...

All replies have already been welcomed...... :D

[che's long lost daughter]

Does anyone else think this should be moved to the literature and films section? The book has been discussed several times there.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by che's long lost [email protected] 11, 2007 04:42 pm
Does anyone else think this should be moved to the literature and films section? The book has been discussed several times there.
Depends really; if this is a discussion of the book yes, but it is likely that this will be a general thread about Orwell's ideas eventually (as is the norm)...and if this is the case it should probably stay here, unless of course the forum mod sees a particular problem with it.

yns_mr: Personally I don't think it was a great book, it is a rather clever little satire, but as well as being a black mark in the history of Stalinism it is a seen as a black mark in the history of communism. Although Orwell by this point claimed to be writing everything for libertarian socialism and against authoritarian regimes he makes little effort to distinguish...and because of this I question his motives.

There have been many many many discussions on this topic, here are some of the prime ones perhaps: Old discussion:animal farm (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48045&hl=animal+farm)
Post linking lots of threads on the matter (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55209&view=findpost&p=1292154649)
Sticky on Orwell/1984/Animal Farm (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65470&hl=animal+farm)

There have been a lot of ideas surrounding this matter, and it is one of the areas that I have shifted my view on since visited here...there are some good (and some not so good) discussions that I have linked above.

[Janus]

There are numerous Animal Farm threads in Lit. & Films. In fact, so many that there is now an Orwell sticky in there.

Moved.

[Angry Young Man]

Animal Farm is an abomination. It is used as a weapon against socialism when the author was a socialist! WTF :angry: :blink: (combine these 2 emocons into one angry and confused little emocon!)
It is a massive detriment to someone as genius as Orwell. The animation was funded by teh C.I.A., btw.
I really wanna get my grubby mitts on a copy of Homage.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:50 pm
his prose is fairly simple, but eloquently written none the less.


Orwell intended his prose to be simple. That way it could be understood by everyone. His language is also very innovative, and the reason he created NEWSPEAK was because he perceived - in BRITISH CAPITALIST SOCIETY, NOT RUSSIA, before anyone jumps on my back - that language was increasingly becoming mediocre, and that mediocrity could be used to control minds.
In an essay from my English class, there are 4 things that rot the language:

OPERATORS OF VERBAL FALSE LIMBS - I think this is like phrases like "gives/gave rise to", although the only synonym I can think of is "enables/d", which doesn't seem quite right, light "The power struggle in Russia from 1924-29 gave rise to / enabled Stalin to take power."

PRETENTIOUS DICTION: Using words that are perfectly descriptive in their Saxon form, but people use a Latinate word to sound clever. (An example my teacher gave us is "Copulate/fuck"! Good old Kerry!) Although, he becomes a hypocrite when he says "Euphonious" instead of "pleasant."

DYING METAPHORS - Includes similes. The ones that no longer mean anything and have lost all evocative power, or never made sense at all like "Happy as Larry". First of all, who is Larry, what does he look like, and why is he perpetually happy? Why not say something original like "Happy as a penguin in a microwave"?

Can't remember last 1.

RR x

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Romantic [email protected] 14, 2007 05:30 am
Animal Farm is an abomination. It is used as a weapon against socialism when the author was a socialist! WTF :angry: :blink: (combine these 2 emocons into one angry and confused little emocon!)
It is a massive detriment to someone as genius as Orwell. The animation was funded by teh C.I.A., btw.
I really wanna get my grubby mitts on a copy of Homage.
I thought Animal Farm was an amazing book. To this day I laugh when I think of the sheep saying "2 legs bad 4 legs good". If your idea of socialism is the pigs elitism than it deserves to be attacked. If you don't believe socialism is that then it is an attack on authoritarianism not socialism.

[Angry Young Man]

Why whenever I speak seriously do peeps misenterpret me?

I was not saying that Orwell was attacking socialism; I was stating that the right use it as a means to attack socialism as a whole, regrdless of the author's own politics

It is an abomination because of that, although I saw a friend perform in it as Squealer (very well) and was a rather good performance. The lad playing Snowball was either a young radical or an extremely good actor.

And my definition of socialism is a completely decentralised society of mutual benefits put on an industrial scale by unions of workers of each industry doing favours for others. In my complete lack of economic understanding (what can you expect from someone who will study English Lit), I call this a favour economy.

Does that make me an anarchist, btw?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Yes it sounds like anarchism. It's called a gift economy. The only thing that sounds weird to me is workers of each industry doing favors for others. In my idea of anarchism there won't be workers set to an industry, you could rotate how you like. Or the community would ask for people to help in a certain sector and some would. So it wouldn' be the same old stagnant grind.

Whatever the right tries to do has nothing to do with the book. If I took A Brave New World and said we should stop having babies because the book says so would that make the book an abomination?

[Angry Young Man]

But what if somebody finds a job they really enjoy? Like Bar-work?

Come to think of it, what happens to pubs after the rev?

[Sir Aunty Christ]

My own interpretation of Animal Farm is that yes the Soviet Union was a noble idea but if someone as power hungry and egotistical Stalin comes to power the dream will fade and the experiment will fail.

[Honggweilo]

Orwell was a british intelligence conspirationg counter-revolutionary reactionary depressed cock. He should have sticked to pure fictional works, which he was good at IMHO, and cut the anti-communist allegories

Needed to get that of my shoulders again.. :P

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+May 05, 2007 06:50 am--> (Comrade Marcel @ May 05, 2007 06:50 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 06:50 pm
I would also reccomend Keep The Aspidistra Flying his book about a man (Gordon Comstock) who makes an independant choice to place himself into poverty to escape the "Capitalist money trap", great commentary on societys attempt to normalise a persons aspirations.
This is Orwells best work of fiction IMO. [/b]
I totally agree. Its a fantastic book.

[CornetJoyce]

In the year 1984, the Washington Post ran a frontpage piece congratulating the world that the book 1984 had "not come true." Inside the same issue was a piece explaining Thatcherism as the power of the middle class for the middle class in exactly the way Orwell had described Oceania.
A few years ago, after a Washington antiwar march, I met a young leftist organizer on
the subway and as we parted he said "Orwell is the Prophet." And so he is.

Animal Farm is about Russia. 1984 is about totalitarianism in general, Goldstein the Trotsky figure notwithstanding. Homage to Catalonia, Wigan Pier, Aspidistra and Down and Out, are all wonderful works and irritated both Gulag Marxists and Fabian Socialists. And he bluntly pointed out that the tory leadership had been almost entirely nazi sympathizers, wherefore the "phoney war" between the invasion of Poland and the nazi assault in the west.

Orwell's dread of the Russian police state led him to some unsavory stoolpigeonry but his loyalty was to the lower classes and not their "saviours."

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Romantic [email protected] 21, 2007 09:49 pm
But what if somebody finds a job they really enjoy? Like Bar-work?

Come to think of it, what happens to pubs after the rev?
Maybe it's more the freedom to rotate. You should have the freedom to choose whether you want to stay in one job (such as bar work) or rotate through different ones... ones of necessity of course...basically, what CS said.

[MisterSmurf]

Orwell was a genius, in my opinion. Animal Farm and 1984 are both used to attack socialism, and yes Orwell was a socialist himself but I don't think he was attacking leftist ideas so much as authoritarianism. He was operating on a social scale more than the economic scale of left and right so the only people I can understand hating his work are authoritarian collectivists (which he did indeed directly attack). Those two books in particular were intended, it seems to me at least, to highlight how collectivism can plausibly go wrong and easily become corrupted and totalitarian, not to contradict it entirely.

[BOZG]

I liked the book itself but Orwell himself turned into a state informer, so fuck him.

[RedHal]

Orwell provided the ruling class with some of the greatest anti communist material ever cuz it supposedly came from a "socialist". Fuck Orwell, he was a social democrat that provided the British government with lists of communist symparthizers!

[CornetJoyce]

An informer!? Where did he think he was, Russia?

[ComradeR]

Fuck Orwell, he's books are pretty good but the fact is that these works which come off as anti-socialist that the Bourgeoisie can easily use as propaganda has damaged the left immensely, it's not unlike handing a loaded gun to your enemy. He's a traitor to the left, even if these books were well intended.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:18 am
Fuck Orwell, he's books are pretty good but the fact is that these works which come off as anti-socialist that the Bourgeoisie can easily use as propaganda has damaged the left immensely, it's not unlike handing a loaded gun to your enemy. He's a traitor to the left, even if these books were well intended.
Fuck Stalin and Gulag "Socialism."
With friends like that, you don't need an enemy.

[Angry Young Man]

Play nice. Stalin may have been a despot and Orwell may have been a grass, but comrades, in't we? this ain't how droogs comport themselves publicwise.

Although Orwell was a very good writer

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:22 am
Orwell provided the ruling class with some of the greatest anti communist material ever cuz it supposedly came from a "socialist". Fuck Orwell, he was a social democrat that provided the British government with lists of communist symparthizers!
You are an ignorant moron, period. I have long sinse gone into detail why these charges are utter bullshit, you can research them at your leasure.

Start here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48045&hl=)

[Angry Young Man]

Hotlinks are always blocked, but has anyone read lion and the unicorn?

[rahul]

did orwell change the way we percieve m,arxist philosophy itself thru his negative utopia?

[Political_Chucky]

lol here comes the mass replies of "Theres already "this many" threads on 1984. Well, to avoid the rush Rahul, I suggest you check out this forum http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65470 and post your question there.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:17 pm
did orwell change the way we percieve m,arxist philosophy itself thru his negative utopia?
Negative Utopia? Do you mean dystopia?
<_< Moron.

And there&#39;s an Orwell sticky.

[redcannon]

also, i think 1984 was about a totalitarian dystopia, not nessacerily a communist or marxist dystopia.

[Tatarin]

I can imagine that capitalism will look like 1984 in a couple of decades. A must see is the movie "Orwell Rolls in his Grave".

On the book, it was great.

[CornetJoyce]

The difference between 1984 and the usa is that the latter is more atomized. So the bearded face on the screen in 1984 and the group Hate session becomes a bearded face on the screen (bin Laden) and the mostly private Hate session. This, of course, is due to technology but also perhaps a misapprehension by Orwell of the course of society. On most points, though, he was on the mark, especially on language.

[b man]

I&#39;m reading Down and out in Paris and London right now.

One is taught in school that Animal Farm and 1984 are extremely important and relevant "warning books", though the world described in DOPL is far more relevant and important. The terrible world from 1984 kept people from looking at the injustices perpetuated by themselves just because it was seen as a book critisising the enemy (Stalin). If DOPL was taught in schools, we would have a lot more young people questioning the way they live and what their way of life represents than we would have young people blindly following the state.

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I think 1984 is an important book because any totalitarian gov&#39;t should be warned aginst, but there is little danger of a 1984-like world emerging anytime in the forseeable future without massive opposition, not to mention the fact that in the book, the entire world was under such a gov&#39;t. In DOPL, however, people all over the world are suffering of that and ever worse fates, but this is not adressed.

It is not Orwell&#39;s fault western education took this path.

[Political_Chucky]

*Maybe some spoilers*

I&#39;m reading Homage to Catalonia and i&#39;m confused or at least ignorant and uneducated in the Spanish Civil War. In chapter 5, Orwell is describing the Spanish Civil War&#39;s politics. He mentions that communists, or at least it seemed he was describing the Bolshiveks in Russia, were on propaganda parades denouncing the revolution in Spain and were trying to stop revolution in Spain. Was this true or is Orwell exagerating some kind of history? I don&#39;t know much about the spanish civil war so excuse me if i&#39;m asking something in which is obvious to everyone haha.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:50 pm
also, i think 1984 was about a totalitarian dystopia, not nessacerily a communist or marxist dystopia.
No I&#39;d say it was a parody of Stalinist Russia, with IngSoc and Collective Oligarchy, etc. What people miss with Orwell is that he points to a future of when we create the Brave new socialist world, be mindful of what it can become. A more obvious theme in AF, but also prominent in 1984.

[Sentinel]

I&#39;ve just read 1984 by Orwell. It was a good, albeit depressing book. It seemed obvious to me that it wasn&#39;t anti-communist or -socialist, in fact it was pointed out that Big Brother&#39;s party had rejected traditional, original socialism in favor of oligarchy. I do understand that people, who remember schools etc in capitalist countries using it as propaganda agaisnt communism, don&#39;t necessarily have positive memories of it though.

[Bat]

I think orwell&#39;s masterpiece was against s.s.c.b it was not an anti-communist it was an anti-stalinist(sort of) I believe what orwell trying to say is present communism(s.s.c.b.) is not the way out it could turn out worse than capitalism and yes its a very depressing book because of the orewell&#39;s situation back than he was depressed world was broken war big war was just end,and everybody&#39;s hope s.s.c.b. was turned out as a big lie there were no communism there that was pretty depressing for him and he cannot see another way out so he was very depressed he was realize that slowly the world will become something like that(like 1984)and I thin he&#39;s right I can&#39;t see a world with free minded people...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Romantic Revolutionary+July 17, 2007 01:56 am--> (Romantic Revolutionary @ July 17, 2007 01:56 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 07:50 pm
also, i think 1984 was about a totalitarian dystopia, not nessacerily a communist or marxist dystopia.
No I&#39;d say it was a parody of Stalinist Russia, with IngSoc and Collective Oligarchy, etc. What people miss with Orwell is that he points to a future of when we create the Brave new socialist world, be mindful of what it can become. A more obvious theme in AF, but also prominent in 1984. [/b]
Hardly, there are so many deliberate points of obvious similarity to the Nazi regime and Orwell&#39;s imaginary world; indeed the daily excercise, etc is so obviously reminicent of the nazi ideas of &#39;Strength through joy&#39; and all that shite I honestly don&#39;t know how any leftist can possibly think it is just a critique on the USSR. Unless of course they know fuck all about the Nazi regime... and if this board is anything to go by that isn&#39;t all that unlikely.

[guerilla E]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 03, 2007 10:51 pm
Hardly, there are so many deliberate points of obvious similarity to the Nazi regime and Orwell&#39;s imaginary world; indeed the daily excercise, etc is so obviously reminicent of the nazi ideas of &#39;Strength through joy&#39; and all that shite I honestly don&#39;t know how any leftist can possibly think it is just a critique on the USSR. Unless of course they know fuck all about the Nazi regime... and if this board is anything to go by that isn&#39;t all that unlikely.
Absolutely. Orwells 1984 draws its main inspiration from ALL regimes; Maoists, Nazis, Stalinists etc.
The elements of oppressive regimes are pretty uniform; you cannot distinguish 1984 solely as a critism of state capitalism (or Soviet Russia), Orwell included many refrences to the Nazi regime (from subtle to blatant ie the use of terror attacks by V1 rockets, false flag attacks, public misinformation about military actions or figures, promotion of racism and xenophobia, de-humansitation of enemies, systematic POW mistreatment, secret police, slogans or propoganda, militant nationalism - finally the parody of a revolution (or power struggle) made by a socialist party who have now become extremely fascist (Nazi or Soviets take your pick).

Might be a little rusty on the details, if anyone disagrees I&#39;ll go over the book again for better information.

[Angry Young Man]

Doncha just hate those people who think of communism as brutality? I said next time I go to Sheffield (sometime in Oct it looks like), I&#39;ll leave my H&S star in the peace garden&#39;s Civil War memorial, and my stapmum thought that it was an insult. cretin.

W00t I bought Aspidistra :)


Speaking of which, TAT, how do I get to the peace gardens?

[Sky]

After serving with the British police in Burma, Orwell lived in poverty in London and Paris and established close ties with petit bourgeois radicals. He fought in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 in the ranks of the POUM, an anarchist organization. He was seriously wounded and, disillusioned with revolutionary ideas, became a bourgeois liberal reformist and anticommunist. During World War II he served in the English home guard and was a commentator for the BBC and a correspondent for the newspaper the Observer.

As a writer, Orwell was influenced by Jonathan Swift, Jack London, and Samuel Butler. He gained fame with his writings about the life of British miners, his reminisces of the war in Spain, and his literary criticism. However, his literary and political reputation rests almost entirely on his satire Animal Farm (1945), which advocates the pointlessness of revolutionary struggle, and his anti-utopian novel 1984 (1949), in which he depicts the society that would replace capitalism and bourgeois democracy. This future society, according to Orwell, is a totalitarian hierarchical structure, based on sophisticated techniques for enslaving the masses physically and psychologically and on total scorn for the freedom and dignity of the individual. It is a society of material deprivation and universal fear and hatred.

From the standpoint of subjective idealism, Orwell examines the problems of freedom and necessity and of the truth value of knowledge. On this basis, he attempts to justify voluntarism in politics. His warnings against certain dangerous social trends and his protests against the suppression of individual freedom are intermixed with homilies on the uselessness of struggling for a better future. This attitude enabled reactionary ideologists to make use of Orwell’s work to carry on an extensive anticommunist propaganda campaign, utilizing to this end millions of copies of his writings in many different languages and television broadcasts and motion pictures.

There has been increased interest in the West in Orwell’s ideological heritage. An intense struggle has been waged over his legacy between reactionary ultra-right forces and petit bourgeois radicals, who view Orwell as a predecessor of the New Left and believe that many trends in modern Western society are epitomized in the Orwellian vision of 1984.

[blackstone]

Study group of George Orwells's Homage to Catalonia!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/homage-catalonia-t68651/index.html

If you read the book and would like to participate please do! If you haven't, heres your chance!

[spartan]

After serving with the British police in Burma

Which is where he became disillusioned and started to become attracted to radical politics because of his experiences (I thought it funny how you failed to mention that very important fact).


He fought in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 in the ranks of the POUM, an anarchist organization.

The POUM's line was closer to the Trotskyists and anti-Stalinists, and they were also led by a former friend and colleague of Trotsky, Andres Nin.

They were loose allies with the Anarchists sure, but they themselves were hardly Anarchists.


He was seriously wounded and, disillusioned with revolutionary ideas, became a bourgeois liberal reformist and anticommunist.

He became disillusioned with the takeover of the revolution by Bourgeois Liberal Reformists, who were supported by Stalin as part of his "Popular Front" strategy!

These same counter revolutionary forces imprisoned many of his friends (Some of them even being killed) whilst Orwell had to escape from Spain to avoid getting the same treatment as them!

It seems to me that when you people read Orwell (If you even do) that you are just reading what you want to see instead of what he actually wrote.


However, his literary and political reputation rests almost entirely on his satire Animal Farm (1945), which advocates the pointlessness of revolutionary struggle, and his anti-utopian novel 1984 (1949), in which he depicts the society that would replace capitalism and bourgeois democracy.

He doesnt advocate the pointlessness of revolutionary struggle!

He shows how a revoution and its goals can be betrayed by a self appointed vanguard (Sound familiar?).

Next time when you read Orwell, be a little less objective (You never know, you just might learn something).

[McCaine]

After serving with the British police in Burma, Orwell lived in poverty in London and Paris and established close ties with petit bourgeois radicals. He fought in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 in the ranks of the POUM, an anarchist organization. He was seriously wounded and, disillusioned with revolutionary ideas, became a bourgeois liberal reformist and anticommunist. During World War II he served in the English home guard and was a commentator for the BBC and a correspondent for the newspaper the Observer.

As a writer, Orwell was influenced by Jonathan Swift, Jack London, and Samuel Butler. He gained fame with his writings about the life of British miners, his reminisces of the war in Spain, and his literary criticism. However, his literary and political reputation rests almost entirely on his satire Animal Farm (1945), which advocates the pointlessness of revolutionary struggle, and his anti-utopian novel 1984 (1949), in which he depicts the society that would replace capitalism and bourgeois democracy. This future society, according to Orwell, is a totalitarian hierarchical structure, based on sophisticated techniques for enslaving the masses physically and psychologically and on total scorn for the freedom and dignity of the individual. It is a society of material deprivation and universal fear and hatred.

From the standpoint of subjective idealism, Orwell examines the problems of freedom and necessity and of the truth value of knowledge. On this basis, he attempts to justify voluntarism in politics. His warnings against certain dangerous social trends and his protests against the suppression of individual freedom are intermixed with homilies on the uselessness of struggling for a better future. This attitude enabled reactionary ideologists to make use of Orwell’s work to carry on an extensive anticommunist propaganda campaign, utilizing to this end millions of copies of his writings in many different languages and television broadcasts and motion pictures.

There has been increased interest in the West in Orwell’s ideological heritage. An intense struggle has been waged over his legacy between reactionary ultra-right forces and petit bourgeois radicals, who view Orwell as a predecessor of the New Left and believe that many trends in modern Western society are epitomized in the Orwellian vision of 1984.This kind of turgid, jargon-filled prose is precisely what turns so many people off left-wing cultural theory and general analysis of society. It doesn't seem like you even did an honest and fair attempt to understand and properly represent what you were talking about - the POUM for example was not anarchist, but Leninist (ex-Trotskist), and name-calling like "petit bourgeois radicals" doesn't do anyone any good. Sad.

[bluestar]

I love Orwell, every word, every letter, every sentence. His works were revolutionary and show us, in and of themselves, that revolutionary struggle is possible, not pointless. He demonstrated this by his writings and the responses his writings have received.

[spartan]

I love Orwell, every word, every letter, every sentence. His works were revolutionary and show us, in and of themselves, that revolutionary struggle is possible, not pointless. He demonstrated this by his writings and the responses his writings have received.

It was also his choice of language and words when writing that i find very appealing, as it is easy to read.

I think that it was a deliberate decision on Orwells part to do this so as to make his work easily understandable, and therefore more accessible, to your average worker (Who, even if literate, were not as literate as we are today and would often only understand basic language and words).

[Lead Headache]

I'm reading it right now. I like it.

To tell the truth, this book is actually what made me like communism.

[Miss Mindfuck.]

It was REALLY difficult to get into, but once I got about halfway through it, I began to enjoy it more.
Animal Farm was my favorite; haven't yet read Homage.

[Bastable]

from what i remember Orwell was a professed "democratic Socialist", and that Animal Farm and 1984 were more like warnings for things to avoid, rather than damnations of communism

[AGITprop]

1984 was decent.
I liked it for it's anti-bureaucracy value and the fact that Orwell used such a hyperbolic setting to prove his point.

I haven't read Homage to Catalonia yet, I'm going to put it on my 'to buy' list.

Interestingly enough, for those who don't know, Orwell fought in the Spanish Revolution against the Fascists. He also met many Trotskyists on the front-lines and was very much influenced by their ideas.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'd planned on reading it for a while and finally did this year as part of my grade 12 English class. I've also got my own copy of the book and plan on reading it again.
I've debated right-wing kooks who believe that Orwell's book was an attack on Socialism and from that I'd have to say: It's no reason to hate Orwell, or at least to hate the book. He made some amazingly well-put points about "oligarchical collectivism", and the fact that people can't see how this would apply to Corporatism or right-wing authoritarianism just as well is the result of their own ignorance and should in fact only work to the left's advantage by exposing the McCarthyist right as misinformed reactionaries.

[Random Precision]

I'd planned on reading it for a while and finally did this year as part of my grade 12 English class. I've also got my own copy of the book and plan on reading it again.
I've debated right-wing kooks who believe that Orwell's book was an attack on Socialism and from that I'd have to say: It's no reason to hate Orwell, or at least to hate the book. He made some amazingly well-put points about "oligarchical collectivism", and the fact that people can't see how this would apply to Corporatism or right-wing authoritarianism just as well is the result of their own ignorance and should in fact only work to the left's advantage by exposing the McCarthyist right as misinformed reactionaries.

1984 was actually intended as a satire of postwar Britain. Room 101 is taken from a room in the BBC building in which Orwell had to suffer torturous meetings on the subject of loyalty to Britain among other things when he worked for BBC during the war. At the same time, Britain's former ally the USSR was turning into an enemy: "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia..." The colonial empire in Asia and Africa was dissolving whilst newspapers reported imperial triumphs against resistance fighters, like the crap at the very end of the novel, in fact most of Oceania's fighting takes place in India, the "crown jewel" of the British Empire. The Ministry of Truth building is based off of the British Ministry of Information building. And so on...

Orwell actually intended to name the novel 1948, but his publisher made him change the year.

[The Intransigent Faction]

1984 was actually intended as a satire of postwar Britain. Room 101 is taken from a room in the BBC building in which Orwell had to suffer torturous meetings on the subject of loyalty to Britain among other things when he worked for BBC during the war. At the same time, Britain's former ally the USSR was turning into an enemy: "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia..." The colonial empire in Asia and Africa was dissolving whilst newspapers reported imperial triumphs against resistance fighters, like the crap at the very end of the novel, in fact most of Oceania's fighting takes place in India, the "crown jewel" of the British Empire. The Ministry of Truth building is based off of the British Ministry of Information building. And so on...

Orwell actually intended to name the novel 1948, but his publisher made him change the year.

Yes that's all true and nothing I haven't heard before. I've studied all that in class.

[quevivafidel]

I read "Animal Farm" when I was eight years old and really into animals. I loved the book only because there were animals in it, but didn't get any of the symbolism. I just found the copy again and skimmed through it and couldn't believe I didn't realize the book was political and not about real farm animals when I read it!!

[Orwell Lives]

Seeing as I take my name from him, I think that Orwell's works are brilliant. Besides the obvious, he's written many interesting works. For example 'The Road to Wigan Pier.' Give it a read if you get the chance.

[MaverickChaos]

I havnt, as of yet, read it but iv heared a rap version of it? I guess its an anti-lenninst sort of thing? Am i corect, because George Orwell was a socialist....so i, as a left communist, should like it?
I thought Orwell agreed with Lenin about democratic centralism, although Orwell also believed in democratic socialism which is where the two differ. However, I have a very basic understanding so could someone please clarify the similarities and differences between the two?

[Lost In Translation]

Personally, on a literal and symbolic level, 1984 is a fantastic book.

However, many non-leftists take the plot of 1984 to seriously, and thinks that's actually what happens in communist areas (please help me find another word for this, I don't want to use "Communist State"). I think if you just enjoy it as a piece of literature, then it's fine. But when someone thinks thats real communism in action, they're asking for trouble.

[RedAnarchist]

Personally, on a literal and symbolic level, 1984 is a fantastic book.

However, many non-leftists take the plot of 1984 to seriously, and thinks that's actually what happens in communist areas (please help me find another word for this, I don't want to use "Communist State"). I think if you just enjoy it as a piece of literature, then it's fine. But when someone thinks thats real communism in action, they're asking for trouble.

Post-revolutionary society?

[MarxSchmarx]

I just finished Burmese Days.

Orwell famously spent a few years as a cop in India, and it was actually considered pretty libelous when it first came out. What I found most interesting about the book was how the British South Asia was presented as one contiguous landmass, and the British colonials didn't distinguish between Burmese and Indians.

The epilogue was meh but the prose was rich and I enjoy how Orwell's characters are so accessible in the weirdest of situations. One sees elements of all his later classics in this, and it was illuminating to see some elements of his prose that he abandoned in later works and what he kept. For instance, his use of the breakfast booze and the master-servant relationship are ubiquitous themes. However, the book featured such things as a dog that Orwell seemed undecided what to do with, and this sort of hesitation is gone from his later works.

[PostAnarchy]

Orwell's Homage to Catalonia remains one of my all time favorite books and really essential I think to understanding the Stalinist/Leninist betrayal of the working class.

[Invincible Summer]

"Keep the Aspidistra Flying" is a relatively little-known Orwell book (most people I know haven't heard of it), but I find it to be quite good.

It's about this man who is essentially fed up with the material world and its "money-stink" and tries to figure out what to do, at the detriment of his relationships to his wife and others.

[Akim]

I am reading 1984 at the moment. I am in the part where Winston is being tortured. Horrible reading. :eek: I gues I have a sensitive mind , but for me its very depressing to read someone being beaten and treated with electronic shocks. Makes me puke.

[Kernewek]

Personally, on a literal and symbolic level, 1984 is a fantastic book.

However, many non-leftists take the plot of 1984 to seriously, and thinks that's actually what happens in communist areas (please help me find another word for this, I don't want to use "Communist State"). I think if you just enjoy it as a piece of literature, then it's fine. But when someone thinks thats real communism in action, they're asking for trouble.

it's not that people take it to seriously, they just misunderstand it

the book was never intended as a comment about communism in action, it’s about totalitarianism and what had happened in germany, was still happing in russia and what orwell feared could happen in the uk

[ZeroNowhere]

I find the prose rather dull in 1984, though it's not a horrible book, probably around 2/5. Still, when it comes to being taught in schools... Well, he managed to sneak anti-capitalist literature into schools. Cool.


I havnt, as of yet, read it but iv heared a rap version of it? I guess its an anti-lenninst sort of thing? Am i corect, because George Orwell was a socialist....so i, as a left communist, should like it?
All of the problems in it originate with the Stalin-pig. So no.

[Emily]

Personally, on a literal and symbolic level, 1984 is a fantastic book.

However, many non-leftists take the plot of 1984 to seriously, and thinks that's actually what happens in communist areas (please help me find another word for this, I don't want to use "Communist State"). I think if you just enjoy it as a piece of literature, then it's fine. But when someone thinks thats real communism in action, they're asking for trouble.

Completely agree. It was a fantastic book on many levels. The tone, imagery and language all really set the scene. As a novel and piece of fiction, its fantastic and well-written.

But it can be seriously misinterpreted.

[Sean]

My fav Orwell thing is actually shooting an elephant (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/) for some reason.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Personally, on a literal and symbolic level, 1984 is a fantastic book.

However, many non-leftists take the plot of 1984 to seriously, and thinks that's actually what happens in communist areas (please help me find another word for this, I don't want to use "Communist State"). I think if you just enjoy it as a piece of literature, then it's fine. But when someone thinks thats real communism in action, they're asking for trouble.

I had to read it in my grade 12 high school English class. The majority of my class actually believed it was a Communist society portrayed in that book. This made me frustrated.



My fav Orwell thing is actually shooting an elephant (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/) for some reason.


We read that piece in class as an intro into George Orwell's ideas as it gives a pretty good idea about his Anti-Imperialist attitude. I loved how the elephant itself because a metaphor for Imperialism. Very well-written.

[Pawn Power]

The Master Piece that Killed George Orwell. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/10/1984-george-orwell)

Including some of the popular terms that we all us which came from his most famous book:


Orwellian
George owes his own adjective to this book alone and his idea that wellbeing is crushed by restrictive, authoritarian and untruthful government.
Big Brother (is watching you)
A term in common usage for a scarily omniscient ruler long before the worldwide smash-hit reality-TV show was even a twinkle in its producers' eyes. The irony of societal hounding of Big Brother contestants would not have been lost on George Orwell.
Room 101
Some hotels have refused to call a guest bedroom number 101 - rather like those tower blocks that don't have a 13th floor - thanks to the ingenious Orwellian concept of a room that contains whatever its occupant finds most impossible to endure. Like Big Brother, this has spawned a modern TV show: in this case, celebrities are invited to name the people or objects they hate most in the world.
Thought Police
An accusation often levelled at the current government by those who like it least is that they are trying to tell us what we can and cannot think is right and wrong. People who believe that there are correct ways to think find themselves named after Orwell's enforcement brigade.
Thoughtcrime
See "Thought Police" above. The act or fact of transgressing enforced wisdom.
Newspeak
For Orwell, freedom of expression was not just about freedom of thought but also linguistic freedom. This term, denoting the narrow and diminishing official vocabulary, has been used ever since to denote jargon currently in vogue with those in power.
Doublethink
Hypocrisy, but with a twist. Rather than choosing to disregard a contradiction in your opinion, if you are doublethinking, you are deliberately forgetting that the contradiction is there. This subtlety is mostly overlooked by people using the accusation of "doublethink" when trying to accuse an adversary of being hypocritical - but it is a very popular word with people who like a good debate along with their pints in the pub. Oliver Marre

[Il Medico]

I have never read it, however I hear it is a great book. Hemingway is also very good.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I have never read it, however I hear it is a great book. Hemingway is also very good.

1984 is great. I think Orwell gives a brilliant outline of what would happen if a government ever gained too much power. Orwell's universe in that book is the ultimate dystopia. It has recently gotten my friend interested, but she views Communism as what is represented in that book.

[Il Medico]

1984 is great. I think Orwell gives a brilliant outline of what would happen if a government ever gained too much power. Orwell's universe in that book is the ultimate dystopia. It has recently gotten my friend interested, but she views Communism as what is represented in that book.
Then show her why she is wrong comrade!:che::castro::trotski::engles::hammersickl e::marx::hammersickle::thumbup:
Show her what communism really is!

[austinallegro]

Orwell is my favourite author, with 1984 as one of my favourite books. The film version with John Hurt and Richard Burton is especially good. I would also reccomend the semi-autobiographical "Down and Out in Paris and London" which shows the genesis of his socialist ideas whilst he was 'down and out'...

[Death By Starbucks.]

People always talk about George Orwell being a great man and socialist, but to be honest, i think he views us working class as stupid, dirty and ultimately inferior.
His patronising remarks about us proles pissed me off to be frank, and he has the air of an arrogant well off Eaton boy who writes on the plight of the poor to make himself feel like he is a great and noble man.
Also his remarks on how the Communists in spain were in leage with the facsists is a stain on the memory of all the communists who died fighting facsism.
What do you think.
Am i just being sensitive.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

He did come from an upper class background so it's not really surprising.

He was still highly intelligent and he actually picked up a gun and fought for socialism. Can't really ask much more of a revolutionary. His personal views of trivial things aren't really important IMO.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Also his remarks on how the Communists in spain were in leage with the facsists is a stain on the memory of all the communists who died fighting facsism.


When did he accuse the Communists of being in league with the fascists? As far as I know, all he accused them of was falsely accusing the Trotskyites and the anarchists of being in league with the fascists and subsequently suppressing said POUM and CNT members. Which was actually, y'know, kinda...true.

[rednordman]

I think the main question that has to be posed is that of who he and his works have helped the most...the communists, or the anti-communists?

[Искра]

He worked for police. That says everything about him.

[KurtFF8]

He worked for police. That says everything about him.

Are you referring to when he worked for the imperial police in India? And wasn't that also one of the things that made him, at least to some degree, an anti-Capitalist?

[Искра]

No, I was referring to the fact that he much later worked for British police as a "sneak" and he was making "a communist" list for them. He even put a Charlie Chaplin on that list.

[Random Precision]

Lets face it. The man is a hero of the neoconservative movement today. If he were alive today its highly likely that he'd be a Hitchens or Horowitz type conservative.

I wish I could tell what historical personalities would have done if they hadn't died, it would be so cool. :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Dude did some questionable things. Sexist and sort of a chauvinist. People have flaws. v:mellow:v

Wasn't he also incredibly poor for a long time (when he wrote Down and Out)?

[Death By Starbucks.]

1984 his character wanted to rape and slit julias throat.
art immitating life.:confused:

[RedHal]

Are you referring to when he worked for the imperial police in India? And wasn't that also one of the things that made him, at least to some degree, an anti-Capitalist?

No this guy was an outright informer for the British Intelligence, he compiled a list of suspected communists in the the UK and US and VOLUNTARILY handed it over to British intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list

[gorillafuck]

Dude did some questionable things. Sexist and sort of a chauvinist. People have flaws. v:mellow:v

Wasn't he also incredibly poor for a long time (when he wrote Down and Out)?
Ya, he was.

He had many flaws about him (I'd be pretty fucking pretentious if I said I didn't have any personality flaws), but he went to Spain to fight against fascism and along revolutionaries. So I don't think that he was just tooting his own horn when he wrote.

Edit: ^^^Wow, I never heard about that. Any info on it that isn't a wikipedia article?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Lets face it. The man is a hero of the neoconservative movement today. If he were alive today its highly likely that he'd be a Hitchens or Horowitz type conservative. Its no surprise that people on the far right consider him their supreme hero.

Of course it's easy for Neo-Cons to use his works. They can take stuff such as Animal Farm and say it's Anti-Communist rather than just Anti-Stalinist. Schools have been doing it for years.

[Random Precision]

It isn't my claim actually. Neoconservative John Podhoretz made this claim in one of his articles. Why is it that the far right considers him as a hero? I don't see them having similar respect to any of the other socialist/communist writers or theorists.

Honestly, why should we care?

[Искра]

Of course it's easy for Neo-Cons to use his works. They can take stuff such as Animal Farm and say it's Anti-Communist rather than just Anti-Stalinist. Schools have been doing it for years.
You should read book by Joe Dole Anarchist Farm :D It's book about Snowball (your Trot friend) who becomes lifestyle anarchist :D
Terrible book :D

[RedHal]

Ya, he was.

He had flaws about him (I'd be pretty fucking pretentious if I said I didn't have any personality flaws), but he went to Spain to fight against fascism and fight in a revolution for something that he saw as positive. I don't think that he was just tooting his own horn when he wrote.

Edit: ^^^Wow, I never heard about that. Any info on it that isn't a wikipedia article?

I linked to wiki because it's the easiest source, but the list is official, and not a hoax, there is plenty of information about it. Any revolutionary leftist who considers orwell a comrade till the end, needs a lesson in revolutionary security.

[bailey_187]

Of course it's easy for Neo-Cons to use his works. They can take stuff such as Animal Farm and say it's Anti-Communist rather than just Anti-Stalinist. Schools have been doing it for years.

Orwell was staunchly anti-communist though, even if you dont think "stalinism" is communism.

he was just a labourite.

I quite enjoyed 1984 but his works should never been considered an accurate history or exposure of the soviet union

[Olerud]

I quite enjoyed 1984 but his works should never been considered an accurate history or exposure of the soviet union
Agreed i really can't stand Animal Farm as anything more than a fairy tale. I don't think i seen one positive word about Stalin through the WHOLE book while portraying Trotsky as a hero (or at least the lesser of two evils).

[Искра]

1984? That a reactionary book.

In that book when main character eats chocolate he thinks how society and life was better before wars and Big Brother. If you think of that society as a Soviet Union, and a Big Brother as Stalin, war is then October revolution. Which means that Orwell is advocating Czarism.

[Olerud]

In that book when main character eats chocolate he thinks how society and life was better before wars and Big Brother. If you think of that society as a Soviet Union, and a Big Brother as Stalin, war is then October revolution. Which means that Orwell is advocating Czarism.

I always thought 1984 was generally just about authoritarianism rather than the Russian situation ?

[bailey_187]

Here's an article about Orwell

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html

(i dont agree he was a "third rate" writer, he was good writer IMO just shit ideology)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Orwell was staunchly anti-communist though, even if you dont think "stalinism" is communism.

he was just a labourite.

I quite enjoyed 1984 but his works should never been considered an accurate history or exposure of the soviet union

Well to be fair he did support the Republicans in Spain.

Also, I don't at all consider his books historically accurate. They're meant to be political satire.

[Led Zeppelin]

Yeah, an article on Orwell from The Stalin Society is not biased at all. Everyone read it, it's a very objective source of information.

[bailey_187]

1984? That a reactionary book.

In that book when main character eats chocolate he thinks how society and life was better before wars and Big Brother. If you think of that society as a Soviet Union, and a Big Brother as Stalin, war is then October revolution. Which means that Orwell is advocating Czarism.

Its orwell's dystopia of Soviet Socialism in Britain

of course i dont agree with it politically but its a good NOVEL in my opinion

[Искра]

It's shit book in my opinion.
There are a lot of better writes with socialist thematic...

[Искра]

Here's an article about Orwell

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html

(i dont agree he was a "third rate" writer, he was good writer IMO just shit ideology)

Stalin Society?! :confused:

LMAO :laugh:

[n0thing]

No this guy was an outright informer for the British Intelligence, he compiled a list of suspected communists in the the UK and US and VOLUNTARILY handed it over to British intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list
He was asked to provide a list of suspected communists (Used interchangeably with stalinists by Orwell) to certain people in the British government, so they would know not to ask them to work for them. The right-wing tabloids sensationalized the story so it appears he was ratting his socialist comrades out to the government, when in actual fact he was just helping to make sure the stalinists wouldn't get into certain positions in the British government.

Fantastic work spreading around a trashy tabloid smear story against a iconic leftist, everyone.

[n0thing]

..i think he views us working class as stupid, dirty and ultimately inferior.
His patronising remarks about us proles pissed me off to be frank, and he has the air of an arrogant well off Eaton boy who writes on the plight of the poor to make himself feel like he is a great and noble man.
You've obviously never read anything Orwell's written.

He wrote a book about class distinctions called "The Road to Wigan Pier" that was vehemently pro working class. So much so that I got to feeling a bit guilty about being a middle class suburbanite.

[bailey_187]

He was asked to provide a list of suspected communists (Used interchangeably with stalinists by Orwell) to certain people in the British government, so they would know not to ask them to work for them. The right-wing tabloids sensationalized the story so it appears he was ratting his socialist comrades out to the government, when in actual fact he was just helping to make sure the stalinists wouldn't get into certain positions in the British government.

Fantastic work spreading around a trashy tabloid smear story against a iconic leftist, everyone.

ahh yes keep the "stalinists" out and the Fabians in. just what we needed.

[Искра]

ahh yes keep the "stalinists" out and the Fabians in. just what we needed.

We don't need any of them.

[n0thing]

ahh yes keep the "stalinists" out and the Fabians in. just what we needed.
He was very critical of the Fabians too. He said they worked under the impression that the working classes were too stupid to run their own affairs, and needed the benevolent upper class intelligentsia to put everyone in place for them.

[Death By Starbucks.]

it was not pro working class.
Instead of talking about marxs unbreakable proletariat, he gives the impresion of a despersate demoralized and broken mass, who have given up the fight

[khad]

He was asked to provide a list of suspected communists (Used interchangeably with stalinists by Orwell) to certain people in the British government, so they would know not to ask them to work for them. The right-wing tabloids sensationalized the story so it appears he was ratting his socialist comrades out to the government, when in actual fact he was just helping to make sure the stalinists wouldn't get into certain positions in the British government.

Fantastic work spreading around a trashy tabloid smear story against a iconic leftist, everyone.
So Charlie Chaplin was a Stalinist JEW then?

Because that's what Orwell fucking wrote. The man was a racist misogynist piece of shit who built an entire political stance around his impotent macho posturing.


He wrote a book about class distinctions called "The Road to Wigan Pier" that was vehemently pro working class. So much so that I got to feeling a bit guilty about being a middle class suburbanite.

Bullshit. The Road to Wigan Pier showed Orwell baring his fangs against everyone he felt wasn't manly enough to be part of the socialist movement. His whole argument against the Fabians hinges not so much on their elitism but more importantly on their technologist stance, which he believed created a race of degenerated fat and soft men. His arguments border on fucking primitivism.

[Death By Starbucks.]

Khad its great to hear from someone who does not emulate Eric Blair as a great socialist, but rather remember him as the pompus patronising upper class self loving hypocryt he was.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, I appreciate a lot of Orwell's writings, especially what he wrote on Spain where he exposes the way in which the Stalinists helped subordinate the working class to the bourgeois popular front and suppressed and murdered the more left-wing parties, especially the POUM. For that he deserves credit.

I also used to have a pretty high opinion of him; however, things I've read recently, mostly shown to me by Khad, seem to prove quite decisively that he is indeed "a racist misogynist piece of shit who built an entire political stance around his impotent macho posturing."

It shouldn't be that surprising, really. Orwell was a member of the ILP, a centrist British party*. Such a macho attitude is common among centrists, because they are usually very middle class, and since they seem to sense that their attitude towards the workers is condescending, they feel the need to posture as being ultra-proletarian. Since centrists habitually associate the workers with backwards prejudice and lack of education, they try to emulate this supposed prejudice. I still remember how Alan Woods commended the Pakistani IMT section for fighting for "women's rights in Pakistan, where it matters, not like whiny feminists [in Britain]." Ex-members of other groups can probably give similar examples.

I also love that people defend him helping keep out Stalinists from the British governments. True, Stalinism as an ideology is hostile to the interests of the working class; so is labor reformism left and right, liberalism, Toryism, nationalism...

*One of their leaders, Fenner Brockway, was against any move to investigate the legitimacy of the Show Trials because he was scared it would embarass Stalin in the eyes of the international bourgeoisie; instead, he said, there should be an investigation into the activity of the Trotskyists in the labor movement!

[rednordman]

I wish I could tell what historical personalities would have done if they hadn't died, it would be so cool. :rolleyes:But he's right, Orwell would so obviously have become one of the 'recovering trotskyists'.

[Random Precision]

But he's right, Orwell would so obviously have become one of the 'recovering trotskyists'.

Except, it's hard to recover from Trotskyism when you never were a Trotskyist.

[palooko]

Didn't he criticize the middle class in Keep the Aspidistra Flying? Eh, I don't know. As far as political views, he tends to flip flop - A LOT (From what I can read in his biographies on different sites.)
What are George Orwell's political sides?
"Tory-anarchist"
Anarcho-syndicalist
Anti-Stalinist
Almost a Trotskyist (He was influenced by Trotskyist teachings but never declared himself one)
Democratic Socialist
Socialist
Anti-Colonialist (Anti-zionist to be exact)
.....Oh yeah, and Anti-semitist.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Lets face it. The man is a hero of the neoconservative movement today. If he were alive today its highly likely that he'd be a Hitchens or Horowitz type conservative. Its no surprise that people on the far right consider him their supreme hero.

Huh? Conservatives reference him because they don't know anything about his politics and think the Soviet Union was actually communist so they make illogical connections. Why does the stupidity of the right reflect badly on Orwell?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Orwell was staunchly anti-communist though, even if you dont think "stalinism" is communism.

he was just a labourite.

I quite enjoyed 1984 but his works should never been considered an accurate history or exposure of the soviet union

Aw Orwell criticized the glorious motherland and hurt their little feelings boohoo. What an anti-communist traitor.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Orwell would murder you all for being idiots about him and his works.

"blah blah stalin was portrayed good blah blah Trotsky."

Well, Stalin didn't exactly have many redeeming qualities about him.

This is the type of infighting that prevents things from getting done.

[Искра]

My problem with Orwell is that he was reactionary prick which was working for police. Fuck that list. If you have problems with Stalinist shoot them in the street and throw them in the river, but don't WORK FOR POLICE!

[khad]

Orwell would murder you all for being idiots about him and his works.
Would he murder us all for being unmanly "machine worshippers" who dress "fruity"-like?

[palooko]

You're missing the point. Name one other "socialist" or "leftist" who the right wingers consider as hero.

Jesus Christ?

[Abc]

he actually picked a gun and fought against fascism and got shot though the neck because of it and nearly died....that's far more then people who are calling him reactionary can say,

Also his remarks on how the Communists in spain were in leage with the facsists is a stain on the memory of all the communists who died fighting facsism.
you don't know what the fuck you are talking about please go learn something before you make bullshit posts he never made any remarks like that

[What Would Durruti Do?]

You're missing the point. Name one other "socialist" or "leftist" who the right wingers consider as hero.

How am I missing the point? Your criticism of Orwell is based on conservative kids that grow up reading his books in school without a shred of knowledge about his politics. This doesn't seem very relevant to Orwell to me. Sounds like your beef should be with stupid conservatives.

[khad]

Thanks for not answering my question.

This article also claims (http://revel.unice.fr/cycnos/document.html?id=1391) that he was more of a conservative than a liberal.

He even named the Trotskyist Isaac Deutscher (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16550) in his infamous "list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list)".:rolleyes:

Stalinist Jews behind every rock!


One aspect of the notebook that shocks our contemporary sensibility is his ethnic labeling of people, especially the eight variations of "Jewish?" (Charlie Chaplin), "Polish Jew," "English Jew," or "Jewess." Orwell's entire life was a struggle to overcome the prejudices of his class and generation; here was one he never fully overcame.

[Ismail]

he actually picked a gun and fought against fascismSo did future West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, and so did thousands upon thousands of anti-fascist social democrats. What's your point?


when in actual fact he was just helping to make sure the stalinists wouldn't get into certain positions in the British government.Why is that such a concern?

[Pogue]

My problem with Orwell is that he was reactionary prick which was working for police. Fuck that list. If you have problems with Stalinist shoot them in the street and throw them in the river, but don't WORK FOR POLICE!

he didn't grass on stalinists to the police, thats a historical distortion.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Name one other "socialist" or "leftist" who the right wingers consider as hero.

I'll name three: Helen Keller (member of the IWW), Mark Twain (supporter of the Russian Revolution), and Albert Einstein (http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php).

[Ismail]

I'll name three: Helen Keller (member of the IWW), Mark Twain (supporter of the Russian Revolution), and Albert Einstein (http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php).There's a difference.

"Twain wrote some good books."
"Keller fought for the disabled."
"Einstein was a genius."

That is what those three are known for, and they aren't rightist heroes. What is Orwell known for in the minds of most Americans? What were kids who were brought up learning about Orwell and reading his books taught to learn from such experiences? What author do anti-communist conspiracy theorists trot out when it comes to their glorious rights being taken away by the global big brother socialist statist police state?

In what way does 1984 or Animal Farm help the left?

[scarletghoul]

Joti Brar of the Stalin Society wrote a cool piece on Orwell.

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html

[Ismail]

In before "hurr Stalin Society."

[Искра]

Stalin Society, again? :rolleyes:

I'll make web site - Pol Pot Society

[Ismail]

Stalin Society, again? :rolleyes:

I'll make web site - Pol Pot Society Why does it matter what the name is? It isn't unbiased, nor is it meant to be. The only difference is that the name of the group makes it clear, whereas "National British Society on the Studying of the Question of Joseph Stalin" or "British Socialist Research Journal of Soviet Affairs 1924-53" or something wouldn't. If a "Trotsky Society" (as opposed to the International Socialist Review) had the article "The Makhno Myth (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml)" would you condemn it in the same way?

This also means:

In before "hurr Stalin Society."I win.

[Lenin II]

when in actual fact he was just helping to make sure the stalinists wouldn't get into certain positions in the British government.

Translation: Stalinists are worse than the British government.

[JohannGE]

I just wish people would judge him as a writer when considering his books, Animal Farm, 1984 etc, are after all novels, not polemics. Millions of children have been introduced to the concept that those who produce the wealth should take over the means of production, far more I would suggest than by the works of Marx and Engles. Those children won't have concerned themselves about the nuances of Stalinist v Trotsky. They would only see the injustice of the farmer and respect the struggles of the animals. A good starting place I think.

Not perfect but when it came to the crunch, he was willing to put his life on the line in the cause of liberty for others. There are a lot of people living in greenhouses firing BB guns I think!


Wasn't he also incredibly poor for a long time (when he wrote Down and Out)?

I think that his poverty was adopted to research the planned book. He could, and did on more than one occasion "call home" and get bailed out. Much of his "life of poverty" was more living a bohemian lifestyle. Not a criticism though. How many of us would give away all we have to experience the poverty of others.

[bailey_187]

Millions of children have been introduced to the concept that those who produce the wealth should take over the means of production, far more I would suggest than by the works of Marx and Engles. Those children won't have concerned themselves about the nuances of Stalinist v Trotsky. They would only see the injustice of the farmer and respect the struggles of the animals. A good starting place I think.


Thats certainly not the popular "moral of the story", the book popularly is seen to show that even if you make revolution, it will eat its own children.
Maybe theres a "deeper meaning" or whatever, thats irrelevant, the popular interpretation is.

[Invader Zim]

I just wish people would judge him as a writer when considering his books, Animal Farm, Brave New World etc, are after all novels, not polemics.

Orwell didn't write Brave New World Huxley did.


So Charlie Chaplin was a Stalinist JEW then?

Nope, Orwell didn't say on the list that Chaplin was Jewish, or necessarily a Stalinist. It says that Orwell suspected that Chaplin might have sympathies for the USSR, and Orwell certainly wasn't alone in that assessment, and would be an unsuitable candidate as a writer for an anti-Stalinist department of the British Foreign office. As for your assertion that Orwell labled Chaplin as being Jewish, two things you should know, 1. Orwell crossed that addition off his list. 2 It doesn't signify any of the supposed anti-semitism you suppose it does, because Orwell also included labels such as 'American', 'A nice type' and 'Anti-Fascist' in his list. If we extend your logic, Orwell must also have hated Americans, nice people and anti-fascists. Which is rather inconsistant with the fact that he himself was an anti-fascist. Your belief that Orwell's use of such labels is anything other than a symptom of being a writer in the 1940s amounts only to ignorance on your part.

Also, the fact remains, Orwell wrote a lengthy criticism of anti-Semitism.


Bullshit. The Road to Wigan Pier showed Orwell baring his fangs against everyone he felt wasn't manly enough to be part of the socialist movement. His whole argument against the Fabians hinges not so much on their elitism but more importantly on their technologist stance, which he believed created a race of degenerated fat and soft men. His arguments border on fucking primitivism.

It strikes me that the only way you could have achieved such a gross 'misreading' of the book is by not actually having read it, rather just read some inane Stalinist tract butchering the work for the political gain garnered by assassinating Orwell's character.


Thats certainly not the popular "moral of the story", the book popularly is seen to show that even if you make revolution, it will eat its own children.
Maybe theres a "deeper meaning" or whatever, thats irrelevant, the popular interpretation is.

Source?

And on that note, it is not a hidden meaning, but the meaning, and it is fucking blatent at that. From the outset it is clear that it is an allegory of the Stalin's betrayal of the Russian Revolution. It is not about anything else, and any deaper reading than that is what the reader adds themselves to their reading of the work. It is not in the work itself. When Orwell was trying to get it published, it was rejected because its anti-Stalin and pro-Trotsky leanings were there for all to see, to quote T. S. Elliot's (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article5993099.ece) reason for rejecting the book was that its "view, which I take to be generally Trotskyite, is not convincing”.

[Lenin II]

As for your assertion that Orwell labled Chaplin as being Jewish, two things you should know, 1. Orwell crossed that addition off his list. 2 It doesn't signify any of the supposed anti-semitism you suppose it does, because Orwell also included labels such as 'American', 'A nice type' and 'Anti-Fascist' in his list. If we extend your logic, Orwell must also have hated Americans, nice people and anti-fascists.

Did you seriously just compare calling out someone’s race to labeling their nationality?


Your belief that Orwell's use of such labels is anything other than a symptom of being a writer in the 1940s amounts only to ignorance on your part.


I fail to see how him being a writer justifies writing “Jew” and “Negro” on a list given to the police.


Also, the fact remains, Orwell wrote a lengthy criticism of anti-Semitism.

It would be interesting to see this same standard apply to Stalin, who gave leangthy speeches about anti-Semitism and saved the lives of most, if not all, modern Jews today. However, Trots still maintain he was an “anti-Semite” because Jews were killed during the Moscow Trials, in addition to everyone else. So, how exactly does this apply to Stalin?


Source?


Um, source for what? His interpretation of the book as a tome against making revolution? Well, it’s unusual to ask for a source for something like a critical interpretation, but I suppose one could quote at leangth from the book:

Page 206:

“Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society had never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.”

Page 207:

“Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and he struggle begins over again.”

“Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims.”

And finally:

“[…] no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer.”


And on that note, it is not a hidden meaning, but the meaning, and it is fucking blatant at that. From the outset it is clear that it is an allegory of the Stalin's betrayal of the Russian Revolution. It is not about anything else, and any deaper reading than that is what the reader adds themselves to their reading of the work. It is not in the work itself.

Actually we agree on this—the book is blantant and was meant to be. Any metaphysical world outlook, implying that a “work” only depends on the individual’s reading of it, and also implying that a work can be separated from the material conditions which brought it to exist, is merely the reader pulling the wool over his eyes. It’s pretty obvious what it’s about.

[JohannGE]

Thats certainly not the popular "moral of the story", the book popularly is seen to show that even if you make revolution, it will eat its own children.

And that is certainly not the only possible moral.

An equally popular interpretation is that even if you make a revolution there is always a danger that totalitarianism might take control and the people will suffer.

You would think though that the more sophisticated adult would, despite or even because of such ambiguous interpretations, be able to take it for what it is, a satiricle novel, and move on to study some more specifically scholarly work.

I am sure that children and the less sophisticated/educated/knowledgeable adult would not be concerned by such subtleties and would take away the idea of the possibility of resistance, opposition and revolution by the "ordinary" people. I know I did after first reading it as a 10 yr old.
-

[Pogue]

Still need to read Down and Out and The Road To Wigan Pier...

[Invader Zim]

Did you seriously just compare calling out someone’s race to labeling their nationality?

Why do you suppose that there is something necessarily and inherently more sinister in denoting an individual's 'race' than their nationality? And why do you ignore the point I posed?



I fail to see how him being a writer justifies writing “Jew” and “Negro” on a list given to the police.

1. The point regarded the fact that Orwell was writing in the 1940s and a product of the period.

2. See my point above on the question of labels.

3. As has been noted many times before the IRD was not a branch of the police.


It would be interesting to see this same standard apply to Stalin, who gave leangthy speeches about anti-Semitism and saved the lives of most, if not all, modern Jews today. However, Trots still maintain he was an “anti-Semite” because Jews were killed during the Moscow Trials, in addition to everyone else. So, how exactly does this apply to Stalin?

I'm not going to delve into your dubious 'great man' analysis of Stalin's role in the end of the holocaust. But I will ask where did I bring Stalin's alleged anti-Semitism into this? I don't know much at all about Stalin's views, and actions when it comes to anti-Semitism; so you are addressing that question, and point, to the wrong person.



Um, source for what? His interpretation of the book as a tome against making revolution?

You are confused. The assertion in question is that his/her erronious reading of Animal Farm, that it is opposed to the idea of revolution generally, is the common one.


Well, it’s unusual to ask for a source for something like a critical interpretation

On the contrary, stating that "'x' is the common interpretation of 'y'" is an assertion, and one which can be checked via an analysis of the discourse on the topic. Where is this discourse analysis that supports the assertion that the provided interpretation is indeed the common one?


Page 206:

“Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society had never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.”

Page 207:

“Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and he struggle begins over again.”

“Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims.”

Some points to consider.

1. Not to be rude, but I suggest you read the thread fully next time, we were discussing Animal Farm, not 1984.

2. Some general advice about quoting books, but when you provide a quote, don't just add the page number. Try to include some clue as to the edition of the work such as year and/or place of publication and/or the publisher. Just because the quote comes from page 206 in your copy doesn't mean it does in all copies. In this case it was unnecessary because the quote is famous and I know where to find it in my own copy of 1984, but as a general rule of thumb it is well worth considering.

3. The quotes in question don't at all prove your point. All it tells us is that, upto that point in Orwell's fictional world that, society had been separated broadly into three classes and that these classes had been in perpetual struggle culminating in various revolution. And that historically the lower of those classes had seen the least benefit from those revolutions. I don't see how pointing out that bourgeois revolutions benefit the bourgeoisie, as opposed to the proletariat, is anything other than stating the obvious.

The moral of orwell's story, however, is not that revolution is worthless, but that the lower classes need to be vigilent against betrayal in future, but that future revolution with a happy ending is positive even inevitable. To quote the book,

"The future belonged to the proles. [...] Sooner or later it would happen, strength would change into consciousness."

George Orwell, 1984 (Penguin: St. Ives, 1987), p. 229.

[Pogue]

zim made the main point. his list was not for the police.

[Argument]

I've read both Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. I preferred Animal Farm, actually, since it was faster and less descriptive than Nineteen Eighty-Four. Both books are really, really good, though. I've also read some of Homage to Catalonia, I will finish it soon, in about a month or two.

[Wolf Larson]

How many people know Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty Four in part as a warning against Technocracy? James Burnham wrote a book describing his Technocratic vision and Orwell, in turn, wrote an article criticizing Technocracy and subsequently wrote 1984 using both Bolshivism and James Burnham as his inspiration to form the dystopian vision. Orwell listed Burnham as an influence and we all know his views on Bolshevism.

http://www.george-orwell.org/James_Burnham_and_the_Managerial_Revolution/0.html

[Wolf Larson]

I've read both Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. I preferred Animal Farm, actually, since it was faster and less descriptive than Nineteen Eighty-Four. Both books are really, really good, though. I've also read some of Homage to Catalonia, I will finish it soon, in about a month or two.
Check this out:

http://www.empireonline.com/News/story.asp?nid=24844

[RadioRaheem84]

After recently re-reading 1984 and Animal Farm, I have concluded that not only was George Orwell utterly wrong about the USSR but utterly right about the future of contemporary liberal democracy.

I know that he was writing about the USSR in terms that it was not socialist and it was a critique of state capitalism but for the most part he was over exaggerating the big brother thing. I feel as though the world of 1984 resembles more and more each day, the world of today in the Western world.

A great documentary to see that makes my point is "Orwell Rolls in his Grave" available on youtube.

[Tablo]

He wasn't trying to criticize the USSR as much as authoritarianism in general. He simply tried to make it resemble the USSR because he hated it.

True, the USSR never resembled 1984, but our friendly neighborhood neo-liberal democracies are looking more and more that way as you pointed out. It has actually got me really paranoid. I'm surprised at how well he predicted it, but I guess he simply viewed it as the natural progression of change occurring in his own lifetime.

[Mumbles]

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html

While I think Orwell had some things right, I think this cartoon thing makes some good points, just mix and match.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

After recently re-reading 1984 and Animal Farm, I have concluded that not only was George Orwell utterly wrong about the USSR but utterly right about the future of contemporary liberal democracy.

I know that he was writing about the USSR in terms that it was not socialist and it was a critique of state capitalism but for the most part he was over exaggerating the big brother thing. I feel as though the world of 1984 resembles more and more each day, the world of today in the Western world.

I'm not sure about that. Even if he did predict the future, I don't think he ever meant to. Like you said, it was a critique of state capitalism and what could go wrong - he didn't say it was going to. I see more of Brave New World in our society than 1984, tbh.

[x359594]

...I know that he was writing about the USSR in terms that it was not socialist and it was a critique of state capitalism but for the most part he was over exaggerating the big brother thing. I feel as though the world of 1984 resembles more and more each day, the world of today in the Western world...

That's the conventional liberal interpretation of 1984, but was it Orwell's intention? That's open to question. Then there is Animal Farm's suppressed introduction, often cited by people like Chomsky to show that Orwell's criticism was not leveled at the Eastern bloc but rather at the bourgeois democracies.

[pdcrofts]

Chomsky cites Orwell's censorship also as an example of how censorship becomes internalised - because in this case Orwell censored his own work. He was obviously worried about the consequences of criticising his own rulers. I do believe he was criticising the capitalist nations in Nineteen Eighty-four and not the USSR.

As an aside, the imagery of dystopia in Clockwork Orange can be seen as communist (the municipal apartment blocks, the paintings of strong workers on the walls). Burgess tried to predict a dystopia in the USSR, I believe, but got it wrong. Still, a wonderful book.

[Pretty Flaco]

I always loved Brave New World but loathed 1984.
Huxley > Orwell! :thumbup1:

[pdcrofts]

I always loved Brave New World but loathed 1984.
Huxley > Orwell! :thumbup1:

Definitely a good book, I agree, but I thought BNW was thin on story. It mostly just describes the nightmare future. Nineteen eighty-four is descriptive too, but also has plenty of plot.

[bonbongabbu]

Another fruitful dystopian novel is The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. It is feminist and attacks theocracy.

[Wolf Larson]

I read it. I found it a pure waste of time.

That's what I think anytime I read anything to do with Stalin.

[A.R.Amistad]

Another fruitful dystopian novel is The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. It is feminist and attacks theocracy.

Meh, I actually did not like this book at all. The message was of course good, but the whole plot was too dystopian for me to believe. The nation had degenerated into a theocratic dictatorship in less than ten-years and everyone was already brainwashed. It was all too fantastical to believe. The world itself was also way too dystopian, it was so to the extreme it was almost ridiculous, and the book lost its zazz imo.

[Chimurenga.]

That's what I think anytime I read anything to do with Stalin.

Oh man! You got him! :rolleyes:

[Pretty Flaco]

I just read Homage to Catalonia by Orwell, and I gotta say that I enjoyed it. :thumbup1:

[Theoneontheleft]

I loved "1984". The movie and it's soundtrack by the Eurythmics was also good.

IcTP7YWPayU

[Peace on Earth]

I found the book to be incredibly boring. I had to push myself to finish it. Of course, this was before I had any leftist leanings, so it's possible I didn't appreciate the book for its real message.

I'll probably read it again soon.

[Svoboda]

Orwell without a doubt is my favorite fiction writer, and I don't think its fair to judge him just on his two best know books, I think many of his earlier were terrific if not better then 1984 and animal farm.

Homage to Catalonia deals with his experience in the Spanish Civil War and how he fought for the POUM and the sympathizes he held with them and the anarchists, I believe Chomsky said this saw his favorite book by him.

Keep the Aspidistra Flying dealing with the growth of consumerism in early 1930s London and the main character and seemingly Orwell's disgust with it, the character hates it so much that he actually declares a war on money.

Burmese Days is set in 1920s Burma while under control of Britain and the book deals with the main character's and Orwell's disgust with Imperialism, Orwell himself actually served as an officer in Burma in the 1920s.

Coming up for Air deals with the dreariness of the life associated with the middle class and also with destruction of simple values that existed in the British countryside before WWI before industrialism and consumerism destroyed them.

The Road to Wigan Pier is an investigative work of Orwell as he documents the condition of the British working class in late 1930s Britain and in it he speaks of his want for a socialist solution.

[ChaChaman]

Awesome book. I did a linguistic analysis of it for my English Language coursework. I've never Enjoyed coursework as much as that before or since. I did the bit in Ch IX where Winston and Julia get caught becuase I can remember exactly how I felt when I first read it: I was on a bus and picked up my book, then I read "You are the dead" and night shat myself.

Even if you don't agree with his politics (which would be strange on a left-wing forum) you can appreciate his prose. When it comes to evocative prose, I'd put Orwell up there with Shakespeare. That's probably why I didn't like "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway." I need to get a copy of "Homage"

[ChaChaman]

Awesome book. I did a linguistic analysis of it for my English Language coursework. I've never Enjoyed coursework as much as that before or since. I did the bit in Ch IX where Winston and Julia get caught becuase I can remember exactly how I felt when I first read it: I was on a bus and picked up my book, then I read "You are the dead" and night shat myself.

Even if you don't agree with his politics (which would be strange on a left-wing forum) you can appreciate his prose. When it comes to evocative prose, I'd put Orwell up there with Shakespeare. That's probably why I didn't like "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway." I need to get a copy of "Homage".

:laugh:

[Theory&Action]

I just finished reading Burmese Days and I'm dying to see if anyone else had the same reaction as me. Specifically, the deep, visceral revulsion I felt towards the Elizabeth character. I honestly can't think of any character I was so repulsed by no matter how badly they were portrayed by the author. This is probably the paragraph that did it for me:

It was not unnatural, with the example of her mother before her
eyes, that Elizabeth should have a healthy loathing of Art. In
fact, any excess of intellect--'braininess' was her word for it--
tended to belong, in her eyes, to the 'beastly'. Real people, she
felt, decent people--people who shot grouse, went to Ascot, yachted
at Cowes--were not brainy. They didn't go in for this nonsense of
writing books and fooling with paintbrushes; and all these Highbrow
ideas--Socialism and all that. 'Highbrow' was a bitter word in her
vocabulary. And when it happened, as it did once or twice, that
she met a veritable artist who was willing to work penniless all
his life, rather than sell himself to a bank or an insurance
company, she despised him far more than she despised the dabblers
of her mother's circle. That a man should turn deliberately away
from all that was good and decent, sacrifice himself for a futility
that led nowhere, was shameful, degrading, evil. She dreaded
spinsterhood, but she would have endured it a thousand lifetimes
through rather than marry such a man.Then to make it worse, Flory goes crazy over her, eventually leading to the end (which I won't spoil). I think that Orwell's ability to capture colonial heartlessness so perfectly in this character says a lot about his talent as a writer.

[graymouser]

I just finished reading Homage to Catalonia, after having read Down and Out in Paris and London earlier this year. The book itself is astounding - in literary quality, and in its political convictions - but it's been really amazing reading Orwell's memoirs after having been obsessed with 1984 in high school. Every time I finished a chapter, I realized how much in 1984 was really half-autobiographical. Airstrip One is populated by the same workers Orwell worked with in Paris, and the same paupers he knew in London. It's run with a particularly English version of the Stalinist-dominated government in Barcelona, having become all-powerful and abandoned any pretense of being revolutionary socialist. The purely ideological reporting of the war was simply what was happening in Spain. Even the Thought Police seem like nothing so much as the Government police in Barcelona after the POUM was outlawed.

As to Homage itself, what is there to say? Certainly it's the best book Orwell wrote; it's the only one that gives a glimpse at his positive vision of society, when he is first in Barcelona, and his passion for the revolution is palpable. It's a shame that he became the much more pessimistic man who ten years later wrote his famous dystopia, but I think that this was his best moment and it shows.

[El Chuncho]

Yes he was a socialist. Read his book Homage to Catalonia. It will blow you away.

Great book, but his works are unfair on the Marxis-Leninist who fought in the conflict. We were not the bad guys, we were fighting whilst his group started to set up communes before the war was one, the small infighting between ''Stalinists'' and the commune-building Trotskyists etc. was quite justified. If you build communes and sit around for a while you can easily just get over run, even if you have in mind to just defend your little commune, that is why actively fighting the Flangists, Monarchists etc. was necessary.

[El Chuncho]

Anyho. You said about his non-fiction. Who&#39;s read "Road to Wigan Pier"?

I know Yorkshire and Lancashire (particularly the latter) aren&#39;t quite as glamourous as Catalonia, but he goes there to find out about the conditions of the working man. Then he slags off intellectual "socialists" (i.e. social democrats like fabians). Very good.

One of my favourite books when growing up. I remember finding it in my school library. Probably his best work, with the least objectionable content.

[El Chuncho]

My own interpretation of Animal Farm is that yes the Soviet Union was a noble idea but if someone as power hungry and egotistical Stalin comes to power the dream will fade and the experiment will fail.

I am one of the first Marxist-Leninists to admit that Stalin had his faults, and I am not a sectarian, but I disagree that he was power hungry and egotistical, and I think he worked for the best of society and tried very hard to stop the USSR from falling; he was successful.

[El Chuncho]

Hardly, there are so many deliberate points of obvious similarity to the Nazi regime and Orwell&#39;s imaginary world; indeed the daily excercise, etc is so obviously reminicent of the nazi ideas of &#39;Strength through joy&#39; and all that shite I honestly don&#39;t know how any leftist can possibly think it is just a critique on the USSR. Unless of course they know fuck all about the Nazi regime... and if this board is anything to go by that isn&#39;t all that unlikely.

It is critical of Fascism, infact IngSoc are supposed to be the (fictional) English Socialist party, who, despite their name, are more fascist in character and seem to be based on the British Union of Fascist and related groups more than Sovietism. But I did see some naive criticism of Stalin in there, and his mixing of fascists and communists into ''English Socialists'' is silly.

[SacRedMan]

Very logic book and movie full of morals. :thumbup:

[Smyg]

I read Homage to Catalonia a while ago. It's awesome. If you haven't already, read it!

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I just started Homage last night, and I'm half-way through. A very quick read, with some good wit/humor tossed in. I mentioned it in another thread, but the "Buttered Toast!" story of the communists was hilarious.

[Bronco]

Homage of Catalonia really is fantastic, took me a while to get into it but when I did it completely gripped me. It was interesting actually to compare it to Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls which I'd read just before, there really is a big contrast in the way the Anarchists are portrayed; Hemingway seems to consider them all lazy, worthless, drunken idiots & I believe the only time the POUM is mentioned is when one of his superiors state that they are being funded by the Fascists, he seemed to sympathise far more with the Stalinists in the war

[Rooster]

Awesome book. I did a linguistic analysis of it for my English Language coursework. I've never Enjoyed coursework as much as that before or since. I did the bit in Ch IX where Winston and Julia get caught becuase I can remember exactly how I felt when I first read it: I was on a bus and picked up my book, then I read "You are the dead" and night shat myself.

Even if you don't agree with his politics (which would be strange on a left-wing forum) you can appreciate his prose. When it comes to evocative prose, I'd put Orwell up there with Shakespeare. That's probably why I didn't like "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway." I need to get a copy of "Homage".

:laugh:

Homage to Catalonia is probably my favourite Orwell book. I wish I didn't lend it out to a friend now :(

I've read the recollections of other journalists that were involved in Spain and none of them speak highly of Hemmingway or his conduct during the war. I'll try to find the book and copy out some quotes just for kicks.

[CitizenSmith]

I've just finished Hommage to Catalonia to, I found it oddly depressing, the mindless infighting and the later purges and 'disapearences' under the Communist government, Orwell and other international fighters went there with such optismism and hope, only for this enthusiasm to be slowly crushed by political infighting and the later purges by the Communist Party that proved so futile, and left many experianced and compotent soilders in shallow graves, only adding Franco.

[Rooster]

I've just finished Hommage to Catalonia to, I found it oddly depressing, the mindless infighting and the later purges and 'disapearences' under the Communist government, Orwell and other international fighters went there with such optismism and hope, only for this enthusiasm to be slowly crushed by political infighting and the later purges by the Communist Party that proved so futile, and left many experianced and compotent soilders in shallow graves, only adding Franco.

I enjoyed how Orwell starts off in the book being mostly apolitical ("This is no way to fight a war") but then slowly comes round to the idea of living what your fighting for.

[CitizenSmith]

I enjoyed how Orwell starts off in the book being mostly apolitical ("This is no way to fight a war") but then slowly comes round to the idea of living what your fighting for.

Indeed, I find his slightly biggoted comments about the Spanish somewhat amusing, considering how backward they are.

[x359594]

...As to Homage itself, what is there to say? Certainly it's the best book Orwell wrote; it's the only one that gives a glimpse at his positive vision of society, when he is first in Barcelona, and his passion for the revolution is palpable. It's a shame that he became the much more pessimistic man who ten years later wrote his famous dystopia, but I think that this was his best moment and it shows.

According to his biographers, when Homage to Catalonia was published in 1938 it sold poorly and quickly went out of print. It was re-published in the wake of the success of 1984 in 1951 and sold better than the first release, and the US edition had an introduction by Lionel Trilling, at the time the leading establishment liberal intellectual in the US.

By the early 50s the book had become an ideological weapon in the Cold War propaganda arsenal so it was met with skepticism by the US communist left (I recall reading some slighting remarks about Orwell in Arthur Landis's Spain! The Unfinished Revolution.) Today, we can appreciate it as insightful reportage, astute analysis and a vividly written memoir.

[Red Phalanx]

Fuck Orwell, the class enemy.

[SacRedMan]

Fuck Orwell, the class enemy.

Why?

[Tommy4ever]

Just finished ''The Road to Wigan Pier''. The first half is rather outdated (its an indepth description of appalling conditions in the Northern mining areas of England, especially Wigan), but the second half is much more interesting. The second part essentially amounts to the Orwellian Manifesto for Socialism, he points out several problems that exist to this day (lifestyelists, cranks and dogmatists to name a few) and critiques the movement quite strongly. But he clearly tries to rally people round the Socialist idea and openly states that it is the only way forward.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Just finished ''The Road to Wigan Pier''. The first half is rather outdated (its an indepth description of appalling conditions in the Northern mining areas of England, especially Wigan), but the second half is much more interesting. The second part essentially amounts to the Orwellian Manifesto for Socialism, he points out several problems that exist to this day (lifestyelists, cranks and dogmatists to name a few) and critiques the movement quite strongly. But he clearly tries to rally people round the Socialist idea and openly states that it is the only way forward.


Ive (almost literally - about half an hour ago) just finished the first part, and intend to read the second tomorrow. The first part is outdated, but I live in the past somewhat anyway so still found it fascinating. It also stands as an indicator of the dangers of unchecked capitalism, much the same way as the novels of Dickens do. Orwell clearly had a big heart, and you definitely get a sense of that in part 1 of Wigan Pier... another reason I fell for it.

Down and Out is my favourite Orwell at the moment, although I have yet to read Homage to Catalonia.

[Sixiang]

Ive (almost literally - about half an hour ago) just finished the first part, and intend to read the second tomorrow. The first part is outdated, but I live in the past somewhat anyway so still found it fascinating. It also stands as an indicator of the dangers of unchecked capitalism, much the same way as the novels of Dickens do. Orwell clearly had a big heart, and you definitely get a sense of that in part 1 of Wigan Pier... another reason I fell for it.

Also has two of my favorite quotes of all time:


A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards. A man dies and is buried, and all his words and actions are forgotten, but the food he has eaten lives after him in the sound or rotten bones of his children. I think it could be plausibly argued that changes of diet are more important than changes of dynasty or even of religion....Yet it is curious how seldom the all-importance of food is recognized. You see statues everywhere to politicians, poets, bishops, but none to cooks or bacon-curers or market gardeners.


The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all cooperate and see to it that everyone does his fair share of the work and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system.

[Ilyich]

Many bourgeois will say that Orwell was an anti-communist. He was not. He was an anti-fascist and was repulsed by what he saw as rising fascist tendencies within the communist movement.

[spotter]

The book 'Stalin - A biography' is fantastic read!

[Drosophila]

I didn't really read it. I just wrote my Junior research paper on it and got 100% somehow.

[Ismail]

Many bourgeois will say that Orwell was an anti-communist. He was not. He was an anti-fascist and was repulsed by what he saw as rising fascist tendencies within the communist movement."From the point of view of the Russians and the Communists, Social Democracy is a deadly enemy, and to do them justice they have frequently admitted it... it would still be to the interest of the Russian Government to bring about the failure of the British Labour Government, if possible. The reason is clear enough. Social Democracy, unlike capitalism, offers an alternative to Communism, and if somewhere or other it can be made to work on a big scale—if it turns out that after all it is possible to introduce Socialism without secret police forces, mass deportations and so forth—then the excuse for dictatorship vanishes. With a Labour Government in office, relations with Russia, bad already, were bound to deteriorate."
(George Orwell. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Vol. 4. New Hampshire: David R. Godine. 1968. p. 397.)

"My recent novel is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralised economy is liable and which have already been partly realised in Communism and Fascism."
(Ibid. p. 502.)

"Unless the signs are very deceiving, the USSR is preparing for war against the western democracies. Indeed, as Burnham rightly says, the war is already happening in a desultory way. How soon it could break out into full-scale conflict is a difficult question, bringing in all kinds of military, economic and scientific problems on which the ordinary journalist or political observer has no data. But there is one point, very important to Burnham's argument, which can be profitably discussed, and that is the position of the Communist parties and the 'fellow-travellers' and the reliance placed on them by Russian strategy.

[....]

In left-wing circles there is the corresponding syllogism: Communism is opposed to capitalism; therefore it is progressive and democratic. This is stupid, but it can be accepted in good faith by people who will be capable of seeing through it sooner or later. The question is not whether the 'cryptos' and 'fellow-travellers' advance the interests of the USSR against those of the democracies. Obviously they do so. The real question is, how many of them would continue on the same lines if war were really imminent?

[....]

"I think he [James Burnham] is mainly right in his account of the way in which Communist propaganda works, and the difficulty of countering it, and he is certainly right in saying that one of the most important problems at this moment is to find a way of speaking to the Russian people over the heads of their rulers.... Burnham is not in favour of Stalin or Stalinism, and he has begun to find virtues in the capitalist democracy which he once considered moribund."
(Ibid. pp. 318-319, 321, 325.)

These are obviously not the views of a Communist. Orwell was a "leftist" in the same way Christopher Hitchens was. He very obviously moved to the right after his brief period of radicalism in the Spanish Civil War and, as has been noted by others, he feared that the dreaded Communists ("Stalinist" or otherwise) were a threat to the "democracy" of Britain, hence why he collaborated with the British state in "unmasking" communist "dupes" and so forth. He was quite obviously an anti-communist. Animal Farm in particular treats Communism as some sort of well-meaning utopianism that gets corrupted by the "natural greed" of men.

Also there were no "rising fascist tendencies" in the communist movement. The fascists copied (and distorted) many organizational methods from the Soviets, not the other way around.

Isaac Asimov had a good critique of 1984: http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm

As a note the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (written in the 70's well after Stalin had been denounced within the USSR) has a good entry on Orwell:

Orwell, George

(pen name of Eric Blair). Born June 25, 1903, at Motihari in Bengal, India; died Jan. 21, 1950, in London. English writer and publicist.

The son of a British colonial official, Orwell graduated from Eton College in 1921. After serving with the British police in Burma, he returned to Europe in 1927. For several years he lived in poverty in London and Paris and established close ties with petit bourgeois radicals. He fought in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39 in the ranks of the POUM, an anarchist organization. He was seriously wounded and, disillusioned with revolutionary ideals, became a bourgeois liberal reformist and anticommunist. During World War II he served in the English home guard and was a commentator for the BBC and a correspondent for the newspaper the Observer.

As a writer, Orwell was greatly influenced by Jonathan Swift, Samuel Butler, Jack London, D. H. Lawrence, and E. I. Zamiatin. He first gained fame with his writings about the life of British miners in impoverished areas, his reminiscences of the war in Spain, and his literary criticism and publicistic works. However, his literary and political reputation rests almost entirely on his satire Animal Farm (1945), which advocates the pointlessness of revolutionary struggle, and his antiutopian novel 1984 (1949), in which he depicts the society that would replace capitalism and bourgeois democracy. This future society, according to Orwell, is a totalitarian hierarchical structure, based on sophisticated techniques for enslaving the masses physically and psychologically and on total scorn for the freedom and dignity of the individual. It is a society of material deprivation and universal fear and hatred.

From the standpoint of subjective idealism, Orwell examines the problems of freedom and necessity and of the truth value of knowledge. On this basis, he attempts to justify voluntarism in politics. His warnings against certain dangerous social trends and his protests against the suppression of individual freedom are intermixed with homilies on the uselessness of struggling for a better future. This attitude enabled the ideologists of reaction to make use of Orwell’s work to carry on an extensive anticommunist propaganda campaign, utilizing to this end millions of copies of his writings in many different languages and numerous radio and television broadcasts and motion pictures.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s there has been an increased interest in the West in Orwell’s ideological heritage. An intense struggle has been waged over his legacy between reactionary, ultra-right forces and petit bourgeois radicals, who view Orwell as a predecessor of the New Left and believe that many trends in modern Western society are epitomized in the Orwellian vision of 1984.

[Belleraphone]

Animal Farm in particular treats Communism as some sort of well-meaning utopianism that gets corrupted by the "natural greed" of men.No, try again. Just because you incorrectly understood the message of Animal Farm does not mean Orwell wasn't a leftist. Orwell basically blames the failure of the Revolution on Stalin or Napoleon in the book, he does not blame it on the natural greed of men, don't know where you got that from.

All of those quotes show that, at most, he was anti-communist, and even then he is probably referring to the Marxist-Leninist deviant since those would be most prevalent at the time of him writing that, the libertarian leftists being crushed and purged by the authoritarian ones. Even if he was against communism, he can still be left wing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't really care about this topic of conversation, but this:


He fought in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39 in the ranks of the POUM, an anarchist organization.

is wrong. The POUM was not an "anarchist organization".

[Prometeo liberado]

Orwell provided the ruling class with some of the greatest anti communist material ever cuz it supposedly came from a "socialist". Fuck Orwell, he was a social democrat that provided the British government with lists of communist symparthizers!

This is an often overlooked fact about Orwell the man. Yes he did, as a journalist and a supposed socialist,provide the crown with names during and to some extent after the war.His nationalism far outweighed his sense of internationalism. You could probably go back to his days fighting in spain to find the reasons for this, but he did grow up in the machine of british imperialism. Having said that if you take 1984 merely as a love story between a man and a woman and a man and his need to make sense of his life then it's not a bad story. The imagery is outstanding, and tragedy, at least for me was enough so that I had to read it in one sitting.

[Ismail]

is wrong. The POUM was not an "anarchist organization".Soviet sources either called it "anarchist" or (particularly under Stalin) "Trotskyist." Evidently it's wrong but that's the way it went, although I will note that at least calling it Trotskyist is a bit more accurate considering it had a faction clearly sympathetic to Trotsky (even if Trotsky himself didn't return the sympathy.)


Just because you incorrectly understood the message of Animal Farm does not mean Orwell wasn't a leftist.I wasn't making the point that Animal Farm being an essentially anti-communist work voided Orwell's leftism. I already made that quite clear by noting his own words on communism.


Orwell basically blames the failure of the Revolution on Stalin or Napoleon in the book, he does not blame it on the natural greed of men, don't know where you got that from."Orwell's argument is... that socialism in whatever form offers the common people no more hope than capitalism; that it will be first betrayed and then held to ransom by those forces which human beings have in common with beasts; and that the inefficient and occasionally benign rule of capitalism, which at least keeps the beasts in check, is a lesser evil. That proposition is Orwell's alpha and his omega... Nothing in the use of an animal society as the vehicle of allegory particularly illuminates or enhances it or the points it seeks to make. It certainly does not make the case against Soviet socialism any more convincing. In fact it appears to confirm the underlying hostility of its opponents to any suggestion that the working class can emancipate itself. It does nothing to cast light on what for any socialist is the real question: what has gone wrong and why?" (Stephen Sedley in Bloom’s Guides: Animal Farm. p. 78.)

Orwell's analysis is the exact same as liberals. There's no ideology, class analysis, or anything other than simplistic "evil people will eventually usurp power from the good because mankind is basically bad." It's the exact same thing as when liberals say "communism sounds good in theory but it just can't happen."


All of those quotes show that, at most, he was anti-communist,He was an avowed supporter of the Labour Party and was clearly more sympathetic to its right-wing, as opposed to the left-wing which advocated collaboration with the USSR. There are other quotes by Orwell in which he basically calls anyone who says that the USSR isn't an evil warmongering state a bunch of duped useful idiots being played for fools by the evil Soviet manipulative puppetmasters, which was about the norm for right-wingers then and now.


and even then he is probably referring to the Marxist-Leninist deviant since those would be most prevalent at the time of him writing that, the libertarian leftists being crushed and purged by the authoritarian ones.He openly expresses admiration for social-democracy, not "libertarian socialism."


Even if he was against communism, he can still be left wing.Left-wing doesn't mean leftist, and I wouldn't really call him a left-winger after the 1930's anyway. When I think of left-wingers I think of progressive individuals like Fan S. Noli, a writer who led a bourgeois-democratic revolution in Albania in 1924 and who worked closely with communists despite not being one himself. On individuals closer to Orwell's actual adventures, Largo Caballero was another left-winger. These are examples of left-wingers, not a Labourite evidently sympathetic to that party's right-wing and collaborating with the British state against communists. There were a number of anti-fascists in the 30's who fought in Spain like Orwell did and winded up being right-wingers, like Willy Brandt.

[Invader Zim]

I wasn't making the point that Animal Farm being an essentially anti-communist work voided Orwell's leftism.

Except, of course, the book is manifestly pro-socialist. What it is 'anti', is the regime led by Stalin. To quote Orwell:

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

Orwell. 'Why I Write'. in George Orwell: Essays. (London, 1994). p. 5.


I already made that quite clear by noting his own words on communism.

But of course, what he describes as "Communism" is plainly to be taken as the Stalinist regime, which is obvious when his words are not ripped from their context. Animal Farm was not critical of communism as an ideology, and actually presented it as a valid, functioning and superior system prior to being sabotaged by the counter-revolutionary pigs who restored capitalism by the final pages of the book. The communism of Marx wasn't the target of Orwell's anger, it was the counter-revolutionary authoritarian reforms of the Stalin era that Orwell dispised. It is worth noting that Orwell makes this point over and over when he specifically differenciates between different groups of communist. On the one hand he describes Trotskyites under that monicker while he describes the communists of the Stalinist regime in the USSR (and its supporters) as 'Communists'. For example:

"So in the middle of 1937, when the Communists gained control (or partial control) of the Spanish Government and began to hunt down the Trotskyists, we [he and his wife] both found ourselves among the victims."

Orwell. 'Preface to the Ukrainian Edition of Animal Farm'. in Animal Farm. (London, 2000), p. 110.

Orwell also made clear his distinction between what Communism was and what it had become thanks to reformism:

"Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rules have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class. Moreover, the workers and intelligentsia in a country like England cannot understand that the USSR of today is altogether different from what it was in 1917."

Ibid. p. 111.

Orwell made a similar point, regarding the fact that 'communism' had undergone significant change to that which dominated in 1917 or was described by Marx:

"Meanwhile the war against Franco continues, but, except for the poor devils in the front-line trenches, nobody in Government Spain thinks of it as the real war. The real struggle is between revolution and counter-revolution; between the workers who are vainly trying to hold on to a little of what they won in 1936, and the Liberal-Communist bloc who are so successfully taking it away from them. It is unfortunate that so few people in England have yet caught up with the fact that Communism is now a counter-revolutionary force; that Communists everywhere are in alliance with bourgeois reformism and using the whole of their powerful machinery to crush or discredit any party that shows signs of revolutionary tendencies. Hence the grotesque spectacle of Communists assailed as wicked ‘Reds’ by right-wing intellectuals who are in essential agreement with them. Mr Wyndham Lewis, for instance, ought to love the Communists, at least temporarily. In Spain the Communist-Liberal alliance has been almost completely victorious. Of all that the Spanish workers won for themselves in 1936 nothing solid remains, except for a few collective farms and a certain amount of land seized by the peasants last year; and presumably even the peasants will be sacrificed later, when there is no longer any need to placate them."

Orwell. 'Spilling the Spanish Beans'. in New English Weekly, 29 July and 2 September 1937.

So Orwell was only anti-communist if his use of the term 'Communism' is limited only to the regime in the USSR after 1930. Other communist groups, such as the Trotskyists are clearly not included within that definition of 'Communist', and neither is communism and communists of the Russian Revolution upto 1930.


"Orwell's argument is... that socialism in whatever form offers the common people no more hope than capitalism; that it will be first betrayed and then held to ransom by those forces which human beings have in common with beasts; and that the inefficient and occasionally benign rule of capitalism, which at least keeps the beasts in check, is a lesser evil. That proposition is Orwell's alpha and his omega... Nothing in the use of an animal society as the vehicle of allegory particularly illuminates or enhances it or the points it seeks to make. It certainly does not make the case against Soviet socialism any more convincing. In fact it appears to confirm the underlying hostility of its opponents to any suggestion that the working class can emancipate itself. It does nothing to cast light on what for any socialist is the real question: what has gone wrong and why?" (Stephen Sedley in Bloom’s Guides: Animal Farm. p. 78.)

Orwell's analysis is the exact same as liberals. There's no ideology, class analysis, or anything other than simplistic "evil people will eventually usurp power from the good because mankind is basically bad." It's the exact same thing as when liberals say "communism sounds good in theory but it just can't happen."

I find it interesting that your idea of an indepth literary analysis comes from an excerpt, of no more than a few pages, from a study guide which has many contributors and the one you chose happens to be a high court Judge, as opposed to an expert on literature. And plainly to anybody who has actually read the book most of his criticisms are bogus, and indeed contradictory. On the one hand he decries Orwell's failure to discuss the structuralist argument at the heart of most leftwing critiques of the USSR, yet on the other hand he contradicts this view:

"No honest socialist or communist ignores or underrates thestructural and political problems and distortions which have characterised the Soviet Union and other states that have takena similar path." [The judge then goes on to argue that Orwell did not do this].

Yet his argument of what Orwell did say roundly contradicts that. Apparently, Orwell argued that,

"socialism in whatever form offers the common people no morehope than capitalism; that it will be first betrayed and then heldto ransom by those forces which human beings have incommon with beasts; and that the inefficient and occasionally benign rule of capitalism, which at least keeps the beasts incheck, is a lesser evil. That proposition is Orwell’s alpha and his omega."

Which is, of course, a sturcturalist/functionalist, as opposed to intentialist 'great men', argument. Indeed, if it is necessary then the Judge is suggesting that Orwell is arguing that human society structures itself in such a way that power always centralises itself in the hands of a corrupt elite which fundermentally contradicts his earlier argument that Orwell rejects a structuralist anaysis. If Orwell was indeed rejecting a structuralist argument then the work cannot be taken as a critique of all socialist experiments and must be locked into a critique of the USSR and only the USSR.

Furthermore, his reading of Animal Farm is simply nonsensical. At no point in the book is there any hint that the outcome of events on the Farm, and by extension in the USSR, is a necessary outcome. To argue that is to ignore the fact that the animals do indeed, under earlier structural circumstances form a socialist society prior to the pig counter-revolution. It is also to ignore the fact that the book is indeed a specific critique of the USSR in the 1930s.

[ed miliband]

I think Orwell fits into a canon that runs from him, through Camus, and up to Christopher Hitchens. He was essentially a radical liberal with social-democratic sympathies. I think Hitchens has a point here:


It is true on the face of it that Orwell was one of the founding fathers of anti-Communism; that he had a strong patriotic sense and a very potent instinct for what we might call elementary right and wrong; that he despised government and bureaucracy and was a stout individualist; that he distrusted intellectuals and academics and reposed a faith in popular wisdom; that he upheld a somewhat orthodoxy in sexual matters and moral matters, looked down on homosexuals and abhorred abortion; and that he seems to have been an advocate for private ownership of guns.

But for real hard evidence:

He also preferred the country to the town, and poems that rhymed.

Orwell even had some nice things to say about F.A. Hayek, when he reviewed The Road to Serfdom in the Observer. Therefore, it can’t be stressed enough that he wouldn’t be a Fairfax lead columnist or a celebrated Melbourne University Press author today. The blood running through his veins was just too unapologetically independent.

[ed miliband]

oh, this is interesting:

http://exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/

edit: actually it's kinda crap.

[Invader Zim]

He was essentially a radical liberal with social-democratic sympathies.

On the contrary, he was a democtratic socialist who did not reject revolution.

[ed miliband]

On the contrary, he was a democtratic socialist who did not reject revolution.

I'm yet to read, see or hear anything that actually clarifies any meaningful difference between social-democracy and "democratic socialism". Most people who proclaim to be the latter have politics that are suspiciously similar to the former, if not the same. Tony Blair described himself as a "democratic socialist", as does that US senator (Bernie Saunders?) who peddles a weak form of Keynesianism. It's a meaningless term.

[Ismail]

Except, of course, the book is manifestly pro-socialist. What it is 'anti', is the regime led by Stalin. To quote Orwell:

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

Orwell. 'Why I Write'. in George Orwell: Essays. (London, 1994). p. 5.And, evidently, "democratic socialism" meant the Labour Party. This is made obvious in 1947 when he says, "In other words, democratic Socialism must be made to work throughout some large area. But the only area in which it could conceivably be made to work, in any near future, is western Europe. Apart from Australia and New Zealand, the tradition of democratic Socialism can only be said to exist -- and even there it only exists precariously -- in Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, the Low Countries, France, Britain, Spain, and Italy." (George Orwell. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Vol. 4. p. 371.) In this same work he writes of the Labour Government in 1946 that, "I have not heard any ordinary person say is that the Government has not made any perceptible step towards the introduction of Socialism. Even allowing for the fact that everything takes time, it is astonishing how little change seems to have happened as yet in the structure of society. In a purely economic sense, I suppose, the drift is towards Socialism, or at least towards state ownership." (p. 186.)

Here's an example of him being "against totalitarianism":

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of the western countries."
(George Orwell. The Collected Essays, Journalism, & Letters, George Orwell Vol. 3. New Hampshire: David R. Godine, Publisher. 2000. p. 374.)

Which, of course, is the same sort of thing that could come from David Horowitz. Or Christopher Hitchens.


Orwell also made clear his distinction between what Communism was and what it had become thanks to reformism:

"Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rules have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class. Moreover, the workers and intelligentsia in a country like England cannot understand that the USSR of today is altogether different from what it was in 1917."Which does remind me of, "I have never visited Russia and my knowledge of it consists only of what can be learned by reading books and newspapers. Even if I had the power, I would not wish to interfere in Soviet domestic affairs: I would not condemn Stalin and his associates merely for their barbaric and undemocratic methods. It is quite possible that, even with the best intentions, they could not have acted otherwise under the conditions prevailing there."
(George Orwell. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Vol. 3. p. 404.)


Orwell made a similar point, regarding the fact that 'communism' had undergone significant change to that which dominated in 1917 or was described by Marx:So do liberals. I don't see how this makes him a leftist.


Furthermore, his reading of Animal Farm is simply nonsensical. At no point in the book is there any hint that the outcome of events on the Farm, and by extension in the USSR, is a necessary outcome. To argue that is to ignore the fact that the animals do indeed, under earlier structural circumstances form a socialist society prior to the pig counter-revolution. It is also to ignore the fact that the book is indeed a specific critique of the USSR in the 1930s.They form a "socialist society" which inevitably fails. I don't recall Animal Farm having anything on actually avoiding the counter-revolution which occurs. It just happens and it's seen as "oh, that damned Stalin" and that's it.

[RefusedPP]

I have read 1984 and I have seen Animal Farm. I thoroughly enjoyed 1984 as a story, and some of the interesting ideas that it poses. NEWSPEAK and political correctness for me go hand in hand and I ardently believe that our language is becoming more and more contracted. This is a result of both the media and their mind-numbing music and television shows as well as political correctness dictating what we can and can't say. We seem to have developed an anti-intellectual culture.

As regards to 1984, I think there are subtle attacks upon Stalinism, but I see it overall to be generally anti-authoritarian (of course, and Stalin was very authoritarian). Animal Farm I think begins by stating that communism is a 'good' idea, but then you get somebody like Stalin (Napoleon) and then it just reverts back to the same old system as was with Mr. Jones.

I am currently eyeing Homage to Catalonia which I have read a bit about before, it's only £4 on amazon so I'm very tempted! :)

[Red Noob]

Read it. It was an easy read. When I read it I got an anti-communist vibe, or more of an anti-Stalin vibe.

[Rafiq]

Orwell was a spy for British intelligence and a traitorous scum. I thought this has been already estabilished?

And 1984 is Bourgeois-Idealist propaganda

[Rafiq]

On the contrary, he was a democtratic socialist who did not reject revolution.

"Was".

He was a traitor in the end.

[Belleraphone]

"Orwell's argument is... that socialism in whatever form offers the common people no more hope than capitalism; that it will be first betrayed and then held to ransom by those forces which human beings have in common with beasts; and that the inefficient and occasionally benign rule of capitalism, which at least keeps the beasts in check, is a lesser evil. That proposition is Orwell's alpha and his omega... Nothing in the use of an animal society as the vehicle of allegory particularly illuminates or enhances it or the points it seeks to make. It certainly does not make the case against Soviet socialism any more convincing. In fact it appears to confirm the underlying hostility of its opponents to any suggestion that the working class can emancipate itself. It does nothing to cast light on what for any socialist is the real question: what has gone wrong and why?" (Stephen Sedley in Bloom’s Guides: Animal Farm. p. 78.)That's not his argument at all. Why don't you try actually analyzing it instead of having someone else do it for you? Point out actual quotes from the book that make your case.



Orwell's analysis is the exact same as liberals. There's no ideology, class analysis, or anything other than simplistic "evil people will eventually usurp power from the good because mankind is basically bad." It's the exact same thing as when liberals say "communism sounds good in theory but it just can't happen."No it isn't. In fact, the Animal Farm prospered after they kicked out the farmer. The farm fails due to Napoleon and the character that represents the proletariat, Boxer, is portrayed to be very kind, hardworking, determined, and dedicated to supporting the revolution.


He was an avowed supporter of the Labour Party and was clearly more sympathetic to its right-wing, as opposed to the left-wing which advocated collaboration with the USSR. There are other quotes by Orwell in which he basically calls anyone who says that the USSR isn't an evil warmongering state a bunch of duped useful idiots being played for fools by the evil Soviet manipulative puppetmasters, which was about the norm for right-wingers then and now.
All states are evil and warmongering, the USSR especially. He may have been hysterical about the USSR and hated it, but that does not make him right wing, even if he collaborated with right wingers in order to undermine the USSR.


He openly expresses admiration for social-democracy, not "libertarian socialism."He also had libertarian socialist sympathies, he fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the anarchists and admired the society in Catalonia.


Left-wing doesn't mean leftist, and I wouldn't really call him a left-winger after the 1930's anyway. When I think of left-wingers I think of progressive individuals like Fan S. Noli, a writer who led a bourgeois-democratic revolution in Albania in 1924 and who worked closely with communists despite not being one himself. On individuals closer to Orwell's actual adventures, Largo Caballero was another left-winger. These are examples of left-wingers, not a Labourite evidently sympathetic to that party's right-wing and collaborating with the British state against communists. There were a number of anti-fascists in the 30's who fought in Spain like Orwell did and winded up being right-wingers, like Willy Brandt. Sure, sorry, bad use of words. Anyway, Orwell cared more about the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum than the left-right spectrum. The British state was freer and more open, even if it was more imperialist, than the USSR was. Whether or not valuing liberty over leftism is a good idea is another issue for another day, but that does not make him right-wing.

[Invader Zim]

Orwell was a spy for British intelligence and a traitorous scum. I thought this has been already estabilished?

This is an old lie, and one which has been debunked on this very forum many times before.


And 1984 is Bourgeois-Idealist propaganda

You obviously have never read it, because it is entirely anti-bourgeois and about as far from 'idealism' as can possibly be.

[Omsk]

Invader Zim,why are you defending Orwell like a zealot?(I am not trying to provoke you,I'm just curious about it.)

[Ismail]

That's not his argument at all. Why don't you try actually analyzing it instead of having someone else do it for you? Point out actual quotes from the book that make your case.I presented the quote because it comes from someone evidently more focused on literature than I am.


No it isn't. In fact, the Animal Farm prospered after they kicked out the farmer. The farm fails due to Napoleon and the character that represents the proletariat, Boxer, is portrayed to be very kind, hardworking, determined, and dedicated to supporting the revolution.This is because Orwell considered himself a "Socialist' in the Labourite tradition, yet you have to admit that the way the elder pig (representing Marx) is presented falls quite short of the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels. Yet, again, what analysis is made of why the revolution and "socialism" failed? Napoleon arising and ruining everything isn't a Marxist analysis.


All states are evil and warmongering, the USSR especially.The USSR was "especially" "evil and warmongering"? That's ridiculous and demonstrates your own rightist outlook more than anything. The Soviet social-imperialists of the 1950's onwards were still not as much warmongers as NATO and Co. The Soviets directly worked to prevent war (while recognizing that imperialist war is inevitable) in the late 40's. It openly worked with various progressive figures in all sorts of countries to promote peace movements in them. It is also clear that Stalin considered the USSR and the Eastern Bloc as being encircled by the West, as various sources note. A good read on this subject is Geoffrey Roberts' book Stalin's Wars.


He may have been hysterical about the USSR and hated it, but that does not make him right wing, even if he collaborated with right wingers in order to undermine the USSR.Then what does make someone a right-winger? Was Tito a great revolutionary even though his country joined the IMF, he renounced revolutionary socialism, he called the US' New Deal a great step towards "evolutionary" socialism, and Yugoslavia became indebted in the billions to Western and IMF loans? Was Hitchens a wonderful left-winger when he denounced "Islamofascism" and defended the imperialist war in Iraq? Are you going to give me a list of "left-wing" US Senators as well?


He also had libertarian socialist sympathies,That's nice, but it means nothing since he openly supported the Labour Party, a bourgeois political party, and evidently didn't hold true to any sort of proletarian internationalism and opposition to imperialist war.


he fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the anarchists.The POUM weren't anarchists, as Explosive Situation pointed out (and in fact it had a substantial rightist section as Helen Graham notes in The Spanish Republic at War.) And he himself admitted in Homage to Catalonia that he knew nothing about all the acronyms being bandied about during his first few days in Spain. In addition to this:

"Actually I've given a more sympathetic account of the POUM 'line' than I actually felt, because I always told them they were wrong and refused to join the party. But I had to put it as sympathetically as possible, because it has had no hearing in the capitalist press and nothing but libels in the left-wing press. Actually, considering the way things have gone in Spain, I think there was something in what they said, though no doubt their way of saying it was tiresome and provocative in the extreme."
(George Orwell. George Orwell: An Age Like This, 1920-1940 Vol. 1. Boston, Mass.: David R. Godine. 2000. p. 366.)

Besides, fighting in the Spanish Civil War doesn't make you anything other than an anti-fascist. Being an anti-fascist is of course good, but that doesn't actually establish you as a left-winger, especially since it's fairly obvious that Orwell moved to the right after that war. Why some seem to have difficulty drawing a natural connection to this fact and the fact that 1984 and Animal Farm are of easy use for anti-communists to slander communism can only be explained by their own rightist positions.


The British state was freer and more open, even if it was more imperialist, than the USSR was.It was "freer" in what sense? "Open" in what sense? Also you contradict yourself, you call the USSR "especially evil and warmongering," but now admit that Britain had greater imperialist tendencies.


Invader Zim,why are you defending Orwell like a zealot?(I am not trying to provoke you,I'm just curious about it.)Because he's basically a right-wing "socialist" himself. He's defended Robert Conquest in the past and compared anyone who thinks Stalin wasn't evil to David Irving, but not before noting that Hitler and Irving are actually "better" because Hitler apparently didn't cause a lot of deaths via "incompetence." No, Hitler just organized mass genocides instead. He argues that the Western Powers leading up to WWII were all benign and didn't collaborate with Nazi Germany against the interests of the USSR, and he took a "neutral" position on the imperialist war in Libya arguing that imperialism would open up fertile new plains for leftist sentiment, like right-wing "socialists" argued in-re the invasion of Iraq. His analyses and ways of presenting them make it pretty clear he's a right-winger in effect, so naturally he defends other right-wingers.

[Rafiq]

This is an old lie, and one which has been debunked on this very forum many times before.



You obviously have never read it, because it is entirely anti-bourgeois and about as far from 'idealism' as can possibly be.

I've read it 3 times actually. I used to be a fan of his.

[Belleraphone]

This is because Orwell considered himself a "Socialist' in the Labourite tradition, yet you have to admit that the way the elder pig (representing Marx) is presented falls quite short of the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels. Yet, again, what analysis is made of why the revolution and "socialism" failed? Napoleon arising and ruining everything isn't a Marxist analysis.

The Elder Pig is represented is only present at the beginning of the book for a short time. You're right in that it does not outline EVERYTHING Marx believes but it certainly was not utopian. Orwell just tried to write what he read in The Communist Manifesto when writing the dialogue for Major Pig.


The USSR was "especially" "evil and warmongering"? That's ridiculous and demonstrates your own rightist outlook more than anything. The Soviet social-imperialists of the 1950's onwards were still not as much warmongers as NATO and Co.
I never said NATO and Co. wasn't evil or warmongering, why are you bringing that up? Not even going to respond to the rest of your quote, just Stalin worshiping delusions.


Then what does make someone a right-winger? Was Tito a great revolutionary even though his country joined the IMF, he renounced revolutionary socialism, he called the US' New Deal a great step towards "evolutionary" socialism, and Yugoslavia became indebted in the billions to Western and IMF loans? Was Hitchens a wonderful left-winger when he denounced "Islamofascism" and defended the imperialist war in Iraq? Are you going to give me a list of "left-wing" US Senators as well?

Orwell was collaborating with one imperialist nation to undermine another imperialist nation. Really it was a bad decision and a waste of effort, but he's still a leftist. Orwell was also upset at the Soviets for undermining with the affairs of the anarchists like killing Berneri. In the end he let his personal emotions and ideals get in the way, but I don't think this makes him right-wing.


That's nice, but it means nothing since he openly supported the Labour Party, a bourgeois political party, and evidently didn't hold true to any sort of proletarian internationalism and opposition to imperialist war.

He was for proletarian internationalism (Homage to Catalonia) and opposed imperialism (Burmese days.) Also, can you give me a quote (I don't know if one exists, you might be right) where Orwell says something to the effect of The Labour Party is the way to socialism or something? He may just be trying to support the least evil of the parties, again, I don't agree with it but it does not make him right-wing.


It was "freer" in what sense? "Open" in what sense? Also you contradict yourself, you call the USSR "especially evil and warmongering," but now admit that Britain had greater imperialist tendencies.
Freerer and open in the sense that opposition to the dominant political party would not get you sent to the gulag, even if Britain was a bigger imperialist than the USSR. Internal freedoms and imperialism are rarely correlated, just look at Iran.

He fought with the men from the POUM, but if you read HTC it's pretty clear he spoke highly about the society that the anarchists took over and admired what they did.



Besides, fighting in the Spanish Civil War doesn't make you anything other than an anti-fascist. Being an anti-fascist is of course good, but that doesn't actually establish you as a left-winger, especially since it's fairly obvious that Orwell moved to the right after that war. Why some seem to have difficulty drawing a natural connection to this fact and the fact that 1984 and Animal Farm are of easy use for anti-communists to slander communism can only be explained by their own rightist positions.

Animal Farm and 1984 are not rightist positions. The first is anti-Stalinist and anti-authoritarian and the second is a critique of totalitarianism. Orwell became more focused on liberty than social justice after the war. If you read 1984, there's a small book called The Principles of Oligarchal Collectvism where Orwell praises socialism. It's also clear in the book that Orwell favored a free and open capitalist society to an authoritarian socialist state, it does not mean he prefers capitalism to socialism.

[Ismail]

Orwell was collaborating with one imperialist nation to undermine another imperialist nation. Really it was a bad decision and a waste of effort, but he's still a leftist.Was Kautsky a left-winger as well? How about Bernstein?


He was for proletarian internationalism (Homage to Catalonia) and opposed imperialism (Burmese days.)Give me examples of proletarian internationalism in Homage. You yourself just said he backed an imperialist power against the USSR. This is what Lenin would call "social-patriotism," aka "left-wing" apologia for imperialist war.


Also, can you give me a quote (I don't know if one exists, you might be right) where Orwell says something to the effect of The Labour Party is the way to socialism or something?He explicitly linked socialism with the Labour Party as I've noted in prior quotes. He said that the Labour Government of the 40's was moving towards socialism. He said that Animal Farm was not an attack on socialism (aka the Labour Party and its "socialism," of which he called himself a supporter.)


He may just be trying to support the least evil of the parties, again, I don't agree with it but it does not make him right-wing.Yes it does. He supported a bourgeois political party, and it's right-wing faction at that.


Freerer and open in the sense that opposition to the dominant political party would not get you sent to the gulag,The "dominant political party" meant nothing in Britain. The Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties were bourgeois parties in the service of capitalism and of the bourgeois state. That's very different from a Marxist-Leninist vanguard. Bourgeois democracy means little, you don't seem to understand this.


The first is anti-Stalinist and anti-authoritarian and the second is a critique of totalitarianism."Totalitarianism" doesn't exist (http://theredphoenixapl.org/2009/09/10/the-myth-of-totalitarianism/). It's a ridiculous word used to link Fascism and Communism. Asimov noted the ridiculous nature of 1984 both as science fiction and as an actual concept. The society it invokes is paraded about as some sort of imminent threat more by Alex Jones types than by actual scientific socialists.


It's also clear in the book that Orwell favored a free and open capitalist society to an authoritarian socialist state, it does not mean he prefers capitalism to socialism.Again, another case of his right-wing views. By your own admission he preferred capitalism to socialism in practice. Orwell was a pseudo-socialist, a social-democrat, and a right-winger. You can continue pretending he was left-wing by the 40's, but it won't do you any good. Anyone who unites with capitalists against socialism, or (if you don't recognize the USSR as socialist) an imperialist state against another country, will find it quite hard to be considered a left-winger by Marxists.

Oh, also,

Not even going to respond to the rest of your quote, just Stalin worshiping delusions.Was the "Red Dean of Canterbury" a dumb commie useful idiot? Were various individuals who reacted positively to Soviet peace proposals in the late 40's and early 50's (from churchmen to statesmen) were just paid Soviet agents? You evidently don't know a thing about Soviet foreign policy under Stalin.

[Belleraphone]

Was Kautsky a left-winger as well? How about Bernstein?
What? Irrelevant.


Give me examples of proletarian internationalism in Homage. You yourself just said he backed an imperialist power against the USSR. This is what Lenin would call "social-patriotism," aka "left-wing" apologia for imperialist war.

The fact that he was an Englishman and went over to Spain and fought with the POUM (Yes, he didn't know what it was at first as you pointed out, but he continued to fight with them) should be enough. But here
This was in late December 1936, less than seven months ago as I write, and yet it is a period that has already receded into enormous distance. Later events have obliterated it much more completely than they have obliterated 1935, or 1905, for that matter. I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do. The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle.


He explicitly linked socialism with the Labour Party as I've noted in prior quotes. He said that the Labour Government of the 40's was moving towards socialism. He said that Animal Farm was not an attack on socialism (aka the Labour Party and its "socialism," of which he called himself a supporter.)

Can you give me that quote again? Can't seem to find that one.


Yes it does. He supported a bourgeois political party, and it's right-wing faction at that.
Out of all the bourgeois political parties, he chose to go with labor. Sometimes leftists vote Democrat or some other equivalent because it's the lesser of two evils. Again, not a very wise decision, but it's how they perceive to make the country more left wing by making small differences.


The "dominant political party" meant nothing in Britain. The Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties were bourgeois parties in the service of capitalism and of the bourgeois state. That's very different from a Marxist-Leninist vanguard. Bourgeois democracy means little, you don't seem to understand this.

I understand that representative democracy is largely a hoax, I'm talking about things like freedom of speech and the right to speak out against the state.


"Totalitarianism" doesn't exist (http://theredphoenixapl.org/2009/09/10/the-myth-of-totalitarianism/). It's a ridiculous word used to link Fascism and Communism. Asimov noted the ridiculous nature of 1984 both as science fiction and as an actual concept. The society it invokes is paraded about as some sort of imminent threat more by Alex Jones types than by actual scientific socialists.
Orwell's wrote 1984 before The Origins of Totalitarianism even came out. Orwell's totalitarianism is the same of Amendolas, a communist, who used it to describe Italian fascism.


Again, another case of his right-wing views. By your own admission he preferred capitalism to socialism in practice. Orwell was a pseudo-socialist, a social-democrat, and a right-winger. You can continue pretending he was left-wing by the 40's, but it won't do you any good. Anyone who unites with capitalists against socialism, or (if you don't recognize the USSR as socialist) an imperialist state against another country, will find it quite hard to be considered a left-winger by Marxists.
He considered an open capitalist society (Britian) to be preferable to an authoritarian socialist state, even though the USSR was not socialist to begin with.
In the end, he ended up deciding liberty was more important than socialism, but both were preferable. He did NOT move to the right. I am not saying that Orwell had a perfect leftist record and made all the right choices, for example, he had been somewhat of a nationalist at times. His tirades against the USSR was because he wanted the USSR to stop brutally suppressing libertarian leftist movements.
There were several reasons for this. To begin with, appalling lies about atrocities were being circulated by the pro-Fascist press, and well-meaning propagandists undoubtedly thought that they were aiding the Spanish Government by denying that Spain had 'gone Red'. But the main reason was this: that, except for the small revolutionary groups which exist in all countries, the whole world was determined, upon preventing revolution in Spain. In particular the Communist Party, with Soviet Russia behind it, had thrown its whole weight against the revolution. It was the Communist thesis that revolution at this stage would be fatal and that what was to be aimed at in Spain was not workers' control, but bourgeois democracy. It hardly needs pointing out why 'liberal' capitalist opinion took the same line. Foreign capital was heavily invested in Spain. The Barcelona Traction Company, for instance, represented ten millions of British capital; and meanwhile the trade unions had seized all the transport in Catalonia. If the revolution went forward there would be no compensation, or very little; if the capitalist republic prevailed, foreign investments would be safe. And since the revolution had got to be crushed, it greatly simplified things to pretend that no revolution had happened. In this way the real significance of every event could be covered up; every shift of power from the trade unions to the central Government could be represented as a necessary step in military reorganization. The situation produced was curious in the extreme. Outside Spain few people grasped that there was a revolution; inside Spain nobody doubted it. Even the P.S.U.C. newspapers. Communist-controlled and more or less committed to an antirevolutionary policy, talked about 'our glorious revolution'. And meanwhile the Communist press in foreign countries was shouting that there was no sign of revolution anywhere; the seizure of factories, setting up of workers' committees, etc., had not happened--or, alternatively, had happened, but 'had no political significance'. According to the _Daily Worker_ (6 August 1936) those who said that the Spanish people were fighting for social revolution, or for anything other than bourgeois democracy, were' downright lying scoundrels'. On the other hand, Juan Lopez, a member of the Valencia Government, declared in February 1937 that 'the Spanish people are shedding their blood, not for the democratic Republic and its paper Constitution, but for...a revolution'. So it would appear that the downright lying scoundrels included members of the Government for which we were bidden to fight. Some of the foreign anti-Fascist papers even descended to the pitiful lie of pretending that churches were only attacked when they were used as Fascist fortresses. Actually churches were pillaged everywhere and as a matter of course, because it was perfectly well understood that the Spanish Church was part of the capitalist racket. In six months in Spain I only saw two undamaged churches, and until about July 1937 no churches were allowed to reopen and hold services, except for one or two Protestant churches in Madrid.


Was the "Red Dean of Canterbury" a dumb commie useful idiot? Were various individuals who reacted positively to Soviet peace proposals in the late 40's and early 50's (from churchmen to statesmen) were just paid Soviet agents? You evidently don't know a thing about Soviet foreign policy under Stalin.

When I talk about USSR Imperialism, I'm talking about what he did in the Eastern Bloc during and after WW2, not relationships with western countries.

[Ismail]

What? Irrelevant. No it isn't. Was Kautsky a left-winger, yes or no? Was Bernstein? You seem to have very low standards for what qualifiers as a left-winger. Apparently apologists for imperialism qualify as such.


Can you give me that quote again? Can't seem to find that one.
"My recent novel is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralised economy is liable and which have already been partly realised in Communism and Fascism."
(George Orwell. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Vol. 4. New Hampshire: David R. Godine. 1968. p. 502.)

"I have not heard any ordinary person say is that the Government has not made any perceptible step towards the introduction of Socialism. Even allowing for the fact that everything takes time, it is astonishing how little change seems to have happened as yet in the structure of society. In a purely economic sense, I suppose, the drift is towards Socialism, or at least towards state ownership."
(Ibid. p. 186.)


Out of all the bourgeois political parties, he chose to go with labor. Sometimes leftists vote Democrat or some other equivalent because it's the lesser of two evils. Again, not a very wise decision, but it's how they perceive to make the country more left wing by making small differences.Except actual socialists realize that the Democrats are just as right-wing as the Republicans. If someone thinks what you just said then they evidently aren't socialists in any real significant manner. Eugene Debs didn't consider the Democrats some sort of "lesser evil," for instance, and he wasn't exactly a scientific socialist himself. Yet he was a socialist and he managed to consistently oppose imperialist war. He wasn't a big admirer of the Bolsheviks yet he didn't wind up apologizing for American imperialism either.


I understand that representative democracy is largely a hoax, I'm talking about things like freedom of speech and the right to speak out against the state.Under capitalism you are allowed to speak out against the state provided you don't actually take action against the state, and provided you don't actually organize against the state, and provided your view is of marginal influence. Once you organize, you find that the bourgeois state finds rather subtle ways to undermine any organizing efforts from within, if not more overt ways to crush dissent.


In the end, he ended up deciding liberty was more important than socialism, but both were preferable.Except capitalism isn't liberty. You're acting as if liberty and socialism are two separate things rather than one and the same.


When I talk about USSR Imperialism, I'm talking about what he did in the Eastern Bloc during and after WW2, not relationships with western countries.What happened in the Eastern Bloc "during and after WW2" wasn't imperialism. What happened was social and economic revolution, and it was barely avoidable considering that in most of the countries the Communists were actually fairly popular immediately after the war and the fact that these generally were defeated states which had declared war on the USSR.

You're very obviously trying to pretend that Orwell didn't have a rightward shift after the Spanish Civil War just so you can maintain this fantasy of him as a "libertarian socialist."

[Invader Zim]

I've read it 3 times actually. I used to be a fan of his.

Firstly, the incident you refer to is the imfamous list to Celia Kirwan.

Firstly, Kirwan did not work for British intelligence, rather she worked for a branch of the Foreign Office called the IRD which specialised in counter-propaganda in the Third World.

Secondly, he did not betray anybody. The IRD was, at that time under the Attlee Labour government a fledgling white-propaganda institution and nothing like the reactionary tool it would become under the Tories. Furthermore, Orwell did not provide any information in his list, just a group of names of those whom he believed the IRD would be wasting their time employing. He did not provide any clandestine information or 'report' them.

So no, he didn't betray anybody and nor did he provide information to British intelligence. It just isn't true.


Invader Zim,why are you defending Orwell like a zealot?(I am not trying to provoke you,I'm just curious about it.)

I don't, his crass homophobia, for example, was disgusting. But Stalinist lies cannot go unchecked.




Because he's basically a right-wing "socialist" himself.

No, I'm not. Not that I would expect you, who isn't a leftist, of any stipe, to know the difference.


He's defended Robert Conquest in the past

I've repeatedly criticsed Conquest. The only 'defence' I have made of him, that I recall, is:

"The bulk of the Conquest was writing was in a period before the opening of the Soviet Archives. Criticising him for writing a history, based on memnory, when that was the only source available is somewhat harsh. He now claims, I suspect wrongly, that the archival evidence now available to him proves his old arguments correct."

If you think that is championing Conquest then you're a fool.


and compared anyone who thinks Stalin wasn't evil to David Irving, but not before noting that Hitler and Irving are actually "better" because Hitler apparently didn't cause a lot of deaths via "incompetence."

Another lie. I said that you were less intelligent than Irving. To quote myself:

"David Irving is a lot more intelligent than you are. After all you do make apologism for a brutal dictatorship that slaughtered people to a scale thaty beggars belief, but killed even more through utter incompetence. You shouldn't be a mod you should be banned for applauding an utterly reactionary dictatorship. Unfortunately too many people take a liberal view of your kind of reactionary horse shit."


He argues that the Western Powers leading up to WWII were all benign

Also not true. It would be manifestly ludicrous to suggest that the Western Powers were 'benign'. What they did, however, not do was this:


and didn't collaborate with Nazi Germany against the interests of the USSR

Wow, a comment which is true. And I'm right, the Allied powers didn't collaborate with Nazi German against the USSR. the USSR, on the other hand, did in 1939, collaborate with Nazi Germany. I would have thought, after being disproven so many times on this issue, you should have given up by now? No matter, if you want another history lesson, I am, as ever happy offer my services. That's just the kind of nice guy I am.


and he took a "neutral" position on the imperialist war in Libya arguing that imperialism would open up fertile new plains for leftist sentiment

I didn't say anything of the sort. To quote myself, again, talking to you:

"I don't have a 'position' on Libya, beyond noting that some of the arguments raised, including ones which you seemingly share, are foolish."

[Leo]

Firstly, Kirwan did not work for British intelligence, rather she worked for a branch of the Foreign Office called the IRD which specialised in counter-propaganda in the Third World.

Secondly, he did not betray anybody. The IRD was, at that time under the Attlee Labour government a fledgling white-propaganda institution and nothing like the reactionary tool it would become under the Tories. Furthermore, Orwell did not provide any information in his list, just a group of names of those whom he believed the IRD would be wasting their time employing. He did not provide any clandestine information or 'report' them.

So no, he didn't betray anybody and nor did he provide information to British intelligence. It just isn't true.

It is all true that Orwell did not directly aid the MI5, and his list was indeed intended for the IRD. One factual inaccuracy, unless I'm mistaken, is that the IRD was more focused on the West than in the Third World. And saying he didn't name names by doing so is like saying that an American who provided information to the House Un-American Activities Committee didn't name names because he didn't directly provide information to the CIA. Orwell's motives about aiding this fledgling white-propaganda institution was completely clear:

The important thing to do with these people - and it is extremely difficult, since one has only inferential evidence - is to sort them out and determine which of them is honest and which is not. There is, for instance, a whole group of M. P.s in the British Parliament who are commonly nicknamed 'the cryptos'. They have undoubtedly done a great deal of mischief, especially in confusing public opinion about the nature of the puppet regimes in Eastern Europe; but one ought not hurriedly to assume that they all hold the same opinions. Probably some of them are actuated by nothing worse than stupidity.

The list of people who were doing a great deal of mischief especially in confusing public opinion about the nature of the puppet regimes in Eastern Europe included a name such as... Isaac Deutscher, the Polish Trotskyist and famed biographer of Trotsky. Giving names of "suspected commies" to any department of the government is naming names; and I don't think a man who had as much experience in both sides (given he was a fighter of the POUM and went through the Spanish events and he was also a policeman in Burma) was so naive to think that these names were to remain in the IRD who would use them only to not employ the listed individuals.

1984 is for the most part not that bad a book politically (literarily I think it is pretty weak), until the ending which basically says revolution is impossible and pessimism is the only option. Probably a good indication of why he was so willing to side with and help the government in his final years.

[Invader Zim]

One factual inaccuracy, unless I'm mistaken, is that the IRD was more focused on the West than in the Third World.

Not at that time. As I understand it, it would later be used as a tool to counter communist views within the labour movement, but I was under the impression that initially it was for foreign, primarily Third World, use. Hense the reason it was part of the Foreign Office, as opposed to, say, the Home Office.


And saying he didn't name names by doing so is like saying that an American who provided information to the House Un-American Activities Committee didn't name names because he didn't directly provide information to the CIA.

But they are, of course, not comparable. The House Un-American Activities Committee was assigned the task of hunting down communists and, ultimately, imprisoning or deporting them. It was built on witch hunts and gestapo style informants. Orwell's very brief role with the IRD was to offer his opinion on who would not be a good writer of articles for the IRD. He did not 'inform', 'spy' or betray people, because he had no access to secret information, just what these individuals had already published and in the public sphere. And there is no evidence that his list harmed careers, ended in imprisonment and individuals being deported. The most that would have occured is that Kerwan would have given second thoughts regarding sending an invitation to a writer as to whether they would be willing to write a few articles for the IRD - and if they were indeed 'fellow travelers' they probably wouldn't have accepted the offer anyway.


Giving names of "suspected commies" to any department of the government is naming names

Only if you strip the entire episode devoid of context.


and I don't think a man who had as much experience in both sides (given he was a fighter of the POUM and went through the Spanish events and he was also a policeman in Burma) was so naive to think that these names were to remain in the IRD who would use them only to not employ the listed individuals.

Except, of course, that is precisely what occured. Indeed, there is no evidence that the IRD even used Orwell's list, after all it isn't like his speculations was telling them anything they did not already know or suspect.

I also disagree that Orwell was incapable of naivity, of course he was especially given that he was becoming increasingly paranoid (regarding Stalinist totalitarianism) as he became more and more ill, and by this time he was very ill, next to death's door. He was also very desperate in regards to the future of his son, and hoped that Kerwan would marry him and become his son's guardian when he died.

It is hardly difficult to imagine that a very ill, desperate, paranoid man would be inclined towards naivity. And not that this moment of naivity was remotely dangerous or amounted to denouncing communists to a McCarthy style witch hunt as you suggest. Doubtless, had Orwell lived to see what the IRD (and Labour Party, for that matter) would become he would have had nothing to do with them and regretted his very minor involvement. But he didn't. In my view, part of the problem here is that people are looking at the issue through the lense of retrospect, and the other being that they over-estimate the malignancy of the act.

For example, Rafiq (and I mean no offence by this, and I don't mean to talk about you rather than to you) thinks that Orwell snitched on communists to the intelligence services, which is just not true. And, of course, the irony is that the Intelligence and Security Forces had no such illusions about his politics, having spied and maintained a file on him for the last two decades of his life.

[Tim Finnegan]

And 1984 is Bourgeois-Idealist propagandaIt must take real effort to construct posts quite as vacuous as this.

[Leo]

Not at that time. As I understand it, it would later be used as a tool to counter communist views within the labour movement, but I was under the impression that initially it was for foreign, primarily Third World, use. Hense the reason it was part of the Foreign Office, as opposed to, say, the Home Office.

I think it had to do with the Western labor movement, not specifically the British. As I said, I may be wrong, if you have any sources please provide them.


But they are, of course, not comparable. The House Un-American Activities Committee was assigned the task of hunting down communists and, ultimately, imprisoning or deporting them. It was built on witch hunts and gestapo style informants. Orwell's very brief role with the IRD was to offer his opinion on who would not be a good writer of articles for the IRD. He did not 'inform', 'spy' or betray people, because he had no access to secret information, just what these individuals had already published and in the public sphere. And there is no evidence that his list harmed careers, ended in imprisonment and individuals being deported. The most that would have occured is that Kerwan would have given second thoughts regarding sending an invitation to a writer as to whether they would be willing to write a few articles for the IRD - and if they were indeed 'fellow travelers' they probably wouldn't have accepted the offer anyway.

This is, I think, pretty speculative and naive given the period. The whole thing makes very little sense when you start thinking about it though. If that was all there was to it, if the only point was hiring new people to write for the IRD, why not ask who to hire rather than who not to hire?


Only if you strip the entire episode devoid of context.

He did what he did. Whatever his reasons, and whatever the effects of his actions, on principle such an action would have put him outside the workers' movement for good had been involved with it at the time.


Except, of course, that is precisely what occured. Indeed, there is no evidence that the IRD even used Orwell's list, after all it isn't like his speculations was telling them anything they did not already know or suspect.

He was giving them names as well as consultations in regards to how to deal with these individuals. It consequences isn't the point here, the principle involved is. Revolutionaries do not name names to the agencies of governments regardless of the pretext.


He was also very desperate in regards to the future of his son, and hoped that Kerwan would marry him and become his son's guardian when he died.

Perhaps the latter also had something to do with it. People can break and name names under different circumstances. Some do under torture, some do for personal or family gain.


I also disagree that Orwell was incapable of naivity, of course he was especially given that he was becoming increasingly paranoid (regarding Stalinist totalitarianism) as he became more and more ill, and by this time he was very ill, next to death's door.

It is hardly difficult to imagine that a very ill, desperate, paranoid man would be inclined towards naivity.

On some things perhaps, who knows maybe such as the chances of the prospects of this woman marrying his son. To be this naive about the possible consequences of what he did though would need for him to be more than simply a very ill, desperate, paranoid man - he would have to have some sort of problem remembering his memories.


And not that this moment of naivity was remotely dangerous or amounted to denouncing communists to a McCarthy style witch hunt as you suggest.


Doubtless, had Orwell lived to see what the IRD (and Labour Party, for that matter) would become he would have had nothing to do with them and regretted his very minor involvement.

I don't see anything doubtless about this. Many of his peers in the United States and in Europe went even further than the likes of the Labour Party. It is again very speculative.


Part of the problem here is that you are looking at the issue through the lense of retrospect

I am rather looking at the issue through the lens of the universal principles of the workers' movement.


and the other being that you over-estimate the malignancy of the act.

I am not that interested in his motives however I am simply trying to be realistic, more for the sake of the discussion than anything else. Regardless of his motives and regardless of the consequences of his act, his act remains what it is.

[Invader Zim]

Out of all the bourgeois political parties, he chose to go with labor. Sometimes leftists vote Democrat or some other equivalent because it's the lesser of two evils. Again, not a very wise decision, but it's how they perceive to make the country more left wing by making small differences.

He was actually part of the more radical ILP for the latter part of the 1930s, until the Second World War, when he left because he disagreed with their stance on the war.

And his views on the Labour Party were that they were far from ideal primarily because it was not a socialist party (or at least the socialist wing of the party was not strrong enough), which is why he went to the more socialist ILP in the first place, but he still maintained an idealistic faith that the Labour Party would come around and that they would win elections. And that is an example of naivity in my opinion, but then again, I'm looking at the issue through the spectrum of 2012 not 1942.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm also under the impression that he adhered to a view of the Labour Party roughly equivalent to that of the Trots, as a sort of "degenerated workers' party", and even that was rather more sceptical than the CPGB's quasi-entryist policy. Any criticism of his attitude to the LP can't be really be understood as a criticism of Orwell particularly, but of most of the British far-left at that time. Only the leftcoms, anarchists and impossiblists really rejected that perspective, and they were, if we're quite honest, an utterly puny minority in Britain even then.

[Invader Zim]

This is, I think, pretty speculative and naive given the period.

Well, not really. Orwell, in his letter to Kirwan confirmed it that the list was of people who "should not be trusted as propagandists."

That was what the list was for, and there is no evidence that it was used for anything else if ever used at all. So, no, it is not speculation but fact.


The whole thing makes very little sense when you start thinking about it though. If that was all there was to it, if the only point was hiring new people to write for the IRD, why not ask who to hire rather than who not to hire?

Well, there isn't a lot to say to that because it is, ironically enough, entirely speculatative, you would have had to ask the now deceased Kirwan. But the fact is that Orwell, in his letter, made it clear the purpose of the list, why he had been asked to produce it and why he wrote it - to give his opinion on who should not be hired as a propagandist.


He was giving them names as well as consultations in regards to how to deal with these individuals.

The first part of this is true, the latter is not. But as noted, the names he gave were hardly secret.


It consequences isn't the point here

On the contrary, motive and impact are entirely the point; and neither were malicious.


Revolutionaries do not name names to the agencies of governments regardless of the pretext.

I take your point, and his actions were wrong to be sure, but the way you are painting it as informing is simply inaccurate.

We also have to remember that, at that time "communists" were not merely 'naming names' but actively hunting down and killing revolutionaries; something Orwell witnessed first hand in Spain. Regardless of whether we agree of disagree regarding the seriousness of his actions, i find it bizarre that Stalinists condemn him.


who knows maybe such as the chances of the prospects of this woman marrying his son.

Marrying him, and adopting his son.


To be this naive about the possible consequences

But there were no 'consequences' to his actions, real or imagined, and never were going to be. Perhaps on the extreme edge of possibility something more may have come of it, but that was extremely unrealistic and did not occur.


I am rather looking at the issue through the lens of the universal principles of the workers' movement.

I'm not entire sure how you reach your conclusion when we are, in reality, talking about advice on the employment of writers. And given that the Stalinist regime, and its influence, was a far greater threat to the worker's movement and international socialism than the Attlee Labour Government, let alone Orwell and his irrelevent list, I'm not sure I agree. I think Orwell was wrong, but his fears were, while becoming paranoid, well grounded in his personal experiences of seeing fellow revolutionaries dragged away and shot; something that even the most rightwing bourgeois social democrats of the Labour Party of the 1940s did not advocate.


I am not that interested in his motives however I am simply trying to be realistic, more for the sake of the discussion than anything else. Regardless of his motives and regardless of the consequences of his act, his act remains what it is.

Well, I respectfully disagree with the weight you put on it. It was an error, but not the betrayal you seemingly (and correct me if I have you wrong) assert it to be.

[Ismail]

If you think that is championing Conquest then you're a fool.Except, of course, there were plenty of critiques of Conquest at the time. It wasn't a case of "there was no other alternative." Even then people were calling his work shoddy. The most obvious academic who comes to mind is J. Arch Getty, who in his 1979 dissertation noted Conquest's statement that "basically the best, though not infallible, source is rumor." Getty then noted that, "Such statements would be astonishing in any other field of history. Of course, historians do not accept hearsay and rumor as evidence." Moshe Lewin (sympathetic to Trotsky) just went right out and called Conquest's work "crap."


Another lie. I said that you were less intelligent than Irving. To quote myself:Good point, I should have paraphrased your words instead like so: "David Irving is more intelligent than Ismail because Hitler conducted mass genocide, whereas the Soviets conducted incompetent activities in the course of collectivizing and modernizing agriculture. Evidently Irving is quite an astute fellow for defending genocide, an activity far more intellectually stimulating compared to pursuing collective farmland."


And I'm right, the Allied powers didn't collaborate with Nazi German against the USSR.In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion (written by an anti-communist, FYI) is the best introductory work on the fact that they did collaborate with the Nazis against Soviet interests. Even disregarding the work for a moment, I don't think excluding the USSR from the Munich talks, tacitly backing the Nazi and Fascist Italian-backed Francoists in Spain (unless you deny this as well), and refusing to agree to a collective security pact or to even discuss it with the Soviets are actions which were meant to inspire confidence on the part of the Soviet leadership concerning Britain and France's agenda.


the USSR, on the other hand, did in 1939, collaborate with Nazi Germany.As Molotov noted both then and after the war, this was because Britain and France refused to collaborate with the USSR against Nazi Germany. Thanks to the non-aggression pact, however, the Soviets were in a better position to fight Nazism than would have otherwise been the case.


"I don't have a 'position' on Libya, beyond noting that some of the arguments raised, including ones which you seemingly share, are foolish."In other words you don't oppose imperialism in Libya. Did you have "no position" on Iraq and Afghanistan as well? Opposition to imperialism doesn't mean thinking that Gaddafi was a wonderful socialist nor that he was some bulwark against imperialism. Hoxha certainly had a dim view of him.

[Invader Zim]

Except, of course, there were plenty of critiques of Conquest at the time. It wasn't a case of "there was no other alternative." Even then people were calling his work shoddy. The most obvious academic who comes to mind is J. Arch Getty, who in his 1979 dissertation noted Conquest's statement that "basically the best, though not infallible, source is rumor." Getty then noted that, "Such statements would be astonishing in any other field of history. Of course, historians do not accept hearsay and rumor as evidence." Moshe Lewin (sympathetic to Trotsky) just went right out and called Conquest's work "crap."

This paragraph is hilarious. The stupidity of it is matched only by the towering ignorance it contains. In fact, you are so wrong it is difficult to know where to begin.


Well, lets begin with the glaringly obvious anachronism. Your idea of 'at the time' of Conquest's major pre-archive work, is a dissertation written a full 19 years after Conquest's first book on Russia and 11 years after The Great Terror, and you want to talk about critiques "at the time"? Well, OK, here are the first few reviews of The Great Terror (1969 edition) on JSTOR:

"In short, The Great Terror is a significant study. To be sure, there is much about the early Stalinist period that we still do not know, and no doubt careful readers will spot minor errors in Professor Conquest's account-the Bolshevik Raskolnikov's first name was Fedor, not Mikhail, and he did not die of a nervous disorder but either jumped or was pushed from a Paris window. Given the well-known source limitations, it is also quite likely that as fresh information becomes available, industrious historians will discover more serious flaws. Still, Professor Conquest has provided a carefully researched, by and large engrossingly written, and intellectually stimulating analysis, the fullest yet published, of one of the most confused and important periods in Russia's past. His book will be of interest to all serious students of Soviet history and politics, as well as to all those seeking a better understanding of the fundamental political and social problems of our age."

My emphasis.

Alexander Rabinowitch, 'Review: The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest', in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 383 (May, 1969), p. 179.

"It is a shattering experience to have to read this book, where all these things are brought together, but it is an instructive and necessary one. As historians we must be grateful to Robert Conquest for having undertaken this surely painful task, and having executed it with such thoroughness and skill. If he leaves many questions to reflect on and puzzle over, this too is a plus. But above all it is a great book for all men of our time, since only with the aid of such knowledge can we perhaps repair the civilization so deeply damaged by two total wars and by the rise of two totalitarian lands, one with crematoria and the other with forced labor camps and a system of frame-up trials."

Bertram D. Wolfe, 'Review: The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest', in Slavic Review, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Jun., 1969), p. 336.

"IN a letter published in the December I967 issue of the Slavic Review, Robert M. Slusser wrote, "A full and accurate history of the Great Purge is urgently needed." Conquest has come as close to providing one as anyone is likely to do for some time, barring further substantial disclosures from Soviet sources"

Donald W. Treadgold, 'Review: The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest', in The American Historical Review, Vol. 74, No. 5 (Jun., 1969), p. 1670.

"Mr Conquest has produced a first-rate book on a subject of cardinal importance. It is long and detailed, and is the outcome of a thorough and searching examination of the evidence now available on the origins, course, extent, nature, and results of the terrible and devastating purge to which Stalin subjected the Bolshevik Party, the international communist movement, the Soviet armed forces, and the whole Soviet people in the middle and late 1930s."

G. H. Bolsover, 'Review: The Great Terror by Robert Conquest', in The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 49, No. 115 (Apr., 1971), p. 315.

So, what I said was true and you're full of shit. Not that we needed any more proof of that.

And as for Getty's position on the flaws of memory, that debate was argued at length back in the 60s and 70s, and most historians fail to share his view, or at least take a more nuanced position. That said, I find it amusing that you praise Leibovitz' book which heavily relied on just the kinds of sources Getty attacks. Of course, Leibovitz doesn't have Conquest's excuse for failing to use archival material, because the archives that Leibovitz should have used were very much open in the 90s.


Moshe Lewin (sympathetic to Trotsky) just went right out and called Conquest's work "crap."

Actually, he described it as "rubbish", and he wasn't talking about the work I was. I very obviously was talking about The Great Terror, which was written at a time when access to archival material was extremely rare (the late 60s). Lewin was talking about The Harvest of Sorrow, published in the mid 80s, when the archival situation was very different. And as I said of his later work, "He now claims, I suspect wrongly, that the archival evidence now available to him proves his old arguments correct."

So, no Lewin was not talking about The Great Terror, or any of Conquest's other early work, prior to the increase in access to the archives from the very late 70s and into the 80s. He was talking about one of his much later works.

So you are wrong, entirely wrong. Wrong about what historians thought of Conquest in the late 60s. Wrong in your choice of sources. Even wrong in your basic grasp of the timeline we are talking about.


Good point, I should have paraphrased your words instead like so: "David Irving is more intelligent than Ismail because Hitler conducted mass genocide, whereas the Soviets conducted incompetent activities in the course of collectivizing and modernizing agriculture. Evidently Irving is quite an astute fellow for defending genocide, an activity far more intellectually stimulating compared to pursuing collective farmland."

Which, again, isn't what I said at all, I would quote myself again, but given that it is a few posts above I fail to see the need.


In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion

I have a copy, the edition with an introduction by Christopher Hitchen's, sat on my desk. It is garbage, but I'll address why later.


(written by an anti-communist, FYI)

Really? I was under the impression that Leibovitz had spent a considerable period of time in prison because he was a Marxist. Did he change his politics later in life? In fact, I'll look it up. On his webpage (http://www.cleibovitz.org/about/index.html) he says:

"I was arrested in Egypt in 1949. I was tortured for five hours. I did not give away the addresses of my comrades nor their names I was then jailed for 10 years. I was in one of the many marxist organisations demanding the evacuation of the British troops from Egypt, and a better life for the workers and peasants. Later, under Nasser, well aftet I ended the 10 years jail, we were innocented."


is the best introductory work on the fact that they did collaborate with the Nazis against Soviet interests.

And, as I said above, it is rubbish. Reading through the opening chapters on Britain you can only be struck by the fact that there isn't a single archival source. The author relies entirely on secondary literature, the occassional memoir of a low-level figure and still more occassionally the odd Cabinet minute. The only real source he uses at any length is the published primary material found in the Documents on British Foreign Policy series. He does not consult the archives at all, as far as I can see. He also ignores great swathes key material, such as Chamberlain's letters, diary and other papers.

What Leibovitz did was to collect a few quotes, largely decontextualised, from relatively minor figures of the period, or embittered ones out to castigate Chamberlain. For example, the memoirs of Leo Amery, the Tory politican, are used. Now that is all very well, provided the author understands that the Amery was hardly a valid source for passing comment on what the cabinet was doing or believed. Amery was, at that time, not in the Cabinet and had not been since 1929 and was a staunch opponent of the government and appeasement. Either Leibovitz was not aware of these kinds of methodological shortcomings or he hoped that nobody would notice.

And of course, the book is to use the description provided by the emminent historian Wesley K. Wark in his review (which is perhaps the single most scathing analysis I have ever seen in a peer-reviewed publication) of the book, "madcap". He also noted:

"Last, and least, comes the conspiracy theory of Clement Leibovitz. It is a
tribute, in a way, to the continuing vitality of appeasement studies, and to the
significance of the issues raised, that conspiracy theories should continue from
time to time to rear their heads. Leibovitz offers an old one, between the
covers of a vanity press publication, in a mere 544 pages of small type (with a
foreword by British Labour MP Tony Benn). Leibovitz is concerned to establish the fact (usually it appears as The Fact) that Chamberlain made a deal with Hitler to give him 'a free hand to pursue his aggressive ambitions in Eastern Europe'. This notion is a wee bit difficult to square with the policies of a government that issued unprecedented guarantees to Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey in the spring and summer of 1939, but no matter. And it does seem a matter of fact that it was Stalin, not Chamberlain, who made a deal with Hitler, but again no matter."


, I don't think excluding the USSR from the Munich talks, tacitly backing the Nazi and Fascist Italian-backed Francoists in Spain (unless you deny this as well), and refusing to agree to a collective security pact or to even discuss it with the Soviets are actions which were meant to inspire confidence on the part of the Soviet leadership concerning Britain and France's agenda.

And now of course you are creating a dishonest little strawman. We aren't talking about whether or not the Western powers were anti-communist, and rebuffed the Soviet Union, we are talking about whether they actively formed policy, conspired and collaborated with the Nazis in order to create a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Which, manifestly, they did not.



In other words you don't oppose imperialism in Libya.

Incorrect. I very much oppose imperialism in Libya, and made my criticism of Britain and France abundently clear. My 'neutrality', to use your expression, was on the question of whether the left should support the rebels. At no point did I argue that leftists should support a move by western powers to deliberately hijack that rebellion, influence its leadership and engineer the rise of a pro-British leadership, simply so that Britain, and France, could increase their share of the oil exports from Libya - which is what support of an imperialist agenda in the region fundermentally entailed.



Hoxha certainly had a dim view of him.

Yawn.

[Ismail]

Well, lets begin with the glaringly obvious anachronism. Your idea of 'at the time' of Conquest's major pre-archive work, is a dissertation written a full 19 years after Conquest's first book on Russia and 11 years after The Great Terror, and you want to talk about critiques "at the time"?Except, of course, there wasn't much in archival breakthroughs comparable to the 80's and (obviously) the 90's. Getty's analysis is a lot more significant than if he had written his in 1999 and Conquest's book released in 1981 or so.


Well, OK, here are the first few reviews of The Great Terror (1969 edition) on JSTOR:Adhering, of course, to the generic anti-communist position at the time, praising the work. Grover Furr recalls reading the book in the mid-70's and finding obvious faults with it.


Actually, he described it as "rubbish", and he wasn't talking about the work I was. I very obviously was talking about The Great Terror, which was written at a time when access to archival material was extremely rare (the late 60s). Lewin was talking about The Harvest of Sorrow, published in the mid 80s, when the archival situation was very different.I mentioned Lewin (I could have mentioned others, like Manning, etc.) because Harvest of Sorrow is hardly any more dishonest than The Great Terror. Conquest's works are criticized because of the methodology he employs, not because The Great Terror was exceptionally bad.


Really? I was under the impression that Leibovitz had spent a considerable period of time in prison because he was a Marxist. Did he change his politics later in life?Furr has noted to me that by the 90's he was "hostile to the USSR." Evidently, with his book being published by Monthly Review Press, he was bound to be left-wing, but at one point you called him a "Stalinist hack," which is incorrect.


"This notion is a wee bit difficult to square with the policies of a government that issued unprecedented guarantees to Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey in the spring and summer of 1939, but no matter. And it does seem a matter of fact that it was Stalin, not Chamberlain, who made a deal with Hitler, but again no matter."Obviously written by an anti-communist. Leibovitz notes that even after the guarantees (which were made after it started to become obvious to Chamberlain and Co. that Hitler cared little for Britain, just as he cared even less for the USSR) there were attempts by the Chamberlain Government to mend relations with Nazi Germany.

It's also worth noting that The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion is a more "popular" (readable) version of The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal, which, as Leibovitz notes in the opening of Collusion, details the Chamberlain Government's policies in more detail via 200+ more pages and additional source material. Luckily it's in PDF format: http://www.cleibovitz.org/chd/Chamberlain-Hitler%20Deal.pdf


And now of course you are creating a dishonest little strawman. We aren't talking about whether or not the Western powers were anti-communist, and rebuffed the Soviet Union, we are talking about whether they actively formed policy, conspired and collaborated with the Nazis in order to create a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Which, manifestly, they did not.It seems a bit odd, then, that they really didn't mind an eastward march all that much. Certainly the USSR being forced to deal with Nazi Germany should become far less offensive to anyone considering that the Western Powers had no real concern for a collective security pact.

[Invader Zim]

Except, of course, there wasn't much in archival breakthroughs comparable to the 80's and (obviously) the 90's. Getty's analysis is a lot more significant than if he had written his in 1999 and Conquest's book released in 1981 or so.

Well, access to the archives became more frequent as the 20th century went on. But Getty's analysis actually fits the wider historiographical trends of the time given the debate revolving around methodology, particularly when it came to memory. I'm thinking of, for example, of Paul Thompson (etc.) who published The Voice of the Past in 1978. There was of course a backlash regarding this changing methodological landscape which followed on from the arguments of G. R. Elton in his responce to the work of E. H. Carr in the late 60s. Getty would seemingly fit neatly into that, at least chronologically, though that correlation does not imply causation.


Adhering, of course, to the generic anti-communist position at the time, praising the work.

And so we return to your standard ad hominem tactic when it comes to any historians (which is nearly all of them) whose analysis doesn't neatly fit your own.

The fact is they were aware and acknowledged the methodological problems with Conquest's work, but they rightly noted that there wasn't really any alternative given the absence of sources.


Grover Furr recalls reading the book in the mid-70's and finding obvious faults with it.

It is amusing that you dismiss the vast majority of historians out of hand, because if they disagree with you, they must be dishonest and bias, but that you fail to apply the same jaundiced criticism when it comes to Furr, who is a laughing stock within the historical community... well that very tiny portion of the historical community who know who he is and the even smaller sub-portion who even bother to comment on him.


I mentioned Lewin (I could have mentioned others, like Manning, etc.) because Harvest of Sorrow is hardly any more dishonest than The Great Terror.

But we aren't talking about the validity of Conquest's later work, which I remind you, I believe to be wrong (based on the critiques of the same historical community you largely reject). We are talking about your assertion that I defend Conquest, which I do not. Rather I stated that his earlier work cannot be criticised for its use of memory, because western historians in the late 60s did not have access to archival material. I have not defended his later works, so you are constructing a strawman argument.


Furr has noted to me that by the 90's he was "hostile to the USSR."

Which may, or may not be true, but the assumption is not born out in a reading of his book.

Though I must say this is rather amusing. You cite Getty's critique of Conquest employing what Getty described elsewhere as ''corridor gossip' (or words to that effect, I can't recall the precise wording), yet here you are relaying the opinion of a third party (Furr) as fact regarding the opinions of another individual (Leibovitz), which we cannot substanciate.

And as I noted above, Leibovitz also liberally used the exact same kind of material Getty attacked. You seemingly apply one standard for those you disagree with but fail to apply it to those you do.


Obviously written by an anti-communist.

"And so we return to your standard ad hominem tactic when it comes to any historians (which is nearly all of them) whose analysis doesn't neatly fit your own."


Leibovitz notes that even after the guarantees (which were made after it started to become obvious to Chamberlain and Co. that Hitler cared little for Britain, just as he cared even less for the USSR) there were attempts by the Chamberlain Government to mend relations with Nazi Germany.

And in that champter he shows his lack of familiarity with the subject matter. To choose an example directly relevent to your comment, Leibovitz stated that Britian began rearmament ("improve the defences of Britain") in 1939 when intelligence chiefs suggested that Hitler would attack west. This is simply not true, Britian had been heavily rearming, and building her defences, since 1936 and an ever increasing rate from 1937. Furthermore, British intelligence had identified Nazi Germany as Britain's primary threat (above that of the Soviet Union) long before 1939.

This rather debunk's his assertion that "This required time and an alliance with Poland that would make that country Hitler's likely first target would [sic] buy several months, it was believed."

p. 225 of the 1997 edition.


It seems a bit odd, then, that they really didn't mind an eastward march all that much.
So Poland isn't to the east of Germany, and Britain and France did not declare war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland?

[Ismail]

So Poland isn't to the east of Germany, and Britain and France did not declare war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland?This was after the Munich pact. Leibovitz notes why the British became especially suspicious of Nazi motives after this pact, when it became clear that the Nazis weren't going to actually attack the Soviets, but were looking westwards.

Even then the declaration of war on Poland was often called the "Phony War." The Soviets themselves were quite suspicious of the intentions of the Western Powers, and it is of course known that Stalin was always asking the Americans to open up the western front during the war.

I've sent a message to Furr to ask for his views on the sources Leibovitz uses. As you know my focus is on Albanian history, his is obviously more Soviet-oriented and he notably wrote a positive review of Leibovitz's book The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal in 1994.

[Invader Zim]

This was after the Munich pact.

Yes, and if Britain was trying to drive the Nazis east, then offering guarantees to Poland after Munich would have been entirely counter-productive. Leibovitz' explaination that offering guarantees painted a target on Poland doesn't make sense. If anything the reverse is true, because it upped the stakes.


Leibovitz notes why the British became especially suspicious of Nazi motives after this pact, when it became clear that the Nazis weren't going to actually attack the Soviets, but were looking westwards.

But as I noted, the British and French had already determined that the Nazi regimed posed a serious threat to their security long before 1939. Wesley K Wark, who wrote the review of Leibovitz' book, wrote a book on the intelligence communities assessment of the situation. Rather amusingly, given that later Wark would write his biting review, Leibovitz lavished Wark's book with praise.



Even then the declaration of war on Poland was often called the "Phony War."

Yes, and it lased only a few months at which point it became decidedly un-phoney. And the lack of activity came as a shock to the British, who had projected massive aerial bombardment within days of war.



I've sent a message to Furr to ask for his views on the sources Leibovitz uses.

Why? Leibovitz footnotes them in his book, and a cursary examination swiftly shows that for the most part he relied upon memoirs and secondary literature. The only recurring primary source material I noted was sporadic use of the Cabinet Papers and more frequent use of the Documents on British Foreign Policy series.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I absolutely cannot stand any of Orwell's cartoonish work.

[Prometeo liberado]

Orwell read so well when I was younger but now its just painful to read.

[Invader Zim]

I absolutely cannot stand any of Orwell's cartoonish work.

And I bet you have only read Animal Farm, which is, of course, a fable caricaturing Stalinist Russia.

[Delenda Carthago]

http://www.comparebusinessproducts.com/content/assets/40/generic/stop-snitching/stop-snitching.jpg

[Zealot]

Invader Zim still trying to defend a bourgeois underling. Well that's cute, I guess.

[Sheepy]

Invader Zim still trying to defend a bourgeois underling. Well that's cute, I guess.

Who? Stalin? If you read his post correctly, he's defending George Orwell, so he isn't.

:3c

[Retog]

Animal Farm is often used to criticize communism. I think it is actually a warning about how a revolution can turn totalitarian as communism is perfect and cannot be criticized.