Orwell, 1984 and Animal Farm

[reviscom1]

Your thoughts, please.

[motion denied]

1984 is a cool book for a snitch. Animal Farm is weak.

Both are completely useless for political analysis.

[reviscom1]

1984 is a cool book for a snitch. .

I don't know what that means.

[Armchair Partisan]

What are your thoughts? Generally, I think a thread creator should present their own thoughts about the issue they want to discuss, or at least what they'd want to know specifically.

I liked 1984 - it's well-written, and does a good job at satirizing not just the Soviet Union, but - to a lesser degree - western imperialists as well (Goldstein's pamphlet on how the war between the three superstates works actually does a pretty decent job of describing imperialist wars in general, if I recall correctly - it's been a long while). I'm not so much a fan of Animal Farm.

Oh, and of course, there's the fact that Orwell too was a socialist - one who eventually become a spy for the British secret services. The former puts an interesting spin on the meaning of the novels that most pro-capitalists won't really understand. The latter means that Orwell was pretty despicable in the end... Overall, I think these two works have pretty good entertainment value but should be taken with a grain of salt as far as drawing political conclusions is concerned.

Edit: I see Motion Denied said pretty much the same thing in fewer words, haha.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

That's an incredibly vague and expansive question.

"Nineteen eighty-four", personally, changed my whole political epoch; I became distrusting of my government much more verily then I had been before, and I became weary of the heavy surveillance culture which was rapidly growing before my eyes. In substance the book is written very well, and I found it to be a thought provoking novel with memorable lines ("The dark eyes stared into Winston's own...", "He loved Big Brother", "Look at you... you're rotting away", etc.). It was obviously written to be a critique of Stalinism, but it transcends its original meaning to be a critique of totalitarianism in general.

"Animal Farm" is a little less impressive for me personally, but very concise. On the surface it appears to be nothing more than Trotskyist sympathy, yet it embodies so much more. I read it a long time ago and only once, so I don't feel I'm the best person to offer an opinion on it.

And Orwell himself? His writing style is generally consistently good, from "Homage To Catalonia" to "Down and out in Paris and London"; he displays a sort of sardonic yet at the same time willfully optimistic tone. He was there during the Spanish Civil War and his writings of it are shown in a positive light, despite the fact he spent most of his life as Democratic Socialist. I may not agree with his revolutionary cynicism, or some might say ignorance, but overall I have a positive view of him as a left-leaning intellectual who tried to change people's conceptions of socialist politics to a degree (away from Stalinism and if not closer to anarchism then at least a more libertarian line).

[ComradeAllende]

1984 was a great book. First read it as a first-year in high school, and then again as a third-year (when I'd become more familiar with radical left politics). Second time around was far more illuminating with the first; hell, I saw parallels between Goldstein's Oligarchical Collectivism and the Communist Manifesto.

Animal Farm was another great one; not what I expected, but still very relevant. I personally think Orwell was trying to expose the flaws in Lenin's revolutionary strategy (vanguard party, democratic centralism, etc.), which (combined with other extenuating circumstances) led to Maximilian's rise.

[Invader Zim]

As ever, with these threads -- precisely whom did Orwell, from his death bed in a sanitorium, spy on? And which 'intelligence agency' did he do this spy work for? There were three intelligence agencies in Britain, excluding military intelligence divisions. These were the Security Service (MI5), the special intelligence service (MI6) and the government communications headquarters (gchq). There were and are no other British intelligence agencies in 1949.

What Orwell actually did was suggest individuals whom were unlikely to either be trustworthy or receptive to work for a grey propaganda unit in the Foreign Office, called the Information Research Department. We can condemn this action by a dying, embittered, paranoid and highly worried man in the final months of his life. But this should be on its actual terms, not Stalinist rewriting of history to drag Orwell through the mud on trumped up charges of snitching and the still more ludicrous charge of espionage.

[Rudolf]

As ever, with these threads -- precisely whom did Orwell, from his death bed in a sanitorium, spy on? And which 'intelligence agency' did he do this spy work for? There were three intelligence agencies in Britain, excluding military intelligence divisions. These were the Security Service (MI5), the special intelligence service (MI6) and the government communications headquarters (gchq). There were and are no other British intelligence agencies in 1949.

What Orwell actually did was suggest individuals whom were unlikely to either be trustworthy or receptive to work for a grey propaganda unit in the Foreign Office, called the Information Research Department. We can condemn this action by a dying, embittered, paranoid and highly worried man in the final months of his life. But this should be on its actual terms, not Stalinist rewriting of history to drag Orwell through the mud on trumped up charges of snitching and the still more ludicrous charge of espionage.

Yeah i wouldn't call Orwell a snitch as such. I think the list is pretty telling of Orwell though especially with his remarks of for example Paul Robeson as being "very anti-white" or Stephen Spender for his "tendency towards homosexuality".

[Invader Zim]

Yeah i wouldn't call Orwell a snitch as such. I think the list is pretty telling of Orwell though especially with his remarks of for example Paul Robeson as being "very anti-white" or Stephen Spender for his "tendency towards homosexuality".

Yes, it tells us he lived in the 1940s and had a middle class upbringing. This is a school boy historical error, to judge historical behaviour by the standard of the present as opposed to the standard of the period and society. Note that Marx described Ferdinand Lassalle as a "jewish nigger". Also note that Orwell was actually remarkably progressive on the issue of race and sexuality by comparison not merely to wider society. Remember this was a period in which the CPUSA banned homosexuals and the Soviet Union reintroduced anti-homosexual legislation (actually more punatative than had existed under the Tsar -- go figure about Stalin.)

[Rudolf]

Yes, it tells us he lived in the 1940s and had a middle class upbringing. This is a school boy historical error, to judge historical behaviour by the standard of the present as opposed to the standard of the period and society. Note that Marx described Ferdinand Lassalle as a "jewish nigger". Also note that Orwell was actually remarkably progressive on the issue of race and sexuality by comparison not merely to wider society. Remember this was a period in which the CPUSA banned homosexuals and the Soviet Union reintroduced anti-homosexual legislation (actually more punatative than had existed under the Tsar -- go figure about Stalin.)

Nah, im gonna judge Orwell by one of his contemporaries who died 10 years before him, a wonderful woman with a worse education than him: Emma Goldman.

You see, i don't buy the argument. If all we do is judge people by the lowest common denominator of the time we're going to spend all our time being apologists for reactionary positions of those in the past and the present.

edit: and i want to emphasise the present here as the standard of the time and society right now is pretty fucking shit on loads of issues. But we don't give people a pass because of this do we?

[Invader Zim]

Nah, im gonna judge Orwell by one of his contemporaries who died 10 years before him, a wonderful woman with a worse education than him: Emma Goldman.

You see, i don't buy the argument. If all we do is judge people by the lowest common denominator of the time we're going to spend all our time being apologists for reactionary positions of those in the past and the present.

Fine, your opinion is your own, just don't expect it to be taken seriously. The thing that makes Goldman unique is the fact that he politics, on sexuality, were virtually unheard of even in anarchist circles. To adopt your logic would be to write off everyone in society except Goldberg. Actually scratch that, because her refusal to pass serious comment on race in the US south was, in effect, tantamount to tacit acceptance of it.

[reviscom1]

What are your thoughts? Generally, I think a thread creator should present their own thoughts about the issue they want to discuss, or at least what they'd want to know specifically.

.

Don't worry I'm not cramming for an essay (way too old for that). I didn't want to direct the discussion down a cul-de-sac, but I really was interested in whether y'all considered him to be a reactionary, anti-communist propagandist.

Animal Farm provided me with my first introduction to Communist history, when I asked my Dad what it was about and he told me about the struggle between Stalin and Trotsky (except he got the names wrong and used "Lenin" for "Stalin").

I think Animal Farm is too simplistic and broad brush. I'm not sure if it's meant to be making a point about totalitarianism. communism, Russia or just hypocrisy in general. I wouldn't say that "becoming just like the aristos that they replaced" was the primary problem with the Stalin Crew (although certainly A problem)

This is not Orwell's fault, but what chiefly winds me up about the book is the way its most famous quotes are bandied about unthinkingly by second-rate, unoriginal dullards, about situations that those quotes actually have no relation to. Then those people think they have been really clever.

The first time I read 1984, I had very little idea of its political dimension, and just saw it as a very gripping horror story. On subsequent readings I had more idea of the politics behind it, and it always left me feeling depressed and empty for a couple of days afterwards. Goldstein's essay in the Appendices is actually a very good beginner's guide to Marxist theory (I didn't bother with it on the first reading)

That said I think my impression on the first reading was the most accurate one. The book's principal value is as a study of evil, of the darkest human impulses and the danger humans present to each other. As a piece of political analysis, it doesn't really say anything.

Well, it's also very valuable for its input on linguistics, I suppose, although in the modern world linguistic sleight of hand tends to be used in place of repression rather than alongside it. And to be used by the right, not the left.

[Rudolf]

Fine, your opinion is your own, just don't expect it to be taken seriously. The thing that makes Goldman unique is the fact that he politics, on sexuality, were virtually unheard of even in anarchist circles.

lol Goldman wasn't unique in this regard. There were many american socialist theorists at the forefront on sexuality such as Berkman, Benjamin Tucker, Leonard Abbott to name a few others.

Would you like me to continue?

[Invader Zim]

lol Goldman wasn't unique in this regard. There were many american socialist theorists at the forefront on sexuality such as Berkman, Benjamin Tucker, Leonard Abbott to name a few others.

Would you like me to continue?

Leonard Abbott, free love provided women stay in the kitchen. Nice. And you obviously missed the word 'virtually', or do you think that four examples is somehow representative? And given that we are discussing a British individual, why are all your examples from a different culture 3,000 miles away. There is a horrible tendancy for US people to not look past the borders of their own country or consider that other cultures may be a little different, apparently you suffer this affliction and think that the rest of the world in the first half of the 20th century was the same as the US. But sure, continue to dig this parochial and anachronistic hole.

[Comrade #138672]

Nah, im gonna judge Orwell by one of his contemporaries who died 10 years before him, a wonderful woman with a worse education than him: Emma Goldman.

You see, i don't buy the argument. If all we do is judge people by the lowest common denominator of the time we're going to spend all our time being apologists for reactionary positions of those in the past and the present.

edit: and i want to emphasise the present here as the standard of the time and society right now is pretty fucking shit on loads of issues. But we don't give people a pass because of this do we?

Acknowledging dominant ideas in a certain age is not the same as "apologism" for those ideas. You can reject those ideas outright, while still appreciating the better work/ideas of people who lived in that time.

Even today we probably suffer from many bad ideas that are dominant in our time. Does this mean that we are bound to be reactionary? If so, then progress would be impossible. However, by looking at history, it becomes clear that progress is very possible. Sometimes progress even seems inevitable (let's not discuss the inevitability or non-inevitability of progress/revolution here, though).

[Rudolf]

Leonard Abbott, free love provided women stay in the kitchen. Nice. And you obviously missed the word 'virtually', or do you think that four examples is somehow representative? And given that we are discussing a British individual, why are all your examples from a different culture 3,000 miles away. There is a horrible tendancy for US people to not look past the borders of their own country or consider that other cultures may be a little different, apparently you suffer this affliction and think that the rest of the world in the first half of the 20th century was the same as the US. But sure, continue to dig this parochial and anachronistic hole.

and there were contemporaries of leonard abbott that thought otherwise. It's interesting you think i'm from the US. I've come across that assumption before but unlike here i wasn't talking about anything to do with the US. Im from the UK if you're wondering. The reason's because i fairly recently read a bit of A Queer History of the United States. I suppose i should have talked about W. T. Stead pointing out the hypocrisy of Oscar Wilde's imprisonment or something but it's beside the point.

I'm not making any claims about being representative of a given time and place. Im not fucking stupid, i know people have been sent to jail in the UK for being gay fairly recently, being heavily criticised for being gay and still are. The point was merely that it can't be said of everyone at the time despite its pervasiveness.

Acknowledging dominant ideas in a certain age is not the same as "apologism" for those ideas. You can reject those ideas outright, while still appreciating the better work/ideas of people who lived in that time.

Even today we probably suffer from many bad ideas that are dominant in our time. Does this mean that we are bound to be reactionary? If so, then progress would be impossible. However, by looking at history, it becomes clear that progress is very possible. Sometimes progress even seems inevitable (let's not discuss the inevitability or non-inevitability of progress/revolution here, though).

I think it's pretty clear i think we are not completely bound by the dominant ideas of our time, intellectual dissent is possible and i judge those who do not harshly. I don't think this is that ridiculous because here i am capable of doing the same

[Comrade #138672]

think it's pretty clear i think we are not completely bound by the dominant ideas of our time, intellectual dissent is possible and i judge those who do not harshly. I don't think this is that ridiculous because here i am capable of doing the same

No, we are not completely bound by the dominant ideas, but it should not come as a surprise that many of us are influenced by them (by the virtue of them being dominant). I do not pretend to be not influenced by them. Of course, that does not mean that I do not try to go beyond that, but I do realize that it may be the case that I am unable to recognize the dominant ideas in my own thinking.

There is a reason I have this signature for a long time. I do not plan to change it. At least not soon.

[Futility Personified]

After 1984 and Animal Farm, Homage to Catalonia is a really good choice to read. It gives you a perception of what life was like during the spanish civil war, and the mad denunciations and evil that followed once the factions had decided to pounce upon the weakest. Of course, it gives you a great deal of sympathy to trots, and there is no doubt that the situation was much more complicated than revised notes of a man with his own bias (who at least has the good grace to remind the reader that he is going to be biased) could give, but I found it gave hope and despair in equal measure, and made the former two books much more powerful.

[Invader Zim]

Actually, if you really want Orwell at his best, read his journalism and essays. He was probably the best English language essayist of his day.

[BIXX]

Lol, everyone in this thread who believes in progress.

I actually enjoy the books tbh. I don't read them politically really, cause I don't have any reason to. If I want politics I go to baedan or something. Not a book I'm just trying to enjoy.