Animal Farm thread

[Ol' Dirty]

I just read Animal Farm, and I think it's a good novella. Although many people see the book as a peice of anti-communist propoganda, I think that Orwell proved that one of the main things I noticed was that it wasn't the theories of Animalism that made the Farm totalitarian: it was the perversion of those priciples that led to its downfall.

[Pirate Utopian]

This book again?.......

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:52 pm
I just read Animal Farm, and I think it's a good novella. Although many people see the book as a peice of anti-communist propoganda, I think that Orwell proved that one of the main things I noticed was that it wasn't the theories of Animalism that made the Farm totalitarian: it was the perversion of those priciples that led to its downfall.
I had hoped that they would be burned to the last.

[Janus]

I haven't seen one of these in a while
You've gotta be kidding me. There are so many Animal Farm and 1984 threads that there's an entire Orwell sticky in Lit. & Films.

[redcannon]

the book wasn't ant-communist. when the animals were following what they had originally laid out, everything worked fine. but when it was perveted and made totalitarian it got a lot worse. the book is merely showing how that happened. orwell himself was a socialist, so i don't suppose he'd be writing anti-commie literature

[RedStarOverChina]

This guy here exposed Orwell for what he truly is...A servile, reactionary fucktard.
George Orwell---Reationary? (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097859426&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)
Orwell Again? (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1105929449&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Tower of Bebel]

I hate orwell because my teacher used his works to shwo us what would happen if you listen to someone who wants to free the world from it's current problems. That asshole.

[Publius]

This guy here exposed Orwell for what he truly is...A servile, reactionary fucktard.
George Orwell---Reationary? (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097859426&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)
Orwell Again? (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1105929449&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

There's a reason why I don't look to Redstar2000 for my literary criticism.

I think he completely misunderstands the message of 1984 and simply trots out false dichotomy after false dichotomy.

"Moreover, insofar as both books caricature the "USSR" as "the 9th level of Hell", the obvious conclusion one is "pointed towards" is to defend capitalism as it stands."

That's pure sophistry. The point is that one un-Democratic authoritarian regime is as bad as another; it doesn't matter what terminology or propaganda is used. If you actually associate the Party and Big Brother with 'Communism' you've actually fallen for the propaganda in the book, which is pretty bad. The point is that they are not communist and never were. The whole essay, then, is just an excercise in missing the point.

Yes, he could have turned 1984 into a heroic tale of how a dashing revolutionary smashes the evil state and brings about the glorious revolution. But that's not the point. Some books are meant to be hopeless and depressing. But that doesn't mean the situations they are about must be.

And of course I seem to remember Redstar talking about how bad a writer Dostoevsky was, so I know to steer clear of his aesthetics.

[Yardstick]

I agree with the Publius, but just to add somethign else, Orwell wrote Animal Farm and 1984 while the USSR was still in power. The reason both books end in desolation is because he never sees the end of the USSR.

[apathy maybe]

Animal Farm was written specifically warning against Bolshevik style revolution, I agree with redstar2000 to the limited extent that Orwell could also have attacked capitalism in this book, however, that is the only place where I agree with him.

1984 was written as a warning against all forms of totalitarianism, that is both USSR style, fascist style and the possible capitalist style that was coming about in his own time. The book was being written in 1948, and the title was meant as "a mirror of our times". He wasn't writing so much about the USSR in this book, but more the aspects of totalitarianism that he could see in his own country (the UK) at his own time.

Orwell would be horrified if he were alive today to see how his warnings have been ignored. We see Britain that is becoming more and more like a "panopticon" society. From a post over @ Slashdot http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234167&cid=19065925

Foucault, he wrote a lot on the idea. But the original was from Bentham. George Orwell's 1984 also describes a "panopticion" society, whether he got his idea from Yevgeny Zamyatin's We (a novel about a society where all the buildings are built of glass) is debatable.

Today, the idea of the panopticon (literally, seeing or observing all) has moved beyond prisons into the wider society. Take Britain for example, with its millions of cameras. Yet shit loads of these are actually fake. The UK is now, to a certain extent, a "panopticon" society. At one movement, you might be being watched. But you don't know when, or really even by whom.

Animal Farm and 1984 aren't my favourite Orwell books, but they are close.

[IcarusAngel]

Orwell was in no way a "reactionary" capitalist, and RedStar2000 is not any kind of authoritative source on much of anything really. His website is mostly just a series of debates he supposedly won on che-lives, revleft, and other websites.

As for Orwell, he did indeed absolutely despised the USSR, mostly because they supported the Second Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil war and helped put down the Spanish Revolution. Thus, Animal Farm was most likely about the perverse "Socialism" that existed in the USSR and a mockery of it. That is most likely why it is widely read in American schools. Furthermore, there was an introduction to the book that was initially removed in America and Britain, that contrasted the USSR's propaganda with that of the propaganda in the US, which is supposedly more advanced because of the crime of omission. So it's quite clear that Orwell was writing consciously about what was going on in the USSR and contrasting that with what goes on in the more capitalist countries. (That preface was removed for nearly 40 years by the way.)

1984, on the other hand, is only somewhat about the Soviet Union, and anybody who has actually read the book and knows a little bit about history is aware of the fact that it's more about what existed (and still exists to some degree) in the US and Britain. It was also supposed to warn people about how dangerous propaganda and war are, and how they often coincide. For example, the "Ministry of Love" etc. obviously comes from an actual propaganda effort in Britain called the "Ministry of Information" which existed "to direct the thought of most of the world." Around the same time period the United States under Wilson came up with the "Committee on Public Information," which influenced the modern public-relations industry. This stuff is still around too: Reagan for example had "Operation Truth" to distort what was going on in Nicaragua and in other parts of South America, and then there's Bush, who has launched all kinds of Orwellian spy agencies and propaganda efforts that are documented even in the mainstream press.

Propaganda in capitalist systems has always existed to keep the middle classes misinformed, isolated, etc. by the media, and the elites brainwashed and in line through the education system. The masses just kind of get in the way and should thus have their attention diverted elsewhere or should be heavily brainwashed. Hasn't anybody here studied anything by Chomsky? He documents, in detail, the propaganda efforts undertaken by the media, government, and even business in general (AT&T talked about keeping public in line, business in the early 1900s encouraged people to follow religion etc.) in his books Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind, Necessary Illusions, and Manufacturing Consent (w/ Herman).

So 1984 was more about how war was essential to the three major super powers, and to the operation of its economy and its control structures. It was also about how news is distorted through techniques like oversimplification, euphemism, misrepresentation, euphemism, abbreviation, and so on. Unfortunately, the "control structures" themselves seemed to have learned more than the people. My only criticism of the book is that he probably should have called it IngDoc, or IngDem, for English Democracy -- IngSoc is simply too sophisticated for most people to understand.

Whether you like satire or not, it is clear that Orwell was in no way a "reactionary" and he even fought to defend Anarcho-syndicalism. So he was a revolutionary anarcho-syndicalist. Satire is probably not as useful as it once was because people really don't get it, and I think it was Tom Lehrer who said that once Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, satire became obsolete anyway (not to mention Bush and the fact that a lot of people still don't see him for what he is). If you don't like it, there are plenty of leftist alternatives both living and dead, such as Zinn, Chomsky, et al (just the facts, ma'am). And if you want a dystopian work that is more directly critical of capitalism and/or not too complicated, try something like Brave New World, quite clear in the fact that's mocking industrialism, capitalism, apathy, luxury, amusement, etc., Iron Heel, written by a Socialist convert (“A truer prophecy of the future than either Brave New World or The Shape of Things to Come.” --George Orwell), It Can't Happen Here, and so on.

Sources:


"Orwell originally prepared a preface which complains about British government suppression of his book, self-imposed British self-censorship and how the British people were suppressing criticism of the USSR, their World War II ally. "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. ... [Things are] kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact." Somewhat ironically, the preface itself was censored and is not published with most copies of the book."

"The world of Nineteen Eighty-Four also reflects various aspects of the social and political life of both the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Orwell is reported to have said that the book described what he saw as the actual situation in the United Kingdom in 1948, where rationing was still in place, the British Empire was dissolving at the same time as newspapers were reporting its triumphs, and wartime allies such as the USSR were rapidly becoming peacetime foes ('Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy'). His work for the overseas service of the BBC, which at the time was under the control of the Ministry of Information, also played a significant role as the basis for his Ministry of Truth."

"Orwell's Homage to Catalonia sets forth his distrust of totalitarianism and the betrayal of revolutions. His essay Why I Write explains clearly that all the "serious work" he had written since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". (Why I Write)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/orwell.html

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/...ground-info.htm (http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/animal-farm-background-info.htm)

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

[apathy maybe]

Well apart from your first paragraph, that is a pretty good post. (Orwell wasn't an anarchist though, you should read his The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius. You can find it http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/ .)

Orwell was in no way a "reactionary" capitalist, and RedStar2000 is not any kind of authoritative source on much of anything really. His website is mostly just a series of debates he supposedly won on che-lives, revleft, and other websites.
Just to veer off topic, redstar200 is an authoritative source, just not on this topic. You have only been around since March, you do not know how much of an influence that man had on this site. He has influenced a large number of the (older) members, because of his experience (he is as far as I know, the oldest member this board has seen) and his writing.

The Che-Lives forums are no longer in existence, neither I think are most of the other boards he posted at. Except, unlike the rest, the Che-Lives forums live on, they are called RevLeft now.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 17, 2007 06:05 pm
Well apart from your first paragraph, that is a pretty good post. (Orwell wasn't an anarchist though, you should read his The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius. You can find it http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/ .)

Orwell was in no way a "reactionary" capitalist, and RedStar2000 is not any kind of authoritative source on much of anything really. His website is mostly just a series of debates he supposedly won on che-lives, revleft, and other websites.
Just to veer off topic, redstar200 is an authoritative source, just not on this topic. You have only been around since March, you do not know how much of an influence that man had on this site. He has influenced a large number of the (older) members, because of his experience (he is as far as I know, the oldest member this board has seen) and his writing.

The Che-Lives forums are no longer in existence, neither I think are most of the other boards he posted at. Except, unlike the rest, the Che-Lives forums live on, they are called RevLeft now.
You're right. That line was a little extreme, but it's annoying to claim Orwell was "exposed" just because Redstar2000 said it.

I've actually been familiar with his "work" for quite sometime now and have agreed with him on things such as social issues (how you can't oppose many social freedoms and call yourself a communist).

[Hegemonicretribution]

Red Star is far from the final word on Orwell, but the point at which I started seeing his point (at least partially) when he asked me for an example of anything Orwell wrote post-Homage to Catalonia that was in favour of revolutionary action (ie how it should work, or could work) and I could not answer. Now to be honest I think Orwell's style is uninspired and consequentially I am far from an expert; but I am still waiting for somebody to provide an example to the contrary.

If any one could then this would be great....whilst I do understand that books do not always entail a happy ending, questions should be raised if/when all of Orwell's later works are against the possibility of an successful revolution.

I believe he said something to the effect of "Everything I write from now is against authoritarianism and in favour of libertarian socialism...." or something like that (could be wrong) I just did not come across any books in favour of anything.

[IcarusAngel]

I'm needed at work, so I'll have to answer the Protest-Warrior thing in a few hours (and yes, it is relevant to revleft).

But, Hegemonicretribution, Orwell himself said that "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."

Thus, both Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1948) were written in defense of democratic socialism. And remember, Orwell was a revolutionary -- he fought for socialism, and he was wounded, for socialism.

Just because he doesn't publish constantly on revolutionary theories does not mean he was not revolutionary -- he was a literary critic, a satirist, and a soldier.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:53 pm
But, Hegemonicretribution, Orwell himself said that "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."

Thus, both Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1948) were written in defense of democratic socialism. And remember, Orwell was a revolutionary -- he fought for socialism, and he was wounded, for socialism.

Just because he doesn't publish constantly on revolutionary theories does not mean he was not revolutionary -- he was a literary critic, a satirist, and a soldier.
If you look at the end of my post I uttered something to a similar effect, perhaps I should spend 5 seconds to google it for teh exact....actually I will :In "Why I Write" Orwell stated: "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism." I just happened to have assorted writings on my desk..that was weird :wacko:

Anyway, in that case I oppose Orwell more completely from this point on. Democratic socialism is not the same as revolutionary socialism. I do not oppose Orwell's opposition to authoritarian regimes, but he does not qualify himself at all well.

I write songs, and very rarely do I write a political one...they often sound poor; anyway, if I was to write one then it would not be a facist anthen..we may never know for sure, but Orwell's actions and writing (all we have to go off) would suggest a shift away from the revolutionary towards the reformist, (and?) perhaps reactionary.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by STJ+May 18, 2007 06:32 pm--> (STJ @ May 18, 2007 06:32 pm)Wow this sounds like a bad spy novel.[/b]

Yes, but it's not much to worry about though as the PWs were mostly retarded. And I mean that literally -- usually when you say something like that you mean figuratively, but, I spent three years studying the protest-warriors, and many of them fit the definition of being legally retarded.

I would just like to know though if he's reporting back there, and apparently he is still in contact with some PWs.


[email protected] 18, 2007 06:40 pm

Anyway, in that case I oppose Orwell more completely from this point on. Democratic socialism is not the same as revolutionary socialism.

"Revolutionary Socialism" is something that is only to exist for an ephemeral period, not continually. Once the revolution has taken place, democratic socialism is to be established (at least in Leninist or Trotskyist theory).

Revolutionary Socialism is when you take armed conflict against a state, be it state capitalist or state socialist.

Orwell was a "revolutionary socialist" who wanted to establish democratic-socialism (pretty much the only real version of socialism), and he proved it by fighting in the Spanish Revolution. He was also nearly killed, being shot in the neck, left him paralyzed in one arm for a while. He was told it was lucky that he was alive, to which he replied "it would be even luckier not to be hit at all" -- an intelligent socialist response.

Einstein and Chomsky would be two people who are democratic-socialists, or syndicalists, who do not advocate revolution.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Icarus Angel: Sorry to impose upon this lovely little discourse you two have going one :P....but I will anyway.

I never said that Orwell was not a revolutionary; I said in my post that I prefered writings from this time. However once Orwell stopped writing along these lines (after homage to...forexample) his works became of a different nature.

I get the message of his books, in the case of 1984 and animal farm (like most ex-literature students) I have studied them several times, mostly from a Marxist perspective. I don't think Orwell is particuarly strong for the genre...I used to before I had read anything like him, just not anymore.

As for what he doesn't say towards the end; that a revolution is possible. He is all for bringing about socialism through electoral reform (real dem-socialism) and speaks to this effect, but whilst he may still be left leaning at this point (and having done more than most by demonstrating a will to fight) we can only consider him in terms of what we know. He was a revolutionary and wrote to this effect, he became disheartened with certain revolutionary attempts and then became anti-authoritarian. The problem is that the message that leaks through his final works is that revolutionary socialism is doomed to failure.

I am opposed to a vanguard, and as I see it this was the problem in both Animal Farm and 1984; but whilst I can agree with the plot of both of these books (and even appreciate literature that adopts a direction of plot that I find disconcerting when this is not the case)..I still focus upon what Orwell doesn't say, and that is that it is not the revolution that is impossible, but that it is unlikely when directed by one group of people.

Now perhaps I am view Orwell in a more critical light because of the contemporary view of him and the use of his works as arguments against communism....but why should I be interested in conserving Orwell's character? It is his astute powers of prediction that some admire; 1984, written as a warning to his son included helicopters and CCTV amongst other accurate predictions. He did not however predict how his work would be perceived in the future (not that he should be expected to), and this is part of the problem from a contemporary standpoint.

I just think that excusing Orwell too much is like exemplifying or elevating him. His literary contribution was not so great, and because the arguments declaring one political ideology or another are vague, they can balance each other out if both presented by articulate opponents.

We don't know certainly, the history is suspect even viewing Orwell as an enthuisiastic leftist, and therefore I would consider him a writer that was at one point revolutionary....

[Hegemonicretribution]

Also, if anyone is concerned about the whereabouts of certain posts I split and trashed the Protest warrior posts....

If you want to squabble please do so via PM, or if you absolutely must then continue this is a specialised thread, preferably in a forum where it is apporpriate.

[IcarusAngel]

You can take the rightist out of the PW forum, but you can't take the PW out of the rightist I guess. If you had to trash the questioning of PW that's fine, but since he's restricted we can't really take it to chit-chat.

As for Orwell, I agree with some of your points. I agree that Orwell not only walked the walked, but talked the talked by fighting for socialism (at least a kind of it), and I agree that we can't blame Orwell for the contemporary interpretations of his work (if that's what you were saying).

Blaming Orwell for the fact that the educational system in the US, the Libertarian Party, etc. uses it on their "anti-communist" reading list is like blaming Marx for the failed "communist" societies of the USSR, the CPK, DPRK, etc., similar to the point another Socialist who died recently, Kurt Vonnegut (RIP), made.

Perhaps he could have tried to write about the current struggles socialist would be facing, or perhaps he couldn't predict it. But given the fact he wrote that London's "Iron Heel" would be the struggle future workers would face, and going by his review of Hayek's work, it seems like he actually did have an idea of what the future would be like.

Orwell actually had keen insights into the future, given the fact that he predicted capitalist "natural competition" would be worse than tyranny or monarchy in many ways, and we can see that that is true.

I think Orwell probably didn't care if his book was used for anti-soviet propaganda, because he didn't like the soviet union anyway, and he would expect people to be smart enough to read the works themselves to find out what they're about rather than taking second-hand opinion of them.

The only thing I really disagree with in your post is that other literary works of the genre are "better" than Orwell's. Orwell's books are far better written than those of Huxley, London, Lewis, and so on.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:40 am
If you look at the end of my post I uttered something to a similar effect, perhaps I should spend 5 seconds to google it for teh exact....actually I will :In "Why I Write" Orwell stated: "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism." I just happened to have assorted writings on my desk..that was weird :wacko:

Anyway, in that case I oppose Orwell more completely from this point on. Democratic socialism is not the same as revolutionary socialism. I do not oppose Orwell's opposition to authoritarian regimes, but he does not qualify himself at all well.

I write songs, and very rarely do I write a political one...they often sound poor; anyway, if I was to write one then it would not be a facist anthen..we may never know for sure, but Orwell's actions and writing (all we have to go off) would suggest a shift away from the revolutionary towards the reformist, (and?) perhaps reactionary.
I think you are taking his "democratic socialism" line a little to literally as you are his books. What I understand from that line is that he is for "democratic socialism" as opposed to "authoritarian socialism". Which basically means that he is for socialism as opposed to an authoritarian state that calls itself socialist. When it comes to socialism that covers a big spectrum as we all know.

As for the supposed anti-revolution stance I never got that from his books at all. Animal Farm was a warning to not let someone take over a revolution in your interest. Pretty much fuck off with the party and the vanguard bullshit. As for 1984 that seems more like a story warning you of what could happen if you wait too long to revolt. It never seemed like anti-revolution to me. There are different ways to tell a story about revolution than just straight up. I think if it would have been a straight up win it wouldn't have been as god as it was. Won Kar Wai movies remind me very much of that style. They almost always end in despair and it's a certain feeling that produces much more emotion than a happy ending in my opinion. Emotion is what a book about revolution should be about.

Theres a quote by Martin Niemöller that is like the story in 1984. While it ends in despair it isn't anti-revolution. It is actually to the contrary. It is a warning.

It's called "First the Nazi's Came"

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me

[IcarusAngel]

Though you're right on your point about Democratic Socialism and how it doesn't mean Orwell was a reactionary, Orwell actually did have his own criticisms of "revolution." One was that it would often lead to dictatorship; another was that they would fail etc. He eventually became more democratic-socialist, nearly libertarian socialist, a theory that assumes revolution is not necessary.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:06 am
Though you're right on your point about Democratic Socialism and how it doesn't mean Orwell was a reactionary, Orwell actually did have his own criticisms of "revolution." One was that it would often lead to dictatorship; another was that they would fail etc. He eventually became more democratic-socialist, nearly libertarian socialist, a theory that assumes revolution is not necessary.
Sorry that is contradicting the post above I think?...Not sure if it was a clarity issue or not: Anti-revolutionary approaches mean reliance upon another apporach and if Orwell did mean state elections then he can fuck off. If he did, as you are now asserting, claim that revolutions were indeed doomed to failure I would have a good cause to view him as a reactionary (assuming the validity of your source).

[Che-Neo-Revolution]

animal farm isnt anti communist
its anti stalinist
it portrays snowball(trotsky) as a smart and progressive leader
it portrays napoleon(stalin) as a leader who changes the rules to set himself and uses the the dogs(KGB) to keep everyon quiet
orwell wasnt anti communist he was just weary of the spread of stalinism after he fought in the spanish civil war

[CrazyMode]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:38 am
This guy here exposed Orwell for what he truly is...A servile, reactionary fucktard.
George Orwell---Reationary? (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097859426&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)
Orwell Again? (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1105929449&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)
Orwell saw Stalinists destroy socialism and anarchism in Spain. He saw the Soviet Union ally with the Nazis. You are the reactionary for arguing the Soviet Union somehow ever represented Communism. Lenin was an elitist who disrespected the poor.

[RedStarOverChina]

Thos of you who foolishly think that Orwell "could" also be against capitalist authoritarianism are living in fairyland.

Orwell clearly ment to direct his attacks on the REVOLUTION. Especially in 1984, which takes place in a society where the capitalists are already overthrown. They are off the radar.

Hmmm. So what could Orwell be after?


If you actually associate the Party and Big Brother with 'Communism' you've actually fallen for the propaganda in the book, which is pretty bad. The point is that they are not communist and never were. The whole essay, then, is just an excercise in missing the point.
I don't remember Orwell explaining it. If he does want to distinguish Stalinism from a genuine revolutionary movement, he could have easily done so. He didn't. Becuase it's easier to discredit communism and the revolution altogether that way.


By the way, he is clearly opposed to the idea of revolution, for those Orwell fans who consider themselves lefties.


You are the reactionary for arguing the Soviet Union somehow ever represented Communism.

Oh, did I? When and where?
You are talking out of your ass.


Lenin was an elitist who disrespected the poor.
Yeah he's just an evil bastard hell bent on enslaving the world. Happy?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:42 pm

If you actually associate the Party and Big Brother with 'Communism' you've actually fallen for the propaganda in the book, which is pretty bad. The point is that they are not communist and never were. The whole essay, then, is just an excercise in missing the point.
I don't remember Orwell explaining it. If he does want to distinguish Stalinism from a genuine revolutionary movement, he could have easily done so. He didn't. Becuase it's easier to discredit communism and the revolution altogether that way.


By the way, he is clearly opposed to the idea of revolution, for those Orwell fans who consider themselves lefties.
How does animal farm or 1984 discredit communism? That is just nuts. If that book discredits communism I don't want to be thought of as a communist. The things going on in those books are not things I would like to associate myself with. It discredits the communist party and Marxist-Leninism. Not communism.

He is clearly opposed to revolution. Is that why he was fighting the revolution in Spain? Is that why he was fighting the real communist fight in Spain and angry over the Communist Party's anti-revolution stance?

[Publius]

Thos of you who foolishly think that Orwell "could" also be against capitalist authoritarianism are living in fairyland.

So you're saying Orwell was perfectly OK with capitalist authoritarianism? That it didn't bother him one bit?

What are you talking about?



Orwell clearly ment to direct his attacks on the REVOLUTION. Especially in 1984, which takes place in a society where the capitalists are already overthrown. They are off the radar.

Hmmm. So what could Orwell be after?

Why would he make a book 'about the revolution' years after the revolution? Clearly 1984 is about the society after a failed workers revolution, vis a vis, Stalinist Russia.

It's only tangentially about the revolution itself.



I don't remember Orwell explaining it.

You're to infer it.


If he does want to distinguish Stalinism from a genuine revolutionary movement, he could have easily done so.

You said it yourself: the book takes place after the revolution. So it's not 'about' the revolution itself, it's about the authoritarianism that follows a failed vanguard revolution.

And I don't see any problem in pointing this out.



He didn't. Becuase it's easier to discredit communism and the revolution altogether that way.

It seems like to me it just discredits the idea of a vanguard party. In a true 'workers revolution' there would be no opportunity for an elite to take power.



By the way, he is clearly opposed to the idea of revolution, for those Orwell fans who consider themselves lefties.

Is this actually the case? Does he oppose all 'revolutions' or just vanguard ones?

[CrazyMode]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:42 am
Thos of you who foolishly think that Orwell "could" also be against capitalist authoritarianism are living in fairyland.

Orwell clearly ment to direct his attacks on the REVOLUTION. Especially in 1984, which takes place in a society where the capitalists are already overthrown. They are off the radar.

Hmmm. So what could Orwell be after?


If you actually associate the Party and Big Brother with 'Communism' you've actually fallen for the propaganda in the book, which is pretty bad. The point is that they are not communist and never were. The whole essay, then, is just an excercise in missing the point.
I don't remember Orwell explaining it. If he does want to distinguish Stalinism from a genuine revolutionary movement, he could have easily done so. He didn't. Becuase it's easier to discredit communism and the revolution altogether that way.


By the way, he is clearly opposed to the idea of revolution, for those Orwell fans who consider themselves lefties.


You are the reactionary for arguing the Soviet Union somehow ever represented Communism.

Oh, did I? When and where?
You are talking out of your ass.


Lenin was an elitist who disrespected the poor.
Yeah he's just an evil bastard hell bent on enslaving the world. Happy?
I'd like to apologize for directing that criticism at you personally. I simply felt you were trying to defend the soviet union. Even then I shouldn't have freaked out so immaturely.

So now are you assuming that simply because the revolution occurred and capitalism was destroyed that what followed was a "proper" form of socialism?

If you believe the Soviet Union was a negative experience, then surely you must agree that not all revolutions have positive results?

I believe Orwell's primary frustration is what he saw with Orthodox and sectarian groups in Spain. These groups ripped the Popular Front to pieces, making it far easier for Franco's Nationalists to conquer Spain.

[RedStarOverChina]

He is clearly opposed to revolution. Is that why he was fighting the revolution in Spain? Is that why he was fighting the real communist fight in Spain and angry over the Communist Party's anti-revolution stance?

I have no problem with that part of his life.

But whatever grudge he had against capitalist and imperialism in his youth simply "withered away" towards the end of his life---Along with his literary creativeness, it would seem.

Not only that, he became a lackey of imperialism and wrote those two books "in service to capitalism".



So you're saying Orwell was perfectly OK with capitalist authoritarianism? That it didn't bother him one bit?

Yeah, Apparently, since he handed a list of more than 100 "suspected communist" to the British Intelligence.

Aaawww, isn't that sweet of him?


Why would he make a book 'about the revolution' years after the revolution? Clearly 1984 is about the society after a failed workers revolution, vis a vis, Stalinist Russia.
It's only tangentially about the revolution itself.

Yeah, and the Diary of Ann Frank is only "tangentially" about Nazism.

Does that make sense?

It has everything to do with the revolution...He's warning the "dangers" of revolution...This is what would happen if the oppressed rebel.



It seems like to me it just discredits the idea of a vanguard party. In a true 'workers revolution' there would be no opportunity for an elite to take power.
...
Is this actually the case? Does he oppose all 'revolutions' or just vanguard ones?

There are no true "workers revolution" in Orwell's two novels.

The "proles" in 1984 are mobbish blockheads!

The masses in Animal Farm are naive horses and sheep!

They WILL be used and controlled by some "evil Stalinist"!




I'd like to apologize for directing that criticism at you personally.

Apology accepted.


So now are you assuming that simply because the revolution occurred and capitalism was destroyed that what followed was a "proper" form of socialism?

No. I'm not even sure if there is a "proper form of socialism". But I do think almost all revolutions end up making things better (including the Soviet Revolution).

Whereas Orwell implied that they always make things worse.

[Ol' Dirty]

This book again?.......

Yeah, again.


I had hoped that they would be burned to the last.

:huh:



I haven't seen one of these in a while


You've gotta be kidding me. There are so many Animal Farm and 1984 threads that there's an entire Orwell sticky in Lit. & Films.

I'm not kidding you. I wanted to talk to people (incluiding OIr's) about the book.