Just finished Animal Farm [Archive]

Led Zeppelin

31st December 2008, 00:27

yes Animal Farm and 1984 are supposed to be anti Stalinist and not anti communist as a whole, but unfortunately the masses wouldn't know the difference.

Yes, because "the masses" are too stupid to read that after the "revolution" the animals were doing just great until Napoleon took over the power and kicked out Snowball and stifled dissent in all forms.

No, I have more "faith" in the intelligence of the masses than you do.

Since historically, only Stalinist regimes existed, Stalinism is communism as far as the masses are concerned. And that is exactly why animal farm and 1984 are so easily used as anti communist propaganda.

Your latter conclusion is based on a false premise.

Orwell doesn't say "lol look Animal farm is communism and since that equals Stalinism to you this can easily be used as anti-communist propaganda". The word "communism" isn't used once in Animal Farm. You know which words are? Equality, freedom, revolution, solidarity, etc.

That is, all the good things that Stalinism later crushed.

I think people are smart enough to go; "Oh, I see, the animals were equal at first and there was freedom, but then Napoleon took over the power with the help of the dogs and destroyed all of that, and used his position to exploit the animals worse than Jones did", because that's what the story is.

The only way anyone could read it differently is if they read another book or are unable to read and comprehend at the same time.

Too bad Orwell never wrote a book with a vision of what a healthy communist society would look like. But then again it wouldn't be so heavily popularized by the ruling classes like Animal Farm and 1984.

Have you even read Animal Farm? It is described how well the farm worked after the revolution initially, and only started to go to hell when Napoleon took over power.

Orwell was actually spot on with his story. Napoleon was able to take-over the power due to the ignorance of the other animals, the failure of the revolution to spread, and the hard work the animals had to go through to "industrialize", and of course by having the dogs on his side. Snowball stood for the exact opposite things; spreading the revolution, industrializing in order to ease the lives of the animals in the future, and doing his best to raise the consciousness of the other animals and teach them was "animalism" was about.

That movie's ending is the perfect example of how Animal Farm can be used by the ruling class, it essentially says that communist revolutions will only lead to totalitarian dictatorships so it's best to have the boss' and capitalism back.....

You probably only saw the movie without bothering to read the book, which is a shame but explains your post.

Orwell isn't responsible for what assholes do to his work 40/50 years on. His book stands on its own right, and not only is it not "anti-communist", it is one of the best fictional short stories regarding the nature of "Stalinism" or "revisionism".

Angry Young Man

31st December 2008, 01:07

On my most recent reading of Animal Farm, I thought of doing a pro-socialist film for kids, which has the double edge of getting 'em while they're young, and obliterating the myth bred by bourgeois propagandists.

Nothing Human Is Alien

31st December 2008, 06:19

Guerrilla22

31st December 2008, 06:37

I had to read it in high school, in fact kids have been required to read it for years in the US because it knocks the Soviet Union. :laugh:

I also had to read 1984, although I'm sure that has since ended since monitoring people is apparently a tool to fight terrorism and it's unpatriotic to question the government.

manic expression

31st December 2008, 07:21

I think Aniaml Farm is wonderful.

It is anti-Stalinist and rightfully so. Of course, 1984 is similarly anti-Stalinist. For instance, "the party" in 1984 implemented a series of 5 and 10 year plans. Directly anti-Stalinist.

Your avatar is the flag of the International Brigades in Spain. You should remember that they were organized, funded and largely manned by "Stalinists". I am no friend of Stalin, but let's not forget the progressive nature of the Soviet Union during his rule. To defend the USSR from capitalist criticism is necessary to defend the entirety of the socialist movement.

I completely agree with Nothing Human Is Alien, the book is anti-communist because it implies that the revolution inherently led to Napoleon. Every time I encounter the "well, I just don't think it would work" line from some liberal, it is clear that Orwell's books (introduced in capitalist schools) undoubtedly contributed to their empty-headed rejection of socialism.

If you ask me, Orwell was a grumpy and bitter old man by the time he reached his 30's, we needn't listen to such incoherent ramblings of a confused liberal.

Random Precision

31st December 2008, 07:39

Animal Farm is anti-communist because it promotes the line that any revolution aimed at creating a more equal society is simply going to end up back where it started. In other words, the moral is don't even try to change things.

That isn't true. It's saying that the revolution on Animal Farm ended up that way, not that all revolutions will. He took care to point out the potential of the revolution early on and how it was crushed. Read it again (without looking through it with some agenda) and you'll see this.

It's like the 'Won't Get Fooled Again' song from the Who that came later on that says "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Of course the bourgeoisie understands this perfectly, which is why it the book is and was popularized and even made required reading in many schools.

No. The bourgeoisie, as it did many times before Orwell and has done many times since, took from a great revolutionary twisted, heavily abbreviated pieces of his thought, patched them together, and then wrote that he was an upholder of the status quo.

Random Precision

31st December 2008, 07:51

Your avatar is the flag of the International Brigades in Spain. You should remember that they were organized, funded and largely manned by "Stalinists". I am no friend of Stalin, but let's not forget the progressive nature of the Soviet Union during his rule.

Care to explain that progressive role a bit? If you could do it for Spain that would be just swell.

To defend the USSR from capitalist criticism is necessary to defend the entirety of the socialist movement.

cool story bro.

I completely agree with Nothing Human Is Alien, the book is anti-communist because it implies that the revolution inherently led to Napoleon. Every time I encounter the "well, I just don't think it would work" line from some liberal, it is clear that Orwell's books (introduced in capitalist schools) undoubtedly contributed to their empty-headed rejection of socialism.

Yeah, because liberals never used that line before Animal Farm was published, right?

If you ask me, Orwell was a grumpy and bitter old man by the time he reached his 30's, we needn't listen to such incoherent ramblings of a confused liberal.

A few things Orwell did during his thirties, by which time he was a "grumpy and bitter old man":

Wrote a book condemning British imperialism in India
Spent months researching firsthand the condition of the desperately poor in England, and wrote a book about that too
Went to Spain during the civil war to fight fascism

He probably had a more impressive radical record than any poster on RevLeft. In conclusion: don't talk about things you know fuck all about.

bcbm

31st December 2008, 08:15

He probably had a more impressive radical record than any poster on RevLeft.I dunno, I never turned my comrades into the state for the sake of national security.

Led Zeppelin

31st December 2008, 08:20

Animal Farm is anti-communist because it promotes the line that any revolution aimed at creating a more equal society is simply going to end up back where it started.

Nope, not really.

You obviously haven't read the book if you believe this, as I said: "The only way anyone could read it differently is if they read another book or are unable to read and comprehend at the same time."

I could quote you parts of the book that disprove you, but it's very short so I think it would be better if you just picked it up and read it.

There is no part in the book which says "it was inevitable for Napoleon to take-over power so any other attempts of animals taking power will end up the same". That's like saying that Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed says that it was inevitable for Stalinism to rise in the USSR and that therefore he believed that all revolutions would end up the same.

To defend the USSR from capitalist criticism is necessary to defend the entirety of the socialist movement.

This is a joke for many reasons, the most important being that Orwell's criticism wasn't "capitalist" but very similar (if not the exact same) to Trotsky's.

Obviously if you believe Trotsky's criticism was "capitalist" as well there's not much to discuss because I'm not interested in going over that.

I completely agree with Nothing Human Is Alien, the book is anti-communist because it implies that the revolution inherently led to Napoleon.

It can "imply" a lot of things to people who read it with a certain bias and pre-conceived notions of what it should imply, when it actually doesn't.

Nothing Human Is Alien

31st December 2008, 08:21

I was waiting for Random Precision to come into this thread and defend the book. After all, the anti-communist liberal outfit he belongs to shares pretty much the same outlook as the author of the book in question.

That isn't true. It's saying that the revolution on Animal Farm ended up that way, not that all revolutions will. He took care to point out the potential of the revolution early on and how it was crushed.

It's written in a way that makes the betrayal of the revolution seem as the only logical outcome.

Read it again (without looking through it with some agenda) and you'll see this.

I read it before I was a communist. Don't make assumptions.

No. The bourgeoisie, as it did many times before Orwell and has done many times since, took from a great revolutionary twisted, heavily abbreviated pieces of his thought, patched them together, and then wrote that he was an upholder of the status quo.

How did they "heavily abbreviate" it? Animal Farm is required reading in many schools. They don't edit the book, they present it as written and make you read it.

Yeah, because liberals never used that line before Animal Farm was published, right?

The 'human nature is against socialism' argument has been pushed as an argument against socialism for ages. But Animal Farm popularized it.

He probably had a more impressive radical record than any poster on RevLeft.

What is a "radical record"? I'm not concerned with who is "radical."

A lot of defense of liberals comes from leftists of all stripes under the claim that the person or thing in question is "radical" or "progressive."

Communists point out the interests of our class. A book that writes off the possibility of successful socialist revolution (so well that the bourgeoisie makes it required reading in their schools) is not in our interests and deserves criticism.

As for Orwell himself, he was all over the place. A self-described "Anarchist-Tory" he claimed "all government is evil" while at the same time asserting "you have got to have a harsh criminal law and administer it ruthlessly."

In the end he was a democratic socialist. From 1945 onward he worked to 'get out the vote' for Labour.

Nothing Human Is Alien

31st December 2008, 08:28

There is no part in the book which says "it was inevitable for Napoleon to take-over power so any other attempts of animals taking power will end up the same".Well if it doesn't have that exact quote in it then my argument must be baseless. :rolleyes:

It can "imply" a lot of things to people who read it with a certain bias and pre-conceived notions of what it should imply, when it actually doesn't.As I said, I read it before I was a communist. And you can bet the folks who make it required reading in schools aren't communists. It doesn't stop them from realizing the implications of the book and its usefulness in promoting the status quo.

Led Zeppelin

31st December 2008, 08:32

It's written in a way that makes the betrayal of the revolution seem as the only logical outcome.

No it isn't.

So it was "only logical" for Napoleon to take away the puppies of the dog and raise them to become his goons, thereby giving Napoleon the ability to kick out Snowball and abolish the meetings at the barn?

Is such an event "inevitable"? No.

How did they "heavily abbreviate" it? Animal Farm is required reading in many schools. They don't edit the book, they present it as written and make you read it.

A Peoples History of the US is also required reading in a lot of schools in the US, so what?

That doesn't mean that it is a "capitalist propaganda book".

The 'human nature is against socialism' argument has been pushed as an argument against socialism for ages. But Animal Farm popularized it.

On the contrary, and you might have known this if you had really read it instead of just saying you did.

The animals are in effect very good at dealing with the managing of the farm after the take-over of power. They are also able to defend their farm from outside attack. The work at the farm is done much more efficiently than was ever done when Jones was still the owner, and every animal put in their share.

Now, did the animals as a mass suddenly "become greedy", or did one of the animals, that is, Napoleon, take away puppies and grow them to later take-over power while the majority of animals were still not advanced and educated enough to repel his plan?

That is what happened in the story. Throughout it, Snowball, was trying to do the exact things which were meant to prevent something like Napoleon's take-over of power from happening. He failed because the "revolution" failed to spread to other farms, and because they had to industrialize to keep up with other farms as a consequence of that.

Now, I am not making this stuff up. It says all of this literally in the book.

Which is why I know you haven't read it.

Also, the story is basically a re-telling of what happened in the USSR, so the story reflects that.

A book that writes off the possibility of successful socialist revolution (so well that the bourgeoisie makes it required reading in their schools) is not in our interests and deserves criticism.

It doesn't write that off, on the contrary it warns people against the danger of a revolution being taken over by a minority and its initial ideals being betrayed. Kind of like what has happened to most revolutions in the 20th century.

But of course since you endorse most of those regimes I can see why you would have problems with a book that tries to counter that.

Well if it doesn't have that exact quote in it then my argument must be baseless. http://www.revleft.com/vb/just-finished-animal-t97857/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

I never said it had that exact quote, I said it didn't have that message or anything remotely close to it, not even implied.

As I said, I read it before I was a communist.

I don't believe you, because you're saying the book says/implies something which it doesn't.

Please point out exactly where the "nature of animals make them greedy therefore it is inevitable for every revolution to fail" notion is even implied? What part of the story "implies" that?

And you can bet the folks who make it required reading in schools aren't communists. It doesn't stop them from realizing the implications of the book and its usefulness in promoting the status quo.

The same folks who have made A Peoples History of The US required reading in a lot of schools? I don't really care that they aren't communists, because I still consider that book to be great.

I don't judge books by their "required reading" status, I judge them by their content.

Nothing Human Is Alien

31st December 2008, 08:44

No it isn't.

So it was "only logical" for Napoleon to take away the puppies of the dog and raise them to become his goons, thereby giving Napoleon the ability to kick out Snowball and abolish the meetings at the barn?

Is such a event "inevitable"?

No.

Uh... I was talking about the moral of the story, not every little piece of it. Of course the book talks about the revolution getting hijacked, but it presents that as the logical outcome. You have to look at the overall story, not just pick and choose parts you like or which fit your preconceived notions.

Many anti-Cuba books say the Revolution was a positive thing but that the July 26 Movement got power mad and decided to hold onto the reigns. Should I promote those books as being pro-Revolution? Of course not.

A Peoples History of the US is also required reading in a lot of schools in the US, so what?

It is? What schools? I've never heard that. Could you source your claim?

I remember that a reviewer in the New York Times wrote that it should be required reading, and some rightists cried about that. That was a rare review by the way, I remember being sent about a dozen reviews that completely trashed it.

I'm sure some liberal teachers have assigned it and recommended it to students, but I don't think any administrators have made it required reading for graduation.

Which is why I know you haven't read it.

If you say so :lol:

You're very childish sometimes.

Perhaps you should get a get a job writing book reviews. You could get a regular column and call it "...And if you don't agree, I know you didn't read it!"

But of course since you endorse most of those regimes I can see why you would have problems with a book that tries to counter that.

Sorry what "regimes" do I "endorse"?

Aren't you the guy who used to run a website which praised the virtues of Stalin?

Led Zeppelin

31st December 2008, 09:26

Uh... I was talking about the moral of the story, not every little piece of it.

Obviously, because if you were to talk about any piece of it you would have had to read it first.

Of course the book talks about the revolution getting hijacked

It does? I thought it talked about it being "in the nature of the animals", or "human nature"?

Decided to drop that argument now after realizing it's a fabrication? Cool.

but it presents that as the logical outcome.

Yes, the logical outcome....of the revolution failing to spread, of the low level of consciousness amongst the other animals, of the hostile environment and isolation, of the need to industrialize etc.

Wow, it seems as though Orwell took over the example of the USSR and gave the same reason to the cause of the degeneration as Trotsky did.

Surprise surprise huh?

You have to look at the overall story, not just pick and choose parts you like or which fit your preconceived notions.

Exactly, and I hope you will do that when you finally decide to pick it up and give it a read instead of spreading lies about it.

Many anti-Cuba books say the Revolution was a positive thing but that the July 26 Movement got power mad and decided to hold onto the reigns. Should I promote those books as being pro-Revolution? Of course not.

I don't really care what you personally promote because it's irrelevant, sorry to say.

But I do actually think a book like Revolution Betrayed is good, because, well, it's true. And what does Trotsky say in it? The revolution started out as good but it degenerated. By your "logic" that book is also "anti-communist", "buying into capitalist lies", or "selling the human nature argument"... but of course it isn't.

Ironically you yourself put forward the same argument in another thread just a few minutes ago:

What did happen in many of them was increasing bureaucratization as isolation continued and even increased, and the eventual restoration of capitalism.

Would that have been the case in say east Germany if a revolution had taken place in west Germany?
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dprk-t97804/index.html?p=1320876)

Now, why are you promoting the "human nature" line, and why are you implying that it is inevitable for socialist revolutions to end up in failure? :rolleyes:

It is? What schools? I've never heard that. Could you source your claim?

A People's History, though originally a dissident work, has become a major success and was a runner-up in 1980 for the National Book Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Book_Award). It has been adopted for reading in some high schools and colleges across the United States and has been frequently revised, with the most recent edition covering events through 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003).
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People's_History_of_the_United_States)

So with the generous support of this anonymous donor, Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change partnered to produce and offer a unique educational packet, which includes the DVD Howard Zinn: You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train, A People’s History of the United States, and a teaching guide developed especially for this project. The organizations are distributing the packets nationally to middle and high school teachers, while supplies last.
Link (http://www.zinnedproject.org/node/7)

Now what is your source for Animal Farm being required reading? At which schools? What else is on their list?

You're very childish sometimes.

That's rich coming from the person who feels the need to make stuff up about a book just because he doesn't like what is "implied" in it...even though it isn't.

Perhaps you should get a get a job writing book reviews.

I'm sure it would be more profitable than a career in rap, but I'll pass.

You could get a regular column and call it "...And if you don't agree, I know you didn't read it!"

Or maybe I should name it; "If you say something is written in a book even though it isn't, you haven't read it".

That would be a good disclaimer for people like you.

Sorry what "regimes" do I "endorse"?

Oh, yeah, that's right, you're "neutral" and "just a communist" except when it comes to Cuba, yet you defend pretty much every Stalinist regime of the past century albeit with some "criticisms", which very much resemble the ones put forward by Orwell, ironically (see above).

Aren't you the guy who used to run a website which praised the virtues of Stalin?

Yeah, and I grew out of that before I turned 17.

Too bad you haven't and are still using his methods of falsification, or rather, fabrication.

Nothing Human Is Alien

31st December 2008, 10:04

I'm not going to enter one of your typical circle-jerk style debates.. just clear a few things up and be done with it.

None of your links said "A people's history" was required reading.

One of your links pretty much just confirmed what I guessed in the previous post, i.e. "some liberal teachers have assigned it and recommended it to students."

The other one just says an organization included it in a package which it sent to some teachers. It doesn't say anything about required reading.

As for Animal Farm

Im in 9th grade English Class reading Animal Farm (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9055)

A teacher's page with a reading guide for her students (https://www.msu.edu/%7Ewatson51/Lv4RLS/AnimalFarmGuide.html)

"I first met a George Orwell book back during High School. It was one of those things one was required to read. " (http://1read2.org/?p=20)

"Looking for a link to the preface of Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. They somehow forgot to include it in the school required reading pressing I'm familliar with. Thanx!" (http://forums.infoshop.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=7354)

I start school soon andI have a report to do for Animal Farm. We have a lot of questions and some of them I just don't get or can't figure out the answer to. If you could help me out with any of these it would be great. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080820112412AA1Oeem)

Animal Farm and the Great Gatsby were the only worthwhile books in the high school required reading ouvere.
(http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:pS7mhr8K75UJ:https://matadorrecords.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D38684+animal+farm+required+re ading&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=us)

Now, why are you promoting the "human nature" line, and why are you implying that it is inevitable for revolutions to end up in failure?

I wrote a few lines describing a particular situation on a leftist message board.

George Orwell wrote a fictional story with a moral.

See the difference?

Oh, yeah, that's right, you're "neutral" and "just a communist" except when it comes to Cuba.

Why is the word neutral in quotes? When did I ever use that in relation to the USSR or anywhere else?

And whatever else you're trying to say doesn't make any sense. I am just a communist except when it comes to Cuba What does that mean? Is that some sort of weird shot at me because I don't take the Old Man or anyone else's writings in their entirety as The Word?

Thanks for admitting that you were just writing baseless slanders in the previous post though.

Too bad you still haven't.

When did I praise the virtues of Stalin?

Nothing Human Is Alien

31st December 2008, 10:11

Ah, here's one from our own RedStar that I figured I'd throw in:

When I was a high school student -- more than 40 years ago -- we had to read two books by the English writer George Orwell: Animal Farm and 1984. - George Orwell: Reactionary? (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory9880.html?subaction=showfull&id=1097859426&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

31st December 2008, 10:26

We (my year level & class) had to read this book in my final year of high school. We were shown the movie and mislead to believe that Animal Farm represented communism and not Stalinism, no teachers clarified the situation with how the story was relevant to the USSR and I believe that the teachers in general had limited to no understanding of what communism was, in fact, i believe most if not all teachers believed that animal farm was a representation of communism and due to the fact that there was no clarification on what we were doing all the students (i'd assume) left believing that communism represented totalitarianism and inequality and therefore whenever they hear the word communism in public (used by an intellectual who actually knows what the fuck they are talking about) they ignorantly proceed to criticize them as crazy dreamers or radicals (in a pejorative way) - that's probably why a lot of people on the left don't like animal farm, because it is used by the education system in teaching kids about 'communism' and not stalinism which they don't know nor would never know because the capitalist system likes their workers ignorant. :)

Led Zeppelin

31st December 2008, 10:27

I'm not going to enter one of your typical circle-jerk style debates.. just clear a few things up and be done with it.

In other words you don't really have any arguments so you're giving up.

Understandable.

None of your links said "A people's history" was required reading.

One of your links pretty much just confirmed what I guessed in the previous post, i.e. "some liberal teachers have assigned it and recommended it to students."

The other one just says an organization included it in a package which it sent to some teachers. It doesn't say anything about required reading.

As for Animal Farm

Im in 9th grade English Class reading Animal Farm (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9055)

A teacher's page with a reading guide for her students (https://www.msu.edu/%7Ewatson51/Lv4RLS/AnimalFarmGuide.html)

"I first met a George Orwell book back during High School. It was one of those things one was required to read. " (http://1read2.org/?p=20)

"Looking for a link to the preface of Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. They somehow forgot to include it in the school required reading pressing I'm familliar with. Thanx!" (http://forums.infoshop.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=7354)

I start school soon andI have a report to do for Animal Farm. We have a lot of questions and some of them I just don't get or can't figure out the answer to. If you could help me out with any of these it would be great. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080820112412AA1Oeem)

Animal Farm and the Great Gatsby were the only worthwhile books in the high school required reading ouvere. (http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:pS7mhr8K75UJ:https://matadorrecords.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D38684+animal+farm+required+re ading&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=us)

So you say that A Peoples History is not required reading at any schools but that only; "some liberal teachers have assigned it and recommended it to students" and then for proof of your claim you give me....examples of teachers having assigned it and recommended it to students.

Tell me what the difference is between a teacher assigning a class to read a book, and a book being required reading?

I wrote a few lines describing a particular situation on a leftist message board.

George Orwell wrote a fictional story with a moral.

See the difference?

So what you said is only "a few lines describing a particular situation on a leftist message board" and not actually what you believe in politically?

If you do, and you are politically active, you must be spreading the same political position through your work, correct? So then actually it's not just a few lines you wrote on a leftist message board, it is your position on that subject, a position shared by Orwell.

Now, when Orwell writes a book and it has the same message (I am going to ignore the "story with a moral" nonsense because you haven't bothered to prove that the moral is actually what you believe it to be) is it fair to ignore that message just because it is "required reading" in some schools? Is it fair to ignore it because it became a pretty well-known book?

Is it logical to ignore the content of the book and consider it something it is not, just because of that?

I personally don't think it is. On the contrary, I would consider it a great oppertunity to use it as a tool to explain how and why revolutions fail.

Why is the word neutral in quotes? When did I ever use that in relation to the USSR or anywhere else?

Because you try to present yourself as neutral but you're not.

And whatever else you're trying to say doesn't make any sense. I am just a communist except when it comes to Cuba What does that mean? Is that some sort of weird shot at me because I don't take the Old Man or anyone else's writings in their entirety as The Word?

That part was in the same sentence as the neutral part, so they were tied together. By that is meant that you try to present yourself as being neutral and just a communist, while obviously you're not neutral when it comes to subjects like Cuba.

Not that I'm interested in having a discussion about Cuba, it was just a response to your rather inane "lol you used to like Stalin" comment.

Thanks for admitting that you were just writing baseless slanders in the previous post though.

I never admitted this, and you do not have the ability to admit things for me. Sorry.

When did I praise the virtues of Stalin?

I added this part to that; and are still using his methods of falsification, or rather, fabrication.

Das war einmal

31st December 2008, 15:36

Animal Farm is exaggerated for that time. It claims the pigs have become humans (as in the soviets have become capitalist) That is not true, the difference between the highest and the lowest income in the USSR was trivial compared to capitalist countries at that time. So its stupid to claim that it exploits workers more than in the capitalist society. By the way, equal loan policy is in contradiction with the main idea of communism, that a worker gets that which he or she produces. In fact, that is what was partly abolished in the Soviet Union but later re-established under Khrushchev.

Besides it claims the Soviet Union itself is to blame for not having direct support when they got invaded, intentionally having no mention at all of the Munich betrayal. This is what bothers me the most. As if the Soviet Union is the cause for the invasion, which is ridiculous.

What was hilarious, last summer some guy said: the only book you should read to understand communism is Animal Farm. This is funny because that was his only argument against communism. Just ignore the fact that is was a fable.

Interesting enough, nowadays China is much more like the situation described in Animal Farm, than the Soviet Union ever was. Besides that our own society is becoming more and more a police state than we would likely admit. You are being observed in dozens of ways electronically and the government in western countries probably know more about your personal live than they did in the USSR

Like Nothing Human is Alien pointed out, with this book Orwell provided the bourgeois with good ammunition why communism should never work, because people are greedy from nature, yadiyadiya. I dont know if this was his intention but it probably served as one of the finest anticommunist propaganda the west had.

Das war einmal

31st December 2008, 15:45

Led Zeppelin

31st December 2008, 15:58

Animal Farm is exaggerated for that time. It claims the pigs have become humans (as in the soviets have become capitalist)

No it doesn't, it "claims" that the pigs come to resemble the humans to such an extent that they can no longer tell the difference.

I'm sure the working-class who suffered under Stalinist regimes had trouble seeing the difference between their ruling bureaucracy and any other ruling class/caste.

That is not true, the difference between the highest and the lowest income in the USSR was trivial compared to capitalist countries at that time.

Difference in wages doesn't really mean much when you have a bureaucracy that basically has control over all the economic resources and wealth of the country.

So its stupid to claim that it exploits workers more than in the capitalist society.

That was never "claimed", though the other humans did praise Napoleon for his great job of exploiting the animals. There's nothing "stupid" about saying that workers were exploited under Stalinist/revisionist regimes. It's stupid to say otherwise.

By the way, equal loan policy is in contradiction with the main idea of communism, that a worker gets that which he or she produces. In fact, that is what was partly abolished in the Soviet Union but later re-established under Khrushchev.

Yes, wages were equalized under Kruschev. That is a historical fact...

I don't think so.

Besides it claims the Soviet Union itself is to blame for not having direct support when they got invaded, intentionally having no mention at all of the Munich betrayal. This is what bothers me the most. As if the Soviet Union is the cause for the invasion, which is ridiculous.

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm not sure which section of the story this even remotely resembles.

What was hilarious, last summer some guy said: the only book you should read to understand communism is Animal Farm. This is funny because that was his only argument against communism. Just ignore the fact that is was a fable.

That's may be hilarious to you, but it doesn't really mean anything does it?

Interesting enough, nowadays China is much more like the situation described in Animal Farm, than the Soviet Union ever was.

I consider all Stalinist/revisionist states to fit that description perfectly, some more than others, true, but still perfectly fitting.

Like Nothing Human is Alien pointed out, with this book Orwell provided the bourgeois with good ammunition why communism should never work, because people are greedy from nature, yadiyadiya.

Of course NHIA never bothered to substantiate the "human nature" claim of his, perhaps you will?

If you're up to the challenge and want to back up what you say, reply to what I said on that:

The animals are in effect very good at dealing with the managing of the farm after the take-over of power. They are also able to defend their farm from outside attack. The work at the farm is done much more efficiently than was ever done when Jones was still the owner, and every animal put in their share.

Now, did the animals as a mass suddenly "become greedy", or did one of the animals, that is, Napoleon, take away puppies and grow them to later take-over power while the majority of animals were still not advanced and educated enough to repel his plan?

That is what happened in the story. Throughout it, Snowball, was trying to do the exact things which were meant to prevent something like Napoleon's take-over of power from happening. He failed because the "revolution" failed to spread to other farms, and because they had to industrialize to keep up with other farms as a consequence of that.

Now, I am not making this stuff up. It says all of this literally in the book.

I dont know if this was his intention but it probably served as one of the finest anticommunist propaganda the west had.

When a person writes something which literally says something, and it is used by others for other ends, then obviously that person is not to blame.

Instead of laughing or "finding it hilarious" when someone tells you that Animal Farm proves that communism can't work, you could actually, you know, point out that the story actually says otherwise. You could say that after the revolution the animals were working in a much more efficient manner than they did before and production rose greatly. You could say that if the conditions were not there for Napoleon to take-over power they would have kept their democracy, the consciousness/education level of the other animals would have been raised, thereby involving them more in the decision-making process, and the revolution would have spread.

You can do all that. Or you can just laugh to yourself.

If someone tells you that the USSR proves how communism will never work, do you just "find it hilarious" and laugh, or do you explain to them why the USSR failed and what the actual reasons and causes for its degeneration/failure were?

I'd do the latter, because I like to deal in facts. If you don't, then that's fine, but I do.

Led Zeppelin

31st December 2008, 16:08

The fact that Orwell presented a list of suspects who would be communist to the MI5, makes you wonder if this guy was mentally stable. It would point out that the books he wrote are more or less based upon his own unstable personality rather than on the real existing socialism

You don't really have the critical mind I thought you did, since you take what people say without bothering to actually find out if it's the truth or not.

Orwell actually didn't "present a list of suspects to MI5", as Invader Zim said a while back:

This is a rather poor misrepresentation of what actually occured. Celia Kirwan whom Orwell knew, who had just started worked for the IRD, asked him who he thought would be unsuitable to be a writer for the IRD. He did not 'grass-up' communists, as people regularly and inaccurately proclaim, and there certainly isn't anything sinister about it, as that nonsense Stalinist propaganda suggests.

Certainly it was nothing sensational, as Stalinists and various others like to proclaim. These people were all highly public figures, with well known publically published opinions; the idea that Orwell conspired to provide the foreign office with some secret information simply shows the desperate levels to which Stalinists go in order to tar the reputation of their opponents. After all, if you can't defeat an opponents argument, it may be possible to attack their character; if of course you can't silence them with an ice-pick.

This is hardly the case and there has been a great deal of myth making on this subject; firstly he did not 'grass' people up to the MI5, Celia Kirwan was not in the MI5. He was asked by a friend of his, Celia Kirwan, whom he thought were unsuitable candidates for giving jobs to in the Information Research Department (an anti-communist propaganda department).

Das war einmal

31st December 2008, 16:36

No it doesn't, it "claims" that the pigs come to resemble the humans to such an extent that they can no longer tell the difference.

I'm sure the working-class who suffered under Stalinist regimes had trouble seeing the difference between their ruling bureaucracy and any other ruling class/caste.

I honestly doubt that, before the USSR existed, the population was illiterate for 80%. In any socialist country (which you might call stalinist, it does not change that fact) the condition of the workers greatly improved, you cant deny that. Its even so that after the fall of the wall almost all previous socialist countries did lot worse than before.

Difference in wages doesn't really mean much when you have a bureaucracy that basically has control over all the economic resources and wealth of the country.

Centrally controlled economies need a certain degree of bureaucracy, its inevitable. Now I am positive that this was never the evil intention of the Soviets, besides that, the central planning and control was allready established before Stalin came to power. Not so much because they wanted, but more because there was simply no other choice concerning the continuing aggression in and outside the soviet union. Lenin allready admited the state has became a prison, but one that gave its people all what it needed and more.

That was never "claimed", though the other humans did praise Napoleon for his great job of exploiting the animals. There's nothing "stupid" about saying that workers were exploited under Stalinist/revisionist regimes. It's stupid to say otherwise.

Its suggested Napoleon exploited the animals worse than Jones did, but its a lie that there was more exploitation in the Soviet Union than under Tsarist Russia. The difference between income in the soviet union was far less than it was everywhere else. If they truly where exploited, why invest so much money in free healthcare, education and housing? It would be far cheaper and more easy to control workers if they are undereducated and hungry. The suggestion that they are 'exploited' is bollocks.

Yes, wages were equalized under Kruschev. That is a historical fact...

I don't think so.

Not totally but the succesfull policy concerning rewards for hard work were abolished.

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm not sure which section of the story this even remotely resembles.

Its been a while, but if memory serves, I recall that its suggested that its thanks to Napoleons diplomacy that he at first is left at mercy of 'Germany' because of the 'Molotov Ribbentroppact'.

That's may be hilarious to you, but it doesn't really mean anything does it?

Actually it does, you can claim all you want that its not MENT to be anticommunist, but most people will see this book as the ultimate proof that communism is a nice ideal but will never be practically possible.

I consider all Stalinist/revisionist states to fit that description perfectly, some more than others, true, but still perfectly fitting.

And to your opinion, every country with a ruling communist party is stalinist/revisionist, right? Its beyond all reason to compare every socialist state with 'stalinism'. You neglect the fact that every country has its own domestic and foreign problems. This is truly a metaphysical way of thinking.

Of course NHIA never bothered to substantiate the "human nature" claim of his, perhaps you will?

If you're up to the challenge and want to back up what you say, reply to what I said on that:

True true it does state that, but is it told what the drive is for Napoleon and his fellow pigs to become so greedy and terrorize the other animals? In my opinion, Orwell hereby suggest that every state is the same, the state and their leaders are always power hungry and will exploit workers for their own cause.

This again is not comparible with the historic events that took place at the revolution and after that. Stalin did not introduce the secret police, it was allready established under Lenins rule and Trotsky himself was very authoritarian, which can be seen if you consider his plans of militarization of the society and how he dealt with opposition. Not that I condemn him for the last fact, it was needed. What I do hate is the fact that certain people claim that Trotsky was not authoritarian.

When a person writes something which literally says something, and it is used by others for other ends, then obviously that person is not to blame.

Instead of laughing or "finding it hilarious" when someone tells you that Animal Farm proves that communism can't work, you could actually, you know, point out that the story actually says otherwise. You could say that after the revolution the animals were working in a much more efficient manner than they did before and production rose greatly. You could say that if the conditions were not there for Napoleon to take-over power they would have kept their democracy, the consciousness/education level of the other animals would have been raised, thereby involving them more in the decision-making process, and the revolution would have spread.

You can do all that. Or you can just laugh to yourself.

If someone tells you that the USSR proves how communism will never work, do you just "find it hilarious" and laugh, or do you explain to them why the USSR failed and what the actual reasons and causes for its degeneration/failure were?

I'd do the latter, because I like to deal in facts. If you don't, then that's fine, but I do.

It depens sometimes I do, sometimes I dont, it can become very tiring to repeat myself over and over again. But unlike you I point out the fact that external and internal struggle caused certain historical facts. That it is far more than it looks like at first.

Led Zeppelin

31st December 2008, 17:15

I honestly doubt that, before the USSR existed, the population was illiterate for 80%. In any socialist country (which you might call stalinist, it does not change that fact) the condition of the workers greatly improved, you cant deny that. Its even so that after the fall of the wall almost all previous socialist countries did lot worse than before.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said, nor the story portrayed in the book?

Yes, the economic conditions greatly improved...what is your point?

In the book the production and efficiency is raised greatly after the ouster of Jones, but after the take-over of Napoleon a lot is wasted. The bureaucracy wasted a lot of resources. That's what the book portrays.

Centrally controlled economies need a certain degree of bureaucracy, its inevitable. Now I am positive that this was never the evil intention of the Soviets, besides that, the central planning and control was allready established before Stalin came to power. Not so much because they wanted, but more because there was simply no other choice concerning the continuing aggression in and outside the soviet union. Lenin allready admited the state has became a prison, but one that gave its people all what it needed and more.

First of all, I have no idea why you decided to turn this discussion about the book Animal Farm into a discussion about the nature of Stalinism. I am not interested in discussing Stalinism with you because I've already done it hundreds of times and am not interested in doing it again.

As for what you just said, for the sake of replying; I'm sure Lenin never said "the state had become a prison", and of course every state has a bureaucracy, and no one ever said that the USSR degenerated because "the leaders were bad". There were specific causes for that degeneration which I have already described earlier in this thread and am not going to repeat.

Its suggested Napoleon exploited the animals worse than Jones did, but its a lie that there was more exploitation in the Soviet Union than under Tsarist Russia.

It doesn't really change the fact though that Napoleon resembled Jones in his dealings, which is what the main point of that comparison is. By the way, it is only indirectly that Napoleon is "suggested" to have been worse than Jones. The other farmers tell him that he is, it is never directly said. In fact, one of the ways Napoleon keeps himself in power is by scaring the other animals with the prospect of Jones' return if he were to be defeated.

The difference between income in the soviet union was far less than it was everywhere else. If they truly where exploited, why invest so much money in free healthcare, education and housing? It would be far cheaper and more easy to control workers if they are undereducated and hungry. The suggestion that they are 'exploited' is bollocks.

Obviously you've never bothered to read anything outside of Stalinist myth-books.

As I said above, I'm not interested in discussing the nature of Stalinism with you. If you disagree with the fact that workers were exploited under Stalinism, you may do so, but that has no bearing on Animal Farm as a story.

Not totally but the succesfull policy concerning rewards for hard work were abolished.

Irrelevant.

Its been a while, but if memory serves, I recall that its suggested that its thanks to Napoleons diplomacy that he at first is left at mercy of 'Germany' because of the 'Molotov Ribbentroppact'.

He isn't left "at the mercy" of anyone, he allies with one of the farms as opposed to allying with the other. The whole World War 2 scenario doesn't even play out so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Actually it does, you can claim all you want that its not MENT to be anticommunist, but most people will see this book as the ultimate proof that communism is a nice ideal but will never be practically possible.

Depends on if those people read it as it is meant to be read, or read it as they are told to read it by their teachers or other biased people with pre-conceived notions about it like yourself.

And to your opinion, every country with a ruling communist party is stalinist/revisionist, right? Its beyond all reason to compare every socialist state with 'stalinism'. You neglect the fact that every country has its own domestic and foreign problems.

Every country with a bureaucracy in power claiming to be socialist, while in effect there is no workers' democracy in place, is Stalinist, yes.

That is in basic form the definition of that term, though of course more detailed but as I've said before; not interested in a Stalinism discussion.

This is truly a metaphysical way of thinking.

This doesn't even make sense.

All thinking is metaphysical.

True true it does state that, but is it told what the drive is for Napoleon and his fellow pigs to become so greedy and terrorize the other animals?

He sees an oppertunity to take-over power and create a priviliged position for himself and his caste (due to the "external and internal difficulties"); so he takes it over the backs of the other animals.

In my opinion, Orwell hereby suggest that every state is the same, the state and their leaders are always power hungry and will exploit workers for their own cause.

Ok, but your opinion is based on fiction, and I don't mean Orwell's.

This again is not comparible with the historic events that took place at the revolution and after that. Stalin did not introduce the secret police, it was allready established under Lenins rule and Trotsky himself was very authoritarian, which can be seen if you consider his plans of militarization of the society and how he dealt with opposition. Not that I condemn him for the last fact, it was needed. What I do hate is the fact that certain people claim that Trotsky was not authoritarian.

This is irrelevant to the story.

No one claimed it was 100% historically accurate. Who was Major supposed to represent? Lenin? Marx? Lenin lived until after the revolution. Who then was Lenin? And who was Squealer supposed to be? Bukharin? But he was killed later on....

It isn't 100% historically accurate, and no one said it was. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it isn't "anti-communist", unless you consider Stalinism to be representative of it, which you obviously do so there doesn't seem to be any point in further discussing this.

It depens sometimes I do, sometimes I dont, it can become very tiring to repeat myself over and over again. But unlike you I point out the fact that external and internal struggle caused certain historical facts. That it is far more than it looks like at first.

External and internal struggle....yes, sort of like the exact conditions which gave rise to Napoleon in the story.

manic expression

1st January 2009, 08:56

Care to explain that progressive role a bit? If you could do it for Spain that would be just swell.

Try cracking a history book open once in awhile, you'll find what I'm saying. The Spanish Republic would have collapsed with haste had the USSR not given the support it did.

The USSR consistently opposed and defeated fascism throughout Europe, it gave strong and indispensable support to countless revolutionary struggles around the world (Spain, Cuba, Chile, South Africa, Ethiopia, Palestine, etc.) while countering imperialist ambitions at every turn, it defended and maintained collectivized property and a socialist system (which provided a great standard of living to its citizens, something that is now gone as capitalism has been reestablished). I could go on.

cool story bro.

It's true. Prove me wrong.

Yeah, because liberals never used that line before Animal Farm was published, right?

As has been said, Orwell agreed with this position and popularized it. That Orwell was agreeing with liberals should give you pause as to why you're defending him.

A few things Orwell did during his thirties, by which time he was a "grumpy and bitter old man":

Wrote a book condemning British imperialism in India
Spent months researching firsthand the condition of the desperately poor in England, and wrote a book about that too
Went to Spain during the civil war to fight fascism

He probably had a more impressive radical record than any poster on RevLeft. In conclusion: don't talk about things you know fuck all about.

Michael Moore condemns American imperialism in Iraq, I guess he's a regular revolutionary now, isn't he? Your assertion that Orwell should be commended simply because he didn't side with imperialism all the time is as insipid as it is naive, and the rest of your position isn't any better.

What makes your analysis all the more pathetic is that you willfully deny Orwell's very positions. Orwell's participation in the Spanish Civil War gave him cause to slander and criticize socialism itself, and yet you parade this about as if it proves anything except the facts: Orwell was a bitter anti-communist who has only aided the cause of reaction. That you defend him is only fitting.

Good luck thinking up new empty-headed childish slogans, it's probably easier for you than forming a coherent and mature argument.

manic expression

1st January 2009, 09:19

In other words you don't really have any arguments so you're giving up.

Understandable.

what you wrote here is cowardly and rude, not to mention blatantly wrong. Arguments are about quality and not quantity, something you obviously have yet to figure out.

Now, when Orwell writes a book and it has the same message (I am going to ignore the "story with a moral" nonsense because you haven't bothered to prove that the moral is actually what you believe it to be) is it fair to ignore that message just because it is "required reading" in some schools? Is it fair to ignore it because it became a pretty well-known book?

The entire point of the story is that revolutions lead to tyranny. What you're responding to didn't have the same message at all; you're all but ignoring what was written and shamelessly bending words to fit your convenience. NHIA's assertion wasn't similar to Orwell's conclusions at all, making this contention of yours horrifically inane.

There is a very good reason Orwell's books are assigned and promoted in the capitalist education system: they are anti-communist. That's the message, that's the moral, that's the lesson. That's what you are trying so desperately not to understand.

I personally don't think it is. On the contrary, I would consider it a great oppertunity to use it as a tool to explain how and why revolutions fail.

Orwell wasn't saying the Russian Revolution failed, he was saying any similar effort does and will fail. That's what you're not getting.

That part was in the same sentence as the neutral part, so they were tied together. By that is meant that you try to present yourself as being neutral and just a communist, while obviously you're not neutral when it comes to subjects like Cuba.

Not that I'm interested in having a discussion about Cuba, it was just a response to your rather inane "lol you used to like Stalin" comment.

Obviously this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and is only a deliberate attempt at mud-slinging on your part. The fact is that any neutral analysis of Cuba would show that communists should and must and will support the Cuban socialist cause. Stop the duplicity and deal with the issues.

Led Zeppelin

1st January 2009, 13:28

what you wrote here is cowardly and rude, not to mention blatantly wrong. Arguments are about quality and not quantity, something you obviously have yet to figure out.

It is cowardly (and rude as well, by the way) to start a discussion and then say; "I don't feel like it anymore" when the other person spends time to reply to your inane "arguments" and disproves them as well.

And if you had bothered to actually read what I said instead of believing I said something I didn't, you would have known that I never said anything about the "quantity" of his arguments, but the quality.

I'm not even sure what you meant by that, it makes me wonder if you are able to read sentences and understand them? I shall repost what I said: "In other words you don't really have any arguments so you're giving up."

In other words, you don't really have any arguments, meaning that your "arguments" aren't really "arguments" because they've been disproven and you haven't bothered to back them up with evidence (like for example excerpts from the book itself), and therefore you decided to write something supposedly "witty" about "circle-jerks" and leave it at that.

If you were objective here instead of acting like a typical biased person would, you would have called him out on his wording instead of in a cowardly and rude manner doing that with what I said, which was a logical response to his post.

In other words; you're a hypocrite so don't waste my time with your "oh my god ur being mean lol" crap.

The entire point of the story is that revolutions lead to tyranny.

This is a bit ironic given what you wrote exactly after it:

What you're responding to didn't have the same message at all; you're all but ignoring what was written and shamelessly bending words to fit your convenience. NHIA's assertion wasn't similar to Orwell's conclusions at all, making this contention of yours horrifically inane.

Now, I knew you sucked at arguing. I saw this in the thread on left-communism. You're probably the person who comes up with the most idiotic replies in a discussion on this forum. Therefore I always wanted to avoid having to experience that myself but I guess it has come to that, to my displeasure.

You're basically the definition of a hypocrite who bases his reply on bias, that is, on his personal point of view, while not letting in anything else. You are the classic example of arguing with a brick wall; you repeat something over and over again until the other side is worn down and then you go on believing, like the delusional person you are, that you were "good at the debate" and "defeated the other side".

Trust me, I've been around forums long enough to know your type.

I in fact proved that NIHA's post was exactly the same as Orwell's message in the story. I proved this by providing examples from the story itself saying this. You ignore all that and go straight to saying; "no it isn't" without providing anything to base that on, i.e., you just repeated something as if that makes it true.

No, sorry, that doesn't work. I am right and you are wrong, not because I am better at arguing than you are, but because I actually provided evidence for my claim while you haven't. Orwell writes in the story, literally, that Animal Farm degenerated due to isolation, economic hardships, and the failure of the revolution to spread. NIHA said the exact same thing in relation to the failure of East-Germany. That is a fact. You may say it isn't, but you are wrong.

Now the irony is that what you wrote applies to yourself exactly; you're all but ignoring what was written and shamelessly bending words to fit your convenience.

Don't provide the other side with lines that fit yourself perfectly; that's lesson one of debating.

There is a very good reason Orwell's books are assigned and promoted in the capitalist education system: they are anti-communist. That's the message, that's the moral, that's the lesson. That's what you are trying so desperately not to understand.

Again, another whinge-fest without providing any proof to back it up. No excerpts from the story, no proof, no anecdotes even. It's the typical "It is so because I say so" nonsense.

This is why you're not taken seriously.

Orwell wasn't saying the Russian Revolution failed, he was saying any similar effort does and will fail. That's what you're not getting.

Actually he wasn't saying that, as I have proved by actually posting what it says in the story.

You have not bothered to do any such thing, all you have bothered to do is say something is so and therefore it must be so. In the same way you said that "left-communism sucks because I say it sucks", and then went on to "left-communism sucks because there are less of them".

Those aren't arguments based on facts, those are the things a child or a clown would say if they really thought they were serious arguments.

Obviously this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and is only a deliberate attempt at mud-slinging on your part. The fact is that any neutral analysis of Cuba would show that communists should and must and will support the Cuban socialist cause. Stop the duplicity and deal with the issues.

Funny, my reply to something which had "nothing to do with the subject at hand" is called out while the initial comment to which my post was a reply to and also "had nothing to do with the subject at hand" is not mentioned at all.

Again, typical bias.

This is how posting on a discussion forum works; a person posts something, and another replies to it. If a person writes something off-topic and is nothing but a personal attack, the other person replies to that. Does it make sense to then criticize the latter person for replying to such a comment? Yes, to a biased, hypocrite, delusional idiot, it would make sense, very much so.

But to a serious, objective and non-biased poster it would make sense to criticize the former, that is, the person who initially wrote the off-topic, inane and personal attack, not the member who replied to it.

Your entire post was nothing but a joke, and a really bad one at that. You didn't add anything new to the discussion at all, but only said what could be summed up as;

I am right because I say so. You are wrong because I say so. Stop replying to off-topic personal attacks with off-topic personal attacks, because that makes you rude and a coward. Stay on topic. You're wrong because I say so. I'm right because I say so.

**************************************************

If you make another post like that, I will ask the mod of the Literature forum to split or trash it, because it's of no relation or relevance to this thread. You wasted my time by making me have to reply to you with things that didn't advance the discussion at all. Your tactic of "wearing down the other side" may work fine if the other side actually cares enough to be worn down; I'm not.

This thread will not be derailed by your typical crap, so I suggest you stop it and either come up with facts to back-up your claims, or leave the thread be.

Das war einmal

1st January 2009, 14:05

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said, nor the story portrayed in the book?

Yes, the economic conditions greatly improved...what is your point?

In the book the production and efficiency is raised greatly after the ouster of Jones, but after the take-over of Napoleon a lot is wasted. The bureaucracy wasted a lot of resources. That's what the book portrays.

It also states that the workers dont get anything out of the economic improvement which is wrong. If we look at what cost the USSR its economic downturn, the bureaucracy was only a part of that. The fact is that everyone was wasting resources and not only the bureaucrats. Lots of workers stole goods from the workplaces for themselves or to sell at the black market. If the daily quota was reached, workers would do something else for the day, like shopping or something. Its false to blaim only the bureaucrats for the economic downturn, while the whole society was to blaim.

First of all, I have no idea why you decided to turn this discussion about the book Animal Farm into a discussion about the nature of Stalinism. I am not interested in discussing Stalinism with you because I've already done it hundreds of times and am not interested in doing it again.

Fine dont start a discussion at all than if you dont intent to.

As for what you just said, for the sake of replying; I'm sure Lenin never said "the state had become a prison", and of course every state has a bureaucracy, and no one ever said that the USSR degenerated because "the leaders were bad". There were specific causes for that degeneration which I have already described earlier in this thread and am not going to repeat.

Well he did, I actually can look it up for you, if you really want to. The fact that the white armies where trampling over the new born Soviet Union caused the young state nearly its life. Beatdown of these enemies was a priority. Next to that was decades of blockades following the largest invasion ever conducted. If you ask me, the Soviet Union never had a fair chance to develop the way they wanted. Not a single day of peace was known to the Soviets.

It doesn't really change the fact though that Napoleon resembled Jones in his dealings, which is what the main point of that comparison is. By the way, it is only indirectly that Napoleon is "suggested" to have been worse than Jones. The other farmers tell him that he is, it is never directly said. In fact, one of the ways Napoleon keeps himself in power is by scaring the other animals with the prospect of Jones' return if he were to be defeated.

Comparisons are a jolly thing to do, its easy and you can debuke anyone who attempts to claim otherwise as 'stalinist' or something like that, because they wont take part in the popular soviet bashing. If you really made a list of every similarity and every difference you would conclude that a comparison is out of place

Obviously you've never bothered to read anything outside of Stalinist myth-books.

Here you go and do that assuming thing again. How would you know what I have read and what I didn't? If you have any idea what my standpoint on Stalin was you would not say things like these. In fact I have lots of critique on Stalin, but they aren't based on myths. By the way, what are Stalinist books anyway? As far as I know stalinism is not a marxist theory but only thouged up by the political opponents of communist who in their eyes don't take part in the soviet bashing and myth forming as they do.

As I said above, I'm not interested in discussing the nature of Stalinism with you. If you disagree with the fact that workers were exploited under Stalinism, you may do so, but that has no bearing on Animal Farm as a story.

Irrelevant.

It is not. The argument expressed by many that everyone gets the same for their effort is false. This indeed occured within the soviet union in later times. It demotivated many workers. That lead to disbelief in socialism

He isn't left "at the mercy" of anyone, he allies with one of the farms as opposed to allying with the other. The whole World War 2 scenario doesn't even play out so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Than clearly I dont remember that part correctly. Its possible, four years have passed, maybe I should give it another shot but that does not approve the rest of the assumptions made by Orwell which simply dont correspond with the facts.

Depends on if those people read it as it is meant to be read, or read it as they are told to read it by their teachers or other biased people with pre-conceived notions about it like yourself.

Well isnt that the beauty of art? Giving it your own interpertation? It is a book of fiction, partly based upon Orwells view on the soviet union. That does not make it a book that is historically correct. I dissaprove of the general message that the revolution has been betrayed by a group of nasty people who want to seize power for their own good.

Every country with a bureaucracy in power claiming to be socialist, while in effect there is no workers' democracy in place, is Stalinist, yes.

That is in basic form the definition of that term, though of course more detailed but as I've said before; not interested in a Stalinism discussion.

Every country has a bureaucracy, otherwise it can't function. There were lot of ways and means for workers in certain socialists countries to take part in making decissions. But as always, it takes lots of will to take responsibelity, this is something which has to be stimulated. The latter is a responsibelity of the party but it is debatable how much you can force someone to take part in controlling the country.

This doesn't even make sense.

All thinking is metaphysical.

All unscientifically ways of thinking. Making assumptions that are not based on anything but your imagination and works of fiction that arent based on facts.

He sees an oppertunity to take-over power and create a priviliged position for himself and his caste (due to the "external and internal difficulties"); so he takes it over the backs of the other animals.

If this is also based on the rise of power of Stalin, than its short-sighted. The position where he was in was nothing of sitting back comfterable and let others sort things out for you.

Ok, but your opinion is based on fiction, and I don't mean Orwell's.

You claim that Orwells work was not fiction? That is bold.

This is irrelevant to the story.

No one claimed it was 100% historically accurate. Who was Major supposed to represent? Lenin? Marx? Lenin lived until after the revolution. Who then was Lenin? And who was Squealer supposed to be? Bukharin? But he was killed later on....

It isn't 100% historically accurate, and no one said it was. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it isn't "anti-communist", unless you consider Stalinism to be representative of it, which you obviously do so there doesn't seem to be any point in further discussing this.

Well I consider this work to be a protest against the way the soviets tried to reach communism, by building a socialist state that had to compete against fascism and other agression that was not around at the time of Marx. I dont condemn critisism on many decissions took in the USSR but I do at the untrue claim that they betrayed the revolution.

External and internal struggle....yes, sort of like the exact conditions which gave rise to Napoleon in the story.

Could be, if other capitalist and fascist states would mind their own bussiness than the history of the USSR would be otherwise no doubt. But it didnt so we have to look at an honest way at the USSR, at the good and bad point instead of smiting it for not fiting with your view on how perfect socialism would be if only...

butterfly

1st January 2009, 14:23

This book was a mechanism used to teach us of the 'cyclical' nature of communism.

Led Zeppelin

1st January 2009, 14:37

It also states that the workers dont get anything out of the economic improvement which is wrong. If we look at what cost the USSR its economic downturn, the bureaucracy was only a part of that. The fact is that everyone was wasting resources and not only the bureaucrats. Lots of workers stole goods from the workplaces for themselves or to sell at the black market. If the daily quota was reached, workers would do something else for the day, like shopping or something. Its false to blaim only the bureaucrats for the economic downturn, while the whole society was to blaim.

Yeah, you're right, don't blame the bureaucracy for the waste, blame the working-class itself.

Your politics are disgusting.

But that is beside the point. After the revolution, actually, the animals do get something out of the economic improvement. I think you forgot about that.

Fine dont start a discussion at all than if you dont intent to.

I never started a discussion about the nature of Stalinism, you did.

Well he did, I actually can look it up for you, if you really want to. The fact that the white armies where trampling over the new born Soviet Union caused the young state nearly its life. Beatdown of these enemies was a priority. Next to that was decades of blockades following the largest invasion ever conducted. If you ask me, the Soviet Union never had a fair chance to develop the way they wanted. Not a single day of peace was known to the Soviets.

Ok, this is irrelevant to the subject at hand, and no I don't want you to look it up for me because I don't really care if he said it or not or in which context he said it (which you are ignoring); it has no relation to the subject of this thread.

Comparisons are a jolly thing to do, its easy and you can debuke anyone who attempts to claim otherwise as 'stalinist' or something like that, because they wont take part in the popular soviet bashing. If you really made a list of every similarity and every difference you would conclude that a comparison is out of place

Comparisons were the key part of the story. Without comparisons there wouldn't be Animal Farm. The fact that some of those comparisons are used to "bash" communism itself is irrelevant, because that is not what the comparisons in the story aim to portray.

The principles of "animalism", which is supposed to be the comparison to communism, are considered good and workable in the book. It is only when those principles are violated that the situation turns to shit.

Here you go and do that assuming thing again. How would you know what I have read and what I didn't? If you have any idea what my standpoint on Stalin was you would not say things like these. In fact I have lots of critique on Stalin, but they aren't based on myths. By the way, what are Stalinist books anyway? As far as I know stalinism is not a marxist theory but only thouged up by the political opponents of communist who in their eyes don't take part in the soviet bashing and myth forming as they do.

You ask me what Stalinist myth-books are and that "if I knew your position on Stalinism I would not say something like that", and then you go on to say that Stalinism is an invention made by political opponents of the Soviet Union and "soviet bashers".

You answered your own question.

Now let's try to keep on topic, I don't care about you being a Stalinist.

It is not. The argument expressed by many that everyone gets the same for their effort is false. This indeed occured within the soviet union in later times. It demotivated many workers. That lead to disbelief in socialism

It's irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Have you bothered to read the title of it before you started going off about the nature of Stalinism and why it actually doesn't exist, and how workers were living awesome lives in the USSR and were not exploited?

Again, for the tenth time, please keep your posts on-topic.

Than clearly I dont remember that part correctly. Its possible, four years have passed, maybe I should give it another shot but that does not approve the rest of the assumptions made by Orwell which simply dont correspond with the facts.

How can a fictional story have "assumptions"? I thought they were comparions? Or do you mean that they were "assumptions of comparisons"?

That doesn't make sense because as I said, it was not a 100% historically accurate story, and was not intended to be. That doesn't change the fact that those comparisons were not "anti-communist" but anti-Stalinist/revisionist.

Well isnt that the beauty of art? Giving it your own interpertation? It is a book of fiction, partly based upon Orwells view on the soviet union. That does not make it a book that is historically correct. I dissaprove of the general message that the revolution has been betrayed by a group of nasty people who want to seize power for their own good.

Giving something your own interpretation makes sense, as long as you don't write another fictional story of yourself in the process.

Now, obviously the reason you consider the story to be flawed is because you actually consider Stalinism to be "correct". You don't consider his rise to be something bad, and you don't consider his system to be bad either.

Orwell's entire point was to piss people like you off with his story, so it is understandable that you wouldn't like it. I'm not really here to defend the story's anti-Stalinist nature, I'm here to defend the fact that it is not anti-communist, but anti-Stalinist.

Which is why I consider to be a great story.

Every country has a bureaucracy, otherwise it can't function. There were lot of ways and means for workers in certain socialists countries to take part in making decissions. But as always, it takes lots of will to take responsibelity, this is something which has to be stimulated. The latter is a responsibelity of the party but it is debatable how much you can force someone to take part in controlling the country.

Well, again you are discussing something that isn't relevant to this thread, but to be honest I understand why you keep discussing it; because that's the basis of your whole argument.

Your point is that Stalinism actually doesn't exist and that the USSR was actually great, and that therefore Animal Farm is "anti-communist", because if you write something to attack the USSR, you are attacking communism.

That's a valid point if you're a Stalinist, but it's not a valid point if you're not.

So basically you're trying to argue a point here that doesn't apply to me; I am not a Stalinist. I do not consider Stalinism to have been "awesome", I do not consider the Stalinist system to have been "awesome", therefore I like it when story's are written to criticize such systems.

If the core of your argument is that "saying something against Stalinism equals saying something against communism", you're wasting my time here, because that's exactly what my political position is; and if you consider that anti-communist, there's no point in arguing about that.

All unscientifically ways of thinking. Making assumptions that are not based on anything but your imagination and works of fiction that arent based on facts.

No, actually all thinking is metaphysical, because thoughts aren't physical in nature.

You're wrong.

What you meant to say is that thought should be based on material reality, but you worded it poorly.

If this is also based on the rise of power of Stalin, than its short-sighted. The position where he was in was nothing of sitting back comfterable and let others sort things out for you.

It's not.

He was able to take power due to the low level of consciousness amongst the other animals, lack of education, participation in the democratic system, etc. and due to the low level of economic development on the farm, which caused more and more economic hardship.

The story doesn't ignore those factors.

You claim that Orwells work was not fiction? That is bold.

What? No?

I said that your opinion is based on fiction, and not Orwell's, i.e., not his story, so your own.

Well I consider this work to be a protest against the way the soviets tried to reach communism, by building a socialist state that had to compete against fascism and other agression that was not around at the time of Marx. I dont condemn critisism on many decissions took in the USSR but I do at the untrue claim that they betrayed the revolution.

I know, because you're a Stalinist, as I said above, and you consider that point of view to be "soviet bashing" and "anti-communist".

You would say the same of any of Trotsky's works, so there's not much point to argue about that. You have your view on that, and I have mine, but yours doesn't render Orwell's story to be anti-communist objectively, it only does so to you because you consider Stalinism to be representative of communism.

Could be, if other capitalist and fascist states would mind their own bussiness than the history of the USSR would be otherwise no doubt. But it didnt so we have to look at an honest way at the USSR, at the good and bad point instead of smiting it for not fiting with your view on how perfect socialism would be if only...

Looking at the history of the USSR in a honest way would involve actually looking at it, which you have consistently refused to do. You only take into account the external difficulties and blame them on external forces, without taking into the internal difficulties and blaming them on the internal forces, and then relating that to the external as well.

In other words, you do criticize the system, but your criticism is based on the typical "they could have, should have done better", instead of on a materialist analysis of the system itself.

Looking at the matter in a Marxist way would involve the latter method, not the former.

As you can see though I've been trying desparetely not to get into a discussion about the nature of Stalinism, because I know how it will end up as. You will say that Stalinism is a myth invented by the crypto-fascist Trotskyites, and that Stalin was actually great, and that the show trials were necessary because they were working with Hitler to restore capitalism etc. etc. etc. etc......

No, I don't want that, because it will lead to nothing and because I'm tired of arguing with Stalinists about Stalinism, exactly because it never leads to anything.

Sasha

1st January 2009, 19:30

i'm not going to trow myself in to this discussion (although i agree almost completly with ledzep, wich by the way i think is a first :o) but just wanted to ad that my (admitetly communist) history teacher on high school encouraged us to read Animal Farm as in his eyes it was an acurate discription about what was good about communism and bad about capitalism and showed how it was nescacery to complete your revolutions and not let it get hijacked by power hungry bastards who will be as bad (or worse) than the last boss.
and it clearly worked because it/this teacher was one of the contributing factors in me getting intrested in anti-authoritarian communism
i guess i just want to say that it clearly depends with what intention you read a book and present it to others on what you get out of it. (OMFG! and i just realised that bears shit in the woods :lol:)

Led Zeppelin

1st January 2009, 19:54

I like your teacher and I share his views on what we should be doing with the story. :)

It's much more productive than yelling "soviet bashing!", "anti-communist propaganda!", "hysteria!".

LOLseph Stalin

2nd January 2009, 06:22

How exactly is this book "anti-communist"? If anything it is anti-Stalinist/revisionist, but I don't see how anyone can say it is "anti-communist" in general...unless of course you believe that Stalinism/revisionism is representative of communism.

By the way, I added "revisionist" as well because to Stalinists, or "Marxist-Leninists" http://www.revleft.com/vb/just-finished-animal-t97857/revleft/smilies/wink.gif, they are representative of the degeneration of the revolution, so if they read Animal Farm they could just as well consider the post-Stalin leadership as being the "Napoleon" of the revolution.

Also, the movie is deceptive. In the book the animals don't overthrow the pigs and dogs to get the former boss back again. In fact the owner, Jones, died. The animals just see how much the pigs degenerate until finally they become indistinguishable from humans, and that's where the book ends.

Great book. I actually had to read it for school awhile back. Well, that and 1984. Of course the majority of the class was taught to believe that it's an anti-Communist book. It's anti-Stalinist. There's a difference. Haha! Back when I read the book for the first time I didn't know any of this, but when I started looking into revolutionary leftism I came to understand that book more. I re-read it and got more out of it and I decided that it's a rather humourous take on the atrocities of Stalinism.

Dean

2nd January 2009, 07:04

Animal Farm is anti-communist because it promotes the line that any revolution aimed at creating a more equal society is simply going to end up back where it started. In other words, the moral is don't even try to change things. It's like the 'Won't Get Fooled Again' song from the Who that came later on that says "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Of course the bourgeoisie understands this perfectly, which is why it the book is and was popularized and even made required reading in many schools.

No, Blair / Orwell was actually active in the Spanish anarchist movement. That action directly contradicts the notion that "any revolution ... is simply going to end up back where it started."

Also, a lot of people don't understand that 1984 mirrored prevalent themes in the West as well - the notion of an unseen enemy as a control mechanism, the squeltching of dissent. It seems like a number of leftists on this site are such in name only - powerful anti-authoritarian, egalitarian messages which don't include such terms as "communist," "socialist," "exploitation" or "Marx" are immediately labelled "reactionary" - presumably because the promotion of free, classless society is an affront to the notion of "communism" where a central party controls and directs the social and economic norms of a people.

Heartwarming, indeed. I'd take Orwell's anarchism any day instead.

Random Precision

2nd January 2009, 08:27

I was waiting for Random Precision to come into this thread and defend the book. After all, the anti-communist liberal outfit he belongs to shares pretty much the same outlook as the author of the book in question.

And it's heartwarming to see that every time I try to engage you in discussion you start off with a red herring about mine and my organization's supposed "anti-communism".

It's written in a way that makes the betrayal of the revolution seem as the only logical outcome.

Chapter and verse.

I read it before I was a communist. Don't make assumptions.

That might have something to do with it.

How did they "heavily abbreviate" it? Animal Farm is required reading in many schools. They don't edit the book, they present it as written and make you read it.

I don't suppose I have to explain that there's more than one way to read a book? Might capitalist schools not choose the way that seems to go along with their agenda?

Incidentally, I had to read it in high school myself. It was just as I was becoming politically awakened. But I didn't simply accept the book as "anti-communist" because my (idiot) English teacher taught it to us that way. I drew my own conclusions about the book from what Orwell wrote, rather than what my teacher told me he meant, whether I was for or against this supposed message.

The 'human nature is against socialism' argument has been pushed as an argument against socialism for ages. But Animal Farm popularized it.

Good luck proving that.

As for Orwell himself, he was all over the place. A self-described "Anarchist-Tory"

Great, now you don't understand the concept of irony?

he claimed "all government is evil" while at the same time asserting "you have got to have a harsh criminal law and administer it ruthlessly."

Unfortunately for you I have read that book. Let's examine the context:

I had begun to have an indescribable loathing of the whole machinery of so-called justice. Say what you will, our criminal law (far more humane, by the way, in India than in England) is a horrible thing. It needs very insensitive people to administer it. The wretched prisoners squatting in the reeking cages of the lock-ups, the grey cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos, the women and children howling when their menfolk were led away under arrest--things like these are beyond bearing when you are in any way directly responsible for them. I watched a man hanged once; it seemed to me worse than a thousand murders. I never went into a jail without feeling (most visitors to jails feel the same) that my place was on the other side of the bars. I thought then--I think now, for that matter--that the worst criminal who ever walked is morally superior to a hanging judge. But of course I had to keep these notions to myself, because of the almost utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East. In the end I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and that people can be trusted to behave decently if only you will let them alone. This of course was sentimental nonsense. I see now as I did not see then, that it is always necessary to protect peaceful people from violence. In any state of society where crime can be profitable you have got to have a harsh criminal law and administer it ruthlessly; the alternative is Al Capone. But the feeling that punishment is evil arises inescapably in those who have to administer it.

http://www.george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/8.html

In the end he was a democratic socialist. From 1945 onward he worked to 'get out the vote' for Labour.

I actually can't find anything outside the (citation needed) Wiki article that confirms this, but even if it's true it would still fall short of the contemporary antics of your beloved big-C Communists, who tried to affiliate to Labour twice during that period.

Random Precision

2nd January 2009, 08:50

Also, a lot of people don't understand that 1984 mirrored prevalent themes in the West as well - the notion of an unseen enemy as a control mechanism, the squeltching of dissent. It seems like a number of leftists on this site are such in name only - powerful anti-authoritarian, egalitarian messages which don't include such terms as "communist," "socialist," "exploitation" or "Marx" are immediately labelled "reactionary" - presumably because the promotion of free, classless society is an affront to the notion of "communism" where a central party controls and directs the social and economic norms of a people.

Well said. I've said before that in my opinion 1984 is the greatest novel of the 20th century- and if all you got out of it was anti-communism, then you might as well have never read it (which, given its treatment in most schools, probably would not be so bad). That goes just the same whether you swallowed the Western bourgeoisie's lies and uphold Orwell as an anti-communist or if you swallowed the Stalinists' lies and revile him as an anti-communist.

Leo

2nd January 2009, 10:57

Unlike 1984 which does give the message that proles can't change anything and any resistance is futile and thus does have a horrible political perspective, I don't think Animal Farm is in itself a particularly anti-communist book (the film was though).

Both books are, on the other hand, from a literary perspective incredibly poor, and anyone who says 1984 is the greatest novel of the 20th century clearly hasn't really read many novels.

Invader Zim

2nd January 2009, 11:22

I see we are discussing this topic again, and the usual bullshit is being supplied by those who obviously A. haven't read the book, or B. have ignored many salient passages within it. I also see that CdL has quoted Redstar2000's website, however Redstar failed to include in his page to include the responces to his posts. On this matter he was utterly destroyed by pretty much everyone who disagreed.

Animal Farm is anti-communist because it promotes the line that any revolution aimed at creating a more equal society is simply going to end up back where it started. In other words, the moral is don't even try to change things. It's like the 'Won't Get Fooled Again' song from the Who that came later on that says "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Of course the bourgeoisie understands this perfectly, which is why it the book is and was popularized and even made required reading in many schools.

Animal Farm is anti-communist because it promotes the line that any revolution aimed at creating a more equal society is simply going to end up back where it started.No, it doesn't. Quite clearly Orwell takes the line that dominating authority placed into individuals will corrupts a socialist society. Which is, of course, true.

In other words, the moral is don't even try to change things.Again, that is simply not the case. If you bother to read the book, you may notice that the Farm actually increases productivity post-revolution, the animals are more prosperous, free and happy. Until of course Napoleon takes control of the farm. The moral of the story is not a critique of revolution, but a critique of the leadership of the USSR after the death of Lenin. You criticised LZ earlier for claiming that you haven't read the book, well based on what you have claimed that is just one of two possibilities. Either you haven't read it, or you are a completely inept and failed to comprehend it. Which is it?

Of course the bourgeoisie understands this perfectly, which is why it the book is and was popularized and even made required reading in many schools.On the contrary, it was popular literature in schools for a far simpler reason, it was high quality children's literature, and thus a good medium for teaching the English language and creative writing. Instilling anti-Stalinist sentiments from a young age while a plausable factor, is obviously a distant second. However there is a massive world of difference between anti-Stalinism and anti-communism, a difference that seemingly eludes you.

Michael Moore condemns American imperialism in Iraq, I guess he's a regular revolutionary now, isn't he? Your assertion that Orwell should be commended simply because he didn't side with imperialism all the time is as insipid as it is naive, and the rest of your position isn't any better.

As far as strawman arguments go, thats really weak, and easily dismissed. Orwell actually faught and was shot in defence of Revolution and in opposition to fascism.

Random Precision

2nd January 2009, 20:29

Unlike 1984 which does give the message that proles can't change anything and any resistance is futile and thus does have a horrible political perspective

Sigh. It's about what things could be like. Not what they are like.

Both books are, on the other hand, from a literary perspective incredibly poor, and anyone who says 1984 is the greatest novel of the 20th century clearly hasn't really read many novels.

On the contrary, I've read most or all of the standard greats- Proust, Mann, Joyce, Wolff, Pynchon, etc.

LOLseph Stalin

2nd January 2009, 20:29

Wasn't Orwell a Trot or an Anarchist or something? Teachers at my school try to say that he was an anti-Communist Socialist, but I think he's just anti-Stalinist as both 1984 and Animal Farm seem to have elements that reflect on the trouble with Stalinism.

Leo

2nd January 2009, 22:34

Sigh. It's about what things could be like. Not what they are like.

Actually it is about what things are like, as far as I know the guy wrote it as a parody of the time and the title he intended was 1948 but the publishers didn't allow it.

On the contrary, I've read most or all of the standard greats- Proust, Mann, Joyce, Wolff, Pynchon, etc.

Jack London? Gorky? Kafka? Woolf? Hemingway? Steinbeck? Eco?

Really Orwell is nowhere near the same league.

Invader Zim

3rd January 2009, 12:22

Actually it is about what things are like, as far as I know the guy wrote it as a parody of the time and the title he intended was 1948 but the publishers didn't allow it.

Jack London? Gorky? Kafka? Woolf? Hemingway? Steinbeck? Eco?

Really Orwell is nowhere near the same league.

The book was clearly not a critique of any single regime, as it took many facets of existing and deceased authoritarian regimes and projected them into a dystopian future. Certainly elements of the work grimly parody Britain in post-war society. But it was not an actual representation of Britain, it was a Britain in an authoritrian nightmare akin to that of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. And the work borrows heavily from aspects of those regimes.

Really Orwell is nowhere near the same league.Most people would disagree and certainly place Orwell in the same league, and if you look and popular polls on such works you will find Orwell in the same kind of position.

To take an example: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml

You will also find Orwell placed in lists created by a select, rather than popular, group. Such as this one: -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/08/books.booksnews

So it seems that both popular and critical readers would disagree with your sentiments. And I must confess, so do I.

Pawn Power

3rd January 2009, 15:15

Invader Zim

3rd January 2009, 21:17

Having gone through the U.S. education system and having read Animal Farm I tend to agree with Nothing Human is Alien.

The book is required reading in many English classes and, from my experience, it is reviewed in such a way that emphasizes that popular revolutions don't lead to anything good. It doesn't particularly matter if that is how Orwell wanted the book to be interpreted but how the book is actually being used.

Needless to say, the book is a fun read 10-15 year olds but I don't think is has much political value.

And apparently you have accepted the, and I hasten to add, false interpretation of the work that your teacher wanted you to. Re-read the work and take another look at the lengthy section of the book in which the potential of the farm is discussed, prior, of course, to intervention on the part of Napoleon. The work is a glowing endorcement of socialism and a grim critique of Stalin.

Leo

3rd January 2009, 22:22

Most people would disagree and certainly place Orwell in the same league, and if you look and popular polls on such works you will find Orwell in the same kind of position.The fact that it is a regularly promoted book doesn't make it a "classic" in any way. The reality is that both the language and the story of the book is quite poor and reads like one of these didactic fables written for middle school students. Well, in a way that's what they are too. Orwell might be a good journalist (Homage to Catalonia is quite good after all) but is quite a poor novelist.

In any case, the BBC list, well, doesn't require much comments:

1. The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien
4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling
7. Winnie the Pooh, AA Milne
8. Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell
9. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, CS Lewis
You will also find Orwell placed in lists created by a select, rather than popular, group. Such as this one: -This list is actually more interesting, not in who it includes, but in who it does not include, such as all authors with socialistic sympathies such as Emile Zola, Jack London, Maxim Gorky, John Steinback etc. All such names not included while Orwell's 1984 being included... well tells enough about the select few who voted.

The book was clearly not a critique of any single regime, as it took many facets of existing and deceased authoritarian regimes and projected them into a dystopian future. Certainly elements of the work grimly parody Britain in post-war society. But it was not an actual representation of Britain, it was a Britain in an authoritrian nightmare akin to that of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.I'd imagine Britain, with the heated beginnings of the Cold War and right after the massive slaughters in WW2 was quite an authoritarian nightmare (regardless of the death toll) which could easily have been compared with both other examples you have cited. I can say this about America even more easily.

Pawn Power

4th January 2009, 01:50

And apparently you have accepted the, and I hasten to add, false interpretation of the work that your teacher wanted you to. Re-read the work and take another look at the lengthy section of the book in which the potential of the farm is discussed, prior, of course, to intervention on the part of Napoleon. The work is a glowing endorcement of socialism and a grim critique of Stalin.

When you don't have a lot of information don't make assumptions because they are often wrong. I actually never had to read the book for class. So, no, I did not accept my teachers interpretation. I don't necessarily think that the book must be interpreted as a critique of socialism or revolution. But, evidently, it can be.

Obviously, the book can be interpreted in both ways. The point I was making is that the way it is interpreted in US schools is often ardently against socialist revolution. The literature is laid in a way to prompt various interpretations, some which can and have been used as arguments against socialism.

Though it is not important in the discussion, my interpretation of Animal Farm when I first read the book nearly 9 years ago was a critique of socialism as leading to an authoritarian system (later I understood that to be Stalinism), however, an endorsement of egalitarian politics.

There is nothing in the work that makes it decisively pro-socialism or anti-socialism. Demonstrated by this thread, the book is open for discussion. The U.S educational system appears to have adopted one specific self-serving interpretation (no surprise). That is the point.

I think Upton Sinclair's, The Jungle would be a better choice of required fiction.

Invader Zim

4th January 2009, 11:43

In any case, the BBC list, well, doesn't require much comments:

That is a rather damning view of the opinion of the tastes of the general public who were the source of the poll. Because books are popular, they worth ignoring, and the perhaps less well known books are tarred by the same brush because they appear in the same poll? I don't think that holds water.

This list is actually more interesting, not in who it includes, but in who it does not include, such as all authors with socialistic sympathies such as Emile Zola, Jack London, Maxim Gorky, John Steinback etc. All such names not included while Orwell's 1984 being included.Its funny you should mention Steinbeck, who may have had socialist sympathies in his early career was, by the Vietnam and imperialist stooge providing propaganda on the part of the US army in Vietnam. While Orwell was also employed in providing propaganda for his countries armed forces during the 1940s, Orwell was in his own small way contributing to the war against the Third Reich. And the claim that the poll fails to include socialists is of course manifestly false, because Orwell's 1984 is included.

And there is nothing remotely interesting in the fact that Maxim Gorky, Emile Zola and Jack London aren't included; because this is a list was limited to just 100 authors and while certainly influencial Gorky, et al. hardly set the world alight. At least not in the same way that say Homer, or indeed, Orwell did.

I'd imagine Britain, with the heated beginnings of the Cold War and right after the massive slaughters in WW2 was quite an authoritarian nightmare (regardless of the death toll) which could easily have been compared with both other examples you have cited.I don't think that is a fair assessment. Post war Britain was the period which saw the founding of the NHS, perhaps the greatest social achievement on behalf of the working classes in Britain in the past 60 years, if not Britain's entire history. The Attlee government has, all things considered, one of the most progressive legacies in British history. Sure that isn't necessarily a huge achievement considering the competition, but still. Also while I have no doubt that the economic hardship of post-war Britain and National Service hardly made it a wonderful time to live, but hardly anything like the nightmare of the Third Reich or Stalin's regime.

When you don't have a lot of information don't make assumptions because they are often wrong. I actually never had to read the book for class. So, no, I did not accept my teachers interpretation.

You said, and I quote: -

"Having gone through the U.S. education system and having read Animal Farm I tend to agree with Nothing Human is Alien."

How else do you suppose that should be interpreted? While I like to think I have a few worthwhile talents, i am afraid mind-reading is not one of them. I take you at what you say, and the implications which go with those words.

I don't necessarily think that the book must be interpreted as a critique of socialism or revolution. But, evidently, it can be.

Obviously, the book can be interpreted in both ways.

That strikes me as post-modernist/structuralist rubbish that Barthes came out with, that authors own views are irrelevent and it is upto the reader to choose what s/he was saying. Put bluntly, I don't buy it. While I don't take a hard line on the matter, people can draw what they like from a work, but that doesn't make it either accurate or what the author intended. Had Orwell been ambiguous then sure, but I don't think he was. Orwell informed us exactly what his works were intended to tell us when he wrote in 1946, "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism".

George Orwell, 'Why I Write', in George Orwell: Essays (London, 1984), p. 5.

And I take him at his word because it is entirely in line with the content of Animal Farm, etc. And that pretty much sums up this discussion. You, and others, are drawing a critique of socialism/communism from this book which I don't think the author intended to make, and in my opinion, isn't even in the book. The book is a critique of Stalin's totalitarian regime, not communism/socialism as an ideology, just as Orwell said in 1946. And I have yet to see anyone quote a single line of the text which challenges Orwell's 1946 claim about his work.

politics student

4th January 2009, 14:57

Both books are, on the other hand, from a literary perspective incredibly poor, and anyone who says 1984 is the greatest novel of the 20th century clearly hasn't really read many novels.

I was shocked to find that the novels were written so poorly compared to his other works. Animal farm did seem to carry an anti communist message which is questionable but pushed at least in my school that communism did not work and this book is a great example why..... Doubt any of the teachers knew shit all about politics to be honest I now wonder where they got their lesson plans from.

Also the film was crap.

Invader Zim

4th January 2009, 15:46

Both books are, on the other hand, from a literary perspective incredibly poor, and anyone who says 1984 is the greatest novel of the 20th century clearly hasn't really read many novels.

I didn't notice this gem earlier. But just to clarify taste is based on qualitative factors and necessarily subjective in nature. And that is why, despite your claim that only the underread can appriciate Orwell, many very well read experts in literature enjoy and appriciate Orwell.

politics student

4th January 2009, 15:56

I didn't notice this gem earlier. But just to clarify taste is based on qualitative factors and necessarily subjective in nature. And that is why, despite your claim that only the underread can appriciate Orwell, many very well read experts in literature enjoy and appriciate Orwell.

I agree it is nonsense that the under read can only enjoy them. I enjoyed them both but there is a drastic change in the writing for these two books compared to the others. Saying that both are still great reads.

Invader Zim

4th January 2009, 17:48

I agree it is nonsense that the under read can only enjoy them. I enjoyed them both but there is a drastic change in the writing for these two books compared to the others. Saying that both are still great reads.
I disagree, i think 1984 is a vastly better than all of Orwell's other fictional works. I also think it is better than Down and Out and, in some ways (though not all) better than Homage.

Leo

6th January 2009, 12:22

That is a rather damning view of the opinion of the tastes of the general public who were the source of the poll.

I don't think so. It is about which books are commercialized and promoted by the mass media and other institutions into popularity.

Its funny you should mention Steinbeck, who may have had socialist sympathies in his early career was

He did have those sympathies and his work worthy of any attention was produced "in his early career".

by the Vietnam and imperialist stooge providing propaganda on the part of the US army in Vietnam.

Lots of people went down that road, including some old leaders of the American Communist Party.

And the claim that the poll fails to include socialists is of course manifestly false, because Orwell's 1984 is included.

Orwell wasn't a socialist in any meaningful sense by the time he wrote 1984.

And there is nothing remotely interesting in the fact that Maxim Gorky, Emile Zola and Jack London aren't included; because this is a list was limited to just 100 authors and while certainly influencial Gorky, et al. hardly set the world alight. At least not in the same way that say Homer, or indeed, Orwell did.

And we come the question of why Orwell "set the world alight", and it is quite clearly because he was promoted by the bourgeois mass institutions as the prophet who foresaw how bad the future would be if "communism" prevailed against "democracy".

I don't think that is a fair assessment. Post war Britain was the period which saw the founding of the NHS, perhaps the greatest social achievement on behalf of the working classes in Britain in the past 60 years, if not Britain's entire history. The Attlee government has, all things considered, one of the most progressive legacies in British history. Sure that isn't necessarily a huge achievement considering the competition, but still. Also while I have no doubt that the economic hardship of post-war Britain and National Service hardly made it a wonderful time to live, but hardly anything like the nightmare of the Third Reich or Stalin's regime.

Both the Third Reich and Stalin's regime had similar economic programs but anyway, the point wasn't about health service but political and social suppression and atmosphere.

But just to clarify taste is based on qualitative factors and necessarily subjective in nature.

Well yeah, I mean you can say that Ayn Rand is a superb author to your taste for all I care.

despite your claim that only the underread can appriciate Orwell

Well no, I am basically saying only someone who really isn't into literary classics can say Orwell's 1984 is the best novel of the 20th century (I personally appreciate Homage to Catalonia for example, but then again it isn't a novel). I don't really think saying that is different from saying that Harry Potter is the best novel of the 20th century.

many very well read experts in literature enjoy and appriciate Orwell.

Yeah, and I'm sure many appreciate Harry Potter and that many appreciate the James Bond books and that many appreciate Tom Clancy and so forth. The point being?

BobKKKindle$

6th January 2009, 14:11

I also read 'Animal Farm' when I was just getting interested in politics, and it had a big impact on my political development. We didn't have to read it at school because it wasn't included as part of the curriculum and when I was reading it, I never interpreted it as being anti-communist. Instead, it seemed to be a warning of the possibility of degeneration after a successful and genuinely popular revolutionary against injustice. I only knew a little about the Russian Revolution at the time but when I filled in the gaps in my historical knowledge it became very clear that Orwell was a sincere and dedicated socialist - despite his flaws - and this was confirmed when I explored his other writings, especially 'Homage to Catalonia'.

Led Zeppelin

6th January 2009, 14:31

Leo, you don't have the monopoly on deciding which books are good and which are bad. Your opinion is entirely subjective and therefore irrelevant. It is in and of itself of equal worth to Invader Zim's, so I'm not sure why you're trying to somehow prove that you are more correct than him on the subject, because you can't.

Invader Zim on the other hand provided sources of a lot more people considering the book to be good than just him. That's not evidence of it being a good book by itself, but it certainly proves that it's ridiculous to say that it has no literary merit at all.

Besides that, it is obvious that Orwell was always a democratic socialist and remained one until the end of his life. The only reason you don't consider him to be one is because you're a left-communist, which narrows your usage of the term "socialist" to describe someones politics to such an extent that no one takes it seriously.

Leo

6th January 2009, 16:02

Leo, you don't have the monopoly on deciding which books are good and which are bad.

Of course, I can on the other hand say what I think about that subject.

Invader Zim on the other hand provided sources of a lot more people considering the book to be good than just him. That's not evidence of it being a good book by itself, but it certainly proves that it's ridiculous to say that it has no literary merit at all.

Eh yeah, and by that logic Harry Potter and James Bond series have superb literary merit.

Besides that, it is obvious that Orwell was always a democratic socialist and remained one until the end of his life. The only reason you don't consider him to be one is because you're a left-communist

Eh, he considered himself a democratic socialist when wrote Homage to Catalonia, and I said I don't even consider the Animal Farm to have a particularly anti-communist message. By the time he wrote 1984 however, he wasn't a socialist in any meaningful sense. He was among the "god who failed" literature crew.

which narrows your usage of the term "socialist" to describe someones politics to such an extent that no one takes it seriously.

Ah hell Led Zeppelin yeah, I am sure people now take you very seriously for bringing sectarian and empty cheap shots about politics to a literature discussion. "Oh no one takez your politicz seriously!!!" come on are you just out of elementary school or something?

Led Zeppelin

6th January 2009, 16:42

Of course, I can on the other hand say what I think about that subject.

Sure, but you can't say that it's of any relevance beyond being your own subjective opinion on the subject.

Eh yeah, and by that logic Harry Potter and James Bond series have superb literary merit.

Harry Potter and the James Bond series are not considered classics of literature by many scholars, if any.

Eh, he considered himself a democratic socialist when wrote Homage to Catalonia, and I said I don't even consider the Animal Farm to have a particularly anti-communist message. By the time he wrote 1984 however, he wasn't a socialist in any meaningful sense. He was among the "god who failed" literature crew.

So because you say something it is true?

How about you prove that he wasn't a socialist with some facts, or is the only evidence you have for it the fact that he wasn't part of the left-communist clique?

Ah hell Led Zeppelin yeah, I am sure people now take you very seriously for bringing sectarian and empty cheap shots about politics to a literature discussion.

Firstly, you obviously don't know what the definition of sectarianism is, so I suggest you look that up before using it in a post.

Secondly, talking about taking cheap shots, you've been taking a lot of those in this thread which border on the absurd and inane, like for example the; "lol 1984 sux lol you are stoopid and underead if you think otherwise lol" and "lol orwell was not socialt cuz only left commies r lol" crap.

So don't expect anything less in return.

"Oh no one takez your politicz seriously!!!" come on are you just out of elementary school or something?

I wasn't referring to no one taking your politics seriously (though that is true as well, to a large extent), I was reffering to no one taking your usage of the term "socialist" seriously, because it's so narrow that hardly anyone fits into it.

Perhaps you should go back to elementary school and learn some reading comprehension instead of insinuating that others just came out of it? It would give that insinuation more of a basis, though of course the content of your posts renders that useless.

Pawn Power

6th January 2009, 16:49

.

That strikes me as post-modernist/structuralist rubbish that Barthes came out with, that authors own views are irrelevent and it is upto the reader to choose what s/he was saying. Put bluntly, I don't buy it. While I don't take a hard line on the matter, people can draw what they like from a work, but that doesn't make it either accurate or what the author intended. Had Orwell been ambiguous then sure, but I don't think he was. Orwell informed us exactly what his works were intended to tell us when he wrote in 1946, "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism".

George Orwell, 'Why I Write', in George Orwell: Essays (London, 1984), p. 5.

And I take him at his word because it is entirely in line with the content of Animal Farm, etc. And that pretty much sums up this discussion. You, and others, are drawing a critique of socialism/communism from this book which I don't think the author intended to make, and in my opinion, isn't even in the book. The book is a critique of Stalin's totalitarian regime, not communism/socialism as an ideology, just as Orwell said in 1946. And I have yet to see anyone quote a single line of the text which challenges Orwell's 1946 claim about his work.

The stance I am taking is not post-modernism. Though, I see how someone simple glancing over it could characterize it that way in an attempt to pigeonhole these ideas into an more easily critiqued stance (since post-modernism easily attacked).

I surely agree that Orwell indented the novel for a specific interpretation. What I am saying though is that he doesn't get to decide how it is then interpreted. It is no longer in his hands. It is now being utilized as a critique of socialism. In U.S schools we don't get to decide how his books are presented, though, of course, students should always challenge their teachers. Teachers and curriculum decide this and they have taken the, what you call, "incorrect" interpretation. Be that as it may, it has become a popular interpretation.

Invader Zim

6th January 2009, 17:28

The stance I am taking is not post-modernism. Though, I see how someone simple glancing over it could characterize it that way in an attempt to pigeonhole these ideas into an more easily critiqued stance (since post-modernism easily attacked).

I surely agree that Orwell indented the novel for a specific interpretation. What I am saying though is that he doesn't get to decide how it is then interpreted. It is no longer in his hands. It is now being utilized as a critique of socialism. In U.S schools we don't get to decide how his books are presented, though, of course, students should always challenge their teachers. Teachers and curriculum decide this and they have taken the, what you call, "incorrect" interpretation. Be that as it may, it has become a popular interpretation.

Sorry, but your position that the author's message is determined not by the author but by the reader, is a fundermentally post-structuralist stance. You remove the author, his intentions, and the enviroment in which he lived, from the picture. That is fundermentally the post-structuralist position Barthes outlined in his essay The Death of the Author. The position is also post-modernist because it rejects empirical interpretation of the text and insists that it is entirely relative to the reader, and quite clearly that is a ridiculous position.

What I am saying though is that he doesn't get to decide how it is then interpreted. It is no longer in his hands. It is now being utilized as a critique of socialism.On the contrary he does because he penned the words from which any possible interpretation must be drawn, producing an objective factor to the question; and as a result if a reading contradicts what is objectively written in the text than that reading is erroneous. And quite clearly, if Animal farm is seen as a critique of socialism then the person presenting that thesis has manifestly misinterpreted the work.

To provide an example, if you read The Hound of the Baskervilles and concluded that it was the escaped prisoner Selden who masterminded the death of Sir Charles, then you would have mis-interpreted the work. There are no two ways about it. And even if every person who read the book argued that it was indeed Seldon who committed the murder after reading the work, that would still be wrong because that is not what the author actually wrote.

Be that as it may, it has become a popular interpretation.That is an argumentum ad populum. Simply because a lot of people believe 'x' does not make 'x' true.

Orwell wasn't a socialist in any meaningful sense by the time he wrote 1984.

Sources? What evidence do you have to support this claim? Quite clearly I can, and have, marshalled evidence that Orwell was (or at least considered himself) a socialist in 1936; and that is the same year he began writing 1984. What can you produce which contradicts this? Your unsupported claim to the contrary simply isn't enough.

And that pretty much goes for your entire post. For example provide evidence that post-war britain was a substancially similar regime to that of nazi Germany of Stalinist Russia. Back these claims up or consider them rejected.

Leo

6th January 2009, 17:42

Sure, but you can't say that it's of any relevance beyond being your own subjective opinion on the subject.So is yours. Yet there is a rather universal understanding of what classics are, that is these deep long pieces of literature which express things artistically. And there are some pieces boosted by the mass organs of the state for whatever reasons.

I think it is obvious which one Orwell, with the didactic and ugly language, shallow characters and predictable plots as a novelist, is.

Harry Potter and the James Bond series are not considered classics of literature by many scholars, if any.Internationally, Orwell is not considered classics of literature by many scholars.

So because you say something it is true? You have no idea what I'm talking about even, do you?

How about you prove that he wasn't a socialist with some factsWell, here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list

or is the only evidence you have for it the fact that he wasn't part of the left-communist clique? What's most funny about the way you try the discuss is that you actually think that being petty is gonna help your arguements. :rolleyes:

Firstly, you obviously don't know what the definition of sectarianism is, so I suggest you look that up before using it in a post.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sectarian
sectarian Adjective
1. of or belonging to a sect
2. narrow-minded as a result of supporting a particular sect

I'd say you regularly bringing my politics, which you regard as some sort of an a priori evil to such an extent that you don't even feel the need to explain your petty arguements, in order to argue against my views on literature is narrow-mindedness as a result of your supporting of a particular sects views on it. This behavior objectively leads you to sabotage an open discussion and descend into petty insults, as you do more than often in other threads as well.

I was reffering to no one taking your usage of the term "socialist" seriouslyOrwell was a vehement anti-communist, and someone who gave names to the state around the time he wrote 1984. I don't think there is anything to do here with my personal understanding of the term, he was as socialist as the Labor government in the UK he was trying to aid.

Of course you might consider Noske and Ebert to be genuine socialists as well, after all you don't wanna make a (horrors!) definition of the term which would exclude some who claim to be socialists.

"lol orwell was not socialt cuz only left commies r lol"
Perhaps you should go back to elementary school and learn some reading comprehension Considering that I have not even mentioned left-communism in this thread and talked about Zola, London, Gorky, Steinbeck as well as Orwell when he wrote Homage to Catalonia being socialistic, I'd say it is you who needs to learn some reading comprehension.

"lol 1984 sux lol you are stoopid and underead if you think otherwise lol" Though I didn't say one has to be stupid or underread to like 1984, I do stand by saying that someone who thinks 1984 is the best novel of the century hasn't read much of the artistic literature written in this century and is more into what is promoted by the (Western) mass media and/or education system. 1984 being a much less promoted and thus much less popular book where I live (appreciated mostly by highly educated liberals) gives me some sort of base to compare and say how much it's worth when not massively promoted. It is of course in the end a matter of personal taste.

So don't expect anything lessI didn't have high expectations from you to begin with.

Led Zeppelin

6th January 2009, 18:58

So is yours.

No shit Sherlock, that was my whole point.

Yet there is a rather universal understanding of what classics are, that is these deep long pieces of literature which express things artistically. And there are some pieces boosted by the mass organs of the state for whatever reasons.

Yeah, and you with your crystal ball know which one belongs in the former category and which one belongs in the latter, that is; any books you like go in the former and any books you dislike in the latter.

Very scientific and honest way of judging, but please don't be too harsh on me for considering it bullshit.

I think it is obvious which one Orwell, with the didactic and ugly language, shallow characters and predictable plots as a novelist, is.

Thank you for letting me know what you personally consider to be "didactic and ugly language, shallow characters and predictable plots" in a book, but it's wholly irrelevant, sorry to say.

Or maybe you have such a huge ego as to believe that your opinion is actually the only correct one?

In that case, sorry I burst your bubble.

Internationally, Orwell is not considered classics of literature by many scholars.

Yet another piece of subjective nonsense without bothering to back it up with facts.

Doesn't work, sorry.

You have no idea what I'm talking about even, do you?

I don't think even you know what the hell you're talking about, it's so absurd and nonsensical.

Well, here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list

This was already replied to earlier in the thread by a post I quoted from Invader Zim:

This is a rather poor misrepresentation of what actually occured. Celia Kirwan whom Orwell knew, who had just started worked for the IRD, asked him who he thought would be unsuitable to be a writer for the IRD. He did not 'grass-up' communists, as people regularly and inaccurately proclaim, and there certainly isn't anything sinister about it, as that nonsense Stalinist propaganda suggests.

Certainly it was nothing sensational, as Stalinists and various others like to proclaim. These people were all highly public figures, with well known publically published opinions; the idea that Orwell conspired to provide the foreign office with some secret information simply shows the desperate levels to which Stalinists go in order to tar the reputation of their opponents. After all, if you can't defeat an opponents argument, it may be possible to attack their character; if of course you can't silence them with an ice-pick.

[...]

This is hardly the case and there has been a great deal of myth making on this subject; firstly he did not 'grass' people up to the MI5, Celia Kirwan was not in the MI5. He was asked by a friend of his, Celia Kirwan, whom he thought were unsuitable candidates for giving jobs to in the Information Research Department (an anti-communist propaganda department).

Perhaps you should read threads before posting in them with an air of superiority?

What's most funny about the way you try the discuss is that you actually think that being petty is gonna help your arguements. :rolleyes:

I think it's funnier how you think that writing something like the above and then adding a rolling eyes emoticon to it is anything other than inane.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sectarian
sectarian Adjective
1. of or belonging to a sect
2. narrow-minded as a result of supporting a particular sect

I'd say you regularly bringing my politics, which you regard as some sort of an a priori evil to such an extent that you don't even feel the need to explain your petty arguements, in order to argue against my views on literature is narrow-mindedness as a result of your supporting of a particular sects views on it. This behavior objectively leads you to sabotage an open discussion and descend into petty insults, as you do more than often in other threads as well.

That's a pretty idiotic definition of sectarian, it's certainly not the same definition that Marxists use. To us sectarianism means raising the needs and importance of your particular sect over the needs and importance of the class-struggle. In that respect there was nothing "sectarian" about what I said, except perhaps if you believe that left-communism is representative of class-struggle, which if you do is just hilarious.

Orwell was a vehement anti-communist, and someone who gave names to the state around the time he wrote 1984. I don't think there is anything to do here with my personal understanding of the term, he was as socialist as the Labor government in the UK he was trying to aid.

See above.

If your understanding of that incident only goes so far as a wikipedia article on it...I'm not even going to finish this sentence.

I'd say it is you who needs to learn some reading comprehension.

Nah, it's definitely you, after all, who's the left-communist here? :lol:

Though I didn't say one has to be stupid or underread to like 1984, I do stand by saying that someone who thinks 1984 is the best novel of the century hasn't read much of the artistic literature written in this century and is more into what is promoted by the (Western) mass media and/or education system.

That's cool, but when you said that you were giving your own personal opinion which is based on nothing but anecdotal "evidence" of no worth, which you presented below:

1984 being a much less promoted and thus much less popular book where I live (appreciated mostly by highly educated liberals) gives me some sort of base to compare and say how much it's worth when not massively promoted.

It is of course in the end a matter of personal taste.

If you had said this from the start there would have been no discussion to begin with.

I didn't have high expectations from you to begin with.

Good, I wouldn't want you to, that would be a bad sign.

Leo

6th January 2009, 19:47

Yeah, and you with your crystal ball know which one belongs in the former category and which one belongs in the latter

Meh it has to do with general culture / knowledge rather than a crystal ball.

that is; any books you like go in the former and any books you dislike in the latter.

This is not true. I for example was really bored by Stendhal, but would still consider it to be a classic, it is commonly accepted everywhere in the world as a classic. Orwell is mostly a Anglo-American celebrity and for the rest a Western European "classic", and all that because his work (and namely 1984 and Animal Farm) has been boosted for dozens of years.

I don't think even you know what the hell you're talking about, it's so absurd and nonsensical.

Ahahaha you really don't know what I was talking about :lol:

This was already replied to earlier in the thread by a post I quoted from Invader Zim:

Celia Kirwan whom Orwell knew, who had just started worked for the IRD, asked him who he thought would be unsuitable to be a writer for the IRD.

The IRD was funded by the Foreign Office. Zim is way too apologetic. In any case, here's the full story of how Orwell behaved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jun/21/books.artsandhumanities

George Orwell, venerated as "the wintry conscience of a generation", gave the British government a list of 38 suspected or actual communist sympathisers, the Guardian reveals today (..) The woman was Celia Kirwan, a friend of Orwell's who worked in 1949 for a secretly funded Foreign Office section, the information research department (IRD). She asked his help in countering waves of communist bloc propaganda in the intensifying cold war. Orwell, whose real name was Eric Blair, offered to compile from his notebooks a list of those "who should not be trusted as propagandists [for the west]" (..) When Kirwan died last autumn, her daughter, Ariane Bankes, found among her papers a carbon of the list which Orwell had finally sent her (...) Conclusive evidence appears to exist that the typescript is genuine. It has a Foreign Office document number (...) Its discovery proves Orwell, after conscientious second thoughts and deletions, did send the Foreign Office some names from his notebook drafts (...) It contains 38 names of journalists, scholars and actors who "in my opinion are crypto-communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way and should not be trusted as [anti-communist] propagandists".

That's a pretty idiotic definition of sectarian

Tell it to the people who prepared the dictionary.

it's certainly not the same definition that Marxists use.

There is no single definition of sectarianism used by all who say they are marxists.

To us sectarianism means raising the needs and importance of your particular sect over the needs and importance of the class-struggle.

That sounds more like party-patriotism rather than sectarianism to me. Something bad nevertheless, but different.

I'd say the marxist definition of sectarian is refusing to discuss or diverting/sabotaging a discussion with petty condemnations/insults.

Pawn Power

7th January 2009, 02:26

Zim, sometimes it seems that you purposefully misconstrue people's arguments so as to have an debate, because I don't think you are this nearsighted.

Sorry, but your position that the author's message is determined not by the author but by the reader, is a fundermentally post-structuralist stance. You remove the author, his intentions, and the enviroment in which he lived, from the picture. That is fundermentally the post-structuralist position Barthes outlined in his essay The Death of the Author. The position is also post-modernist because it rejects empirical interpretation of the text and insists that it is entirely relative to the reader, and quite clearly that is a ridiculous position.

An author creates the message. After that is widely and divergently interpreted, obviously. The creators message can be said to be corrupted, however, it is blatant that this happens. Of course, the author has their specific intentions and life history (which is important to understand, particularly for a historian such as yourself), however, it these things are not the sole determinants of where their message goes. It is ridiculous to not recognize this. This thread is a perfect example.

On the contrary he does because he penned the words from which any possible interpretation must be drawn, producing an objective factor to the question; and as a result if a reading contradicts what is objectively written in the text than that reading is erroneous. And quite clearly, if Animal farm is seen as a critique of socialism then the person presenting that thesis has manifestly misinterpreted the work. Au contraire, he evidently doesn't. We are, at this very moment, discussing the various interpretations of his work, as incorrect as they may be. Orwell is not God.

So, I will say what I said before: "What I am saying though is that he doesn't get to decide how it is then interpreted. It is no longer in his hands." This is true. Though he had constructed the meaning this piece of literature he can no longer decide how it is interpreted or misinterpreted.

That is an argumentum ad populum. Simply because a lot of people believe 'x' does not make 'x' true.
Of course. If you like then, this "misinterpretation" has become quite popular. The point stands though- Orwell is no longer in control. His words are, and have been, interpreted in a manner in which socialism is criticized, as bastardized these interpretations may be.

Invader Zim

7th January 2009, 15:31

The IRD was funded by the Foreign Office.

Actually the IRD was a department of the foreign office. But regardless what I said is absolutely true, and the Guardian article, while attempting to sensationalise the facts, doesn't contradict a single word I said.

Kerwan asked Orwell to consider who would be poor writers to recruit to the then fledgling organisation. Orwell was privy to no secret information about them, and as he himself stated, levelled only an opinion on their suitability for a role in producing anti-Soviet propaganda. To quote Ian Williams' article written in the Cambridge companion to Orwell,

"Orwell had provided a list to the British government of people that he thought the government's 'Information Research Department' should not employ."

Ian Williams, 'Orwell and the British Left', in John Rodden, Cambridge Companion to George Orwell (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 108-109.

Orwell's list was a matter of employment of writers and employment of writers alone. And as far as his politics go it doesn't prove he was either anti-communist or anti-socialist. Indeed it proves the exact opposite, it proves that Orwell was a part of the anti-authoritarian left. the same element of the far left that Stalin had been attempting to destroy in Spain.

And to prove that point, I suggest you investigate Orwell's letter to his friend George Woodcock and his organisation suggesting that they prepair for action against blacklisting.

The creators message can be said to be corrupted, however, it is blatant that this happens.

Indeed it is, and that is obviously what happened to Orwell's Animal Farm during the height of the cold war. Today very few literary critics would claim that Animal Farm is anti-socialist, because it is obviously isn't. It is anti-Stalinist and laments the betrayal of revolution.

So, I will say what I said before: "What I am saying though is that he doesn't get to decide how it is then interpreted. It is no longer in his hands." This is true.

Certainly people are capable of producing erronious readings of the work, but that is all they are.

If you like then, this "misinterpretation" has become quite popular.

Perhaps in the 1950s, but not anymore. To quote Morris Dickstein's essay on Animal Farm,

"...he [Orwell] defended the fundermental ideals of socialism from the misdeeds of those who claimed to speak in its name. This was the context for Animal Farm...[/i].

Morris Dickstein, 'Animal Farm: history as fable', in John Rodden, Cambridge Companion to George Orwell (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 133-134.

And that comes from an educational text book designed as a primer for students. It is not a historical monograph produced for academic consumption, but as an aid for education.

The BBC websites entry on Orwell states: -

"In 1945, Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was published. A political fable set in a farmyard but based on Stalin's betrayal of the Russian Revolution,"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/orwell_george.shtml

And i know for a fact that companions to Animal Farm aimed at school students describe Animal Farm as a book about the betrayal of revolution. Not as a book about the worthlessness of socialism; because that view of the work is manifestly false.