A question to Marxist-Leninists about George Orwell

[Black_Rose]

How did the George Orwell affect you? Personally, after reading Animal Farm in high school, I really did not look critically into the Western portrayal of life in Marxist-Leninist (often called "communist") states. I always assumed that they were repressive and impoverished due to the affect Orwell had on me (and his "street cred" of being a leftist in the Spanish Civil War).

I managed to break this spell by looking into the life in the Eastern Bloc, particularly East Germany, and realized that it wasn't that bad. In fact, in many important ways, it is better than life in the West. I also learned how Western imperialism did not propagate freedom and democracy, but overthrew elected leaders, instigated military coups, and abetted barbaric treatment of revolutionaries.

In short, George Orwell, by being a renowned author, made me less critical of the life in socialist states by reinforcing the prevailing narrative about them. I must say that, even then, I was not that susceptible to conservative propaganda. The presentation of George Orwell is like an argument from authority.

(Move this to an appropriate forum if it does not belong here)

[Alan OldStudent]

......I managed to break this spell by looking into the life in the Eastern Bloc, particularly East Germany, and realized that it wasn't that bad. In fact, in many important ways, it is better than life in the West.

Of course, the black-and-white portrayals of the GDR were gross distortions. In what ways do you think that life was better than in the west?

[Black_Rose]

Of course, the black-and-white portrayals of the GDR were gross distortions. In what ways do you think that life was better than in the west?

There was no poverty, unemployment, or homelessness in East Germany. There was no destitution.

[Recuperation]

That hardly reads like a critical evaluation of life in East Germany though, if all that is true what could cause the inhabitants of such a utopia to turn against it? What exactly do you think you've really taken away from this experience, because it seems as if you've simply inverted everything you accuse Orwell of doing. Unemployment was effectively criminalized in the so-called communist states, so a lack of unemployment in this context would hardly be something to brag about. We might also ask why statistics which play such a predominant role in the ruling bourgeois ideology (poverty, unemployment, homelessness) would even have significance to those living under supposed class-rule. Replacing one piece of propaganda with another seems rather counter-productive, no?

Edit: I considered myself to be a Marxist-Leninist at the time I read it. I recall enjoying it although it was over a decade ago and I never felt the need to re-visit it. However I did also think that it was government produced garbage meant to brain-wash the people or whatever, which had besmirched the true glory of the USSR.

[TheIrrationalist]

i enjoyed 1984 very much. though i wasn't a marxist-leninist when i read it, but i remember it very well. i have not read animal farm.

i see him as a good author, but i don't see any relevant political lesson derived from his works. it should be noted that he was an anti-communist himself, and you can see how the right and the cia has effectively hijacked his work as anti-communist propaganda.

[Black_Rose]

That hardly reads like a critical evaluation of life in East Germany though, if all that is true what could cause the inhabitants of such a utopia to turn against it? What exactly do you think you've really taken away from this experience, because it seems as if you've simply inverted everything you accuse Orwell of doing. Unemployment was effectively criminalized in the so-called communist states, so a lack of unemployment in this context would hardly be something to brag about. We might also ask why statistics which play such a predominant role in the ruling bourgeois ideology (poverty, unemployment, homelessness) would even have significance to those living under supposed class-rule. Replacing one piece of propaganda with another seems rather counter-productive, no?

Unemployment isn't so convenient in the US either, especially in the "red states" (shame that I used the adjective "red" to describe them).

Yes, I didn't devote much of a critical analysis of East Germany, though. This article would help. The bottom line is that the perception life in "communist" countries has been influenced by propaganda, and life in those states, especially East Germany, was not as abject hellhole as commonly portrayed. This also seems to be a balanced and "critical" analysis of the experience of the GDR's citizens.

Statistics and arbitrary definitions matter (such as the definition of "poverty"). What other means does one have to represent the knowledge of societal conditions that have been ascertained empirically? I am an empiricist. It is pathetic to call an empirical approach "bourgeois". Purely theoretical approaches, with reference to any observations or relevant human experiences, would degenerate into idealism about some intangible "communism" that could not implemented due to its supposed incompatibility with "human nature".

For instance, this source says that homelessness is non-existent in East Germany. Certainly that isn't a trivial accomplishment of the GDR.

I guess my point is that exposure to Animal Farm would bias one's perception of socialist states, and lead one to ignore their significant accomplishments. I wanted to explore how reading the book may have acting as an impediment to embracing the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism. Of course, a major part of Marxism, in general, is attaining proper class consciousness, and it is certainly germane to inquire how a popular book such as Animal Farm may have affected that.

[Heretek]

Calling Orwell an anti communist is a little much. He's an anti Stalinist, if anything like that. At first I hated animal farm, but I've come to realize the criticisms were directed specifically against the USSR, not the left in general, like 1984. But seeing as how I don't call the USSR communist, and stalinists totalitarian, I suppose I would see it like that and MLs would see him as a western puppet

[Exterminatus]

Overrated writer and politically useless to Marxists. I mean who can take seriously novels like Animal Farm while upholding materialist method?

[Heretek]

Overrated writer and politically useless to Marxists. I mean who can take seriously novels like Animal Farm while upholding materialist method?

Anyone but Marxist Leninists apparently. Not that it was a serious novel, it was a satire of the USSR and criticism of the totalitarian nature there-in.

[Exterminatus]

Anyone but Marxist Leninists apparently. Not that it was a serious novel, it was a satire of the USSR and criticism of the totalitarian nature there-in.

I'm not a ML and you're proving my point by invoking such a stupid concept as totalitarianism. There's literally nothing of value in his writings for us.

[The Idler]

Animal Farm by George Orwell was a satire of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was repressive and impoverished to varying degrees. So concerned were they by Animal Farm that it was banned there, a measure not largely taken elsewhere.

Completed in 1943, Orwell found that no publisher would print the book, due to its criticism of the USSR, an important ally of Britain in the War. Once published, the book was banned in the USSR and other communist countries.

Animal Farm was not a defence of the West, or holding the West up as paragons of virtue. It wasn't arguing the West held up democracy and propagated freedom, a fact Orwell knew quite well from his involvement in the Spanish Civil War. I would suggest you take a look at Homage to Catalonia to understand further. Poverty, unemployment and homelessness may well have been at a lower level in East Germany than in the West but this isn't a good reason to dismiss Orwell. Quite how you can argue Orwell represents an argument from authority but what two men thought, said and did, Marx and Lenin isn't an argument from authority but a science, I don't know. This matter is not a binary thing, where the choice is between Orwell and the Soviet Union, you can be more nuanced in your analysis.

[TheIrrationalist]

Calling Orwell an anti communist is a little much. He's an anti Stalinist, if anything like that. At first I hated animal farm, but I've come to realize the criticisms were directed specifically against the USSR, not the left in general, like 1984. But seeing as how I don't call the USSR communist, and stalinists totalitarian, I suppose I would see it like that and MLs would see him as a western puppet

he loved communism so much that before his death he was compiling a list of british communists for the british imperialist 'information research department', which disseminated anti-communist propaganda. if that isn't anti-communist i don't know what is.

[Heretek]

I'm not a ML and you're proving my point by invoking such a stupid concept as totalitarianism. There's literally nothing of value in his writings for us.

I assume you will not object that I dissent your right to speak or the ability to determine your course in life then.

he loved communism so much that before his death he was compiling a list of british communists for the british imperialist 'information research department', which disseminated anti-communist propaganda. if that isn't anti-communist i don't know what is.

Fascists and Stalinists. You should realize almost every major communist party was a puppet organ for the soviet state. He saw the way soviets distorted communism and maintained control of the populace as more harmful to the left than the British state, ostensibly just liberals. I can't say I'd do what he did, (if he did it at all, considering western propaganda about prominent leftists, usually postmortem) but condemning the British communist party doesn't mean he's against the left

[Black_Rose]

Fascists and Stalinists. You should realize almost every major communist party was a puppet organ for the soviet state. He saw the way soviets distorted communism and maintained control of the populace as more harmful to the left than the British state, ostensibly just liberals. I can't say I'd do what he did, (if he did it at all, considering western propaganda about prominent leftists, usually postmortem) but condemning the British communist party doesn't mean he's against the left

You should realize that there were many divisions among global communist parties, such as the Sino-Soviet split and Sino-Albanian split.

George Orwell was an anti-communist for his contributions to the "Information Research Department"; he collaborated with the forces of imperialism. You may be indifferent to Soviet state and capitalist imperialism.

[TheIrrationalist]

You should realize almost every major communist party was a puppet organ for the soviet state. He saw the way soviets distorted communism and maintained control of the populace as more harmful to the left than the British state, ostensibly just liberals. I can't say I'd do what he did, (if he did it at all, considering western propaganda about prominent leftists, usually postmortem) but condemning the British communist party doesn't mean he's against the left

that is something i cannot understand. you are basically apologizing for an agent of imperialism. i really cannot see how british imperialism is more favourable to the soviet union, which throughout its existence supported those very communist and anti-imperialist movements that the british government was fighting against. keep in mind that the IRD also used orwell's animal farm in its propaganda work in the third world (which of course isn't directly related to the person, but speaks volumes about his legacy and involvement).

what kind of a communist would work for the same unit as robert conquest anyway??

[Heretek]

You should realize that there were many divisions among global communist parties, such as the Sino-Soviet split and Sino-Albanian split.

George Orwell was an anti-communist for his contributions to the "Information Research Department"; he collaborated with the forces of imperialism. You may be indifferent to Soviet state and capitalist imperialism.

All of those you mention are derivatives of the original communist part of the soviet union, and splits began less for ideological reasons than ways to get their own sphere of influence established. They're called things like Marxist-Leninist-Maoists or Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Haoxist and Marxists-Leninists-Maoists-Guevarrists for a reason. They wanted to distinguish themselves while still clinging to the older ideologies pedigree. Obviously didn't work out, seeing as how China is state capitalist like the USSR and north Korea is umder , of all the ridiculous 'leftist' ideas, juche.

During the cold war, it was between two imperial powers, the US and the USSR. Soviet imperialism or Democratic imperialism. Neither side was 'better' than any other. Collaborating against the USSR doesn't make anyone an anti-communist. It makes them an opponent of the soviet union, and perhaps the fact they crushed almost all other leftist currents in the era.

To put it terms an ML might understand, Stalin went to a parochial school and was therefore schooled in religion. So he collaborated with the literal opiate makers, yet still ended up fighting with the Bolsheviks. And in the mid Soviet era, religious restrictions were lessened. Does that mean they were all anti-communists and imperialist collaborators? To me yes, for multiple reasons, to you, not likely.

[Heretek]

that is something i cannot understand. you are basically apologizing for an agent of imperialism. i really cannot see how british imperialism is more favourable to the soviet union, which throughout its existence supported those very communist and anti-imperialist movements that the british government was fighting against. keep in mind that the IRD also used orwell's animal farm in its propaganda work in the third world (which of course isn't directly related to the person, but speaks volumes about his legacy and involvement).

what kind of a communist would work for the same unit as robert conquest anyway??

The soviets supported foreign Bolshevik parties that would assist them in asserting hegemony. You apologize for imperialism by calling it communism. Soviet, or 'socialist,' imperialism, specifically.

One cannot be judged by how their work is used, not so easily. The author of Leviathan (forget his name) was a raging opponent of liberalism and democracy yet Leviathan was used in arguments against the old order.

What kind of communist assassinates other communists?

[TheIrrationalist]

The soviets supported foreign Bolshevik parties that would assist them in asserting hegemony. You apologize for imperialism by calling it communism. Soviet, or 'socialist,' imperialism, specifically.

One cannot be judged by how their work is used, not so easily. The author of Leviathan (forget his name) was a raging opponent of liberalism and democracy yet Leviathan was used in arguments against the old order.

are you seriously comparing soviet support for communist movements and soviet aligned regimes with western imperialism? how did soviet union assert its hegemony over burkina faso during sankara's time or over ghana during nkrumah's reign?? how did soviets exploit say vietnam or cuba?

as i stated, i agree that "One cannot be judged by how their work is used". but it is pretty damning when a supposedly left-wing figure's work is used for propaganda purposes by the most violent and aggressive imperialist regimes, and the same figure was associated with the very same agencies that spread his work as propaganda.

[Black_Rose]

are you seriously comparing soviet support for communist movements and soviet aligned regimes with western imperialism? how did soviet union assert its hegemony over burkina faso during sankara's time or over ghana during nkrumah's reign?? how did soviets exploit say vietnam or cuba?

as i stated, i agree that "One cannot be judged by how their work is used". but it is pretty damning when a supposedly left-wing figure's work is used for propaganda purposes by the most violent and aggressive imperialist regimes, and the same figure was associated with the very same agencies that spread his work as propaganda.

You're right, Animal Farm is used as propaganda. It isn't material that is proffered in order to encourage one to even think critically about a given issue. The book reflects the establishment's opinion on communism, and more specifically Marxism-Leninism. One's obvious conclusion from reading the book is that communism some impractical utopian ideal (as this probably a charitable explanation of communism since the author has some revolutionary credibility for fighting in Spanish Civil War). Or one could say that communism is fundamentally a malevolent idea. Either way, the implication is that whatever communism's accomplishments (such as building the windmills), it is outweighed by its supposed repressiveness and corruption.

As for many of the Eastern Bloc states, what is the best way to assess the merits of those states is to rely on the experience of others, since statistics could be manipulated or misrepresented . If Western propaganda was correct, people would univocally condemn and detest living in states such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia after being able to compare and contrast their experiences living under the West. This cannot entirely be explained by nostalgia, because the common portrayal of life under socialism was that of penury and repression. If it were completely repressive (as opposed to making people hesitate from saying unflattering things about socialism and positive about the West due to fears of being attracting attention of state security), then understandably all people would hate it. Obviously, regardless of the repression, the state allowed means of self-expression and community, in addition to providing material security that would remove some of the apprehension of securing resources for one's livelihood. The state allowed many aspects of the "human spirit" to flourish.

There would be dissidents and those who were imprisoned for trying to leave unauthorized. Their experiences would likely be negative. Needless to say, those imprisoned in the United States would likely refer to the United States as "Amerikkka".

[TheIrrationalist]

As for many of the Eastern Bloc states, what is the best way to assess the merits of those states is to rely on the experience of others, since statistics could be manipulated or misrepresented . If Western propaganda was correct, people would univocally condemn and detest living in states such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia after being able to compare and contrast their experiences living under the West. This cannot entirely be explained by nostalgia, because the common portrayal of life under socialism was that of penury and repression. If it were completely repressive (as opposed to making people hesitate from saying unflattering things about socialism and positive about the West due to fears of being attracting attention of state security), then understandably all people would hate it. Obviously, regardless of the repression, the state allowed means of self-expression and community, in addition to providing material security that would remove some of the apprehension of securing resources for one's livelihood. The state allowed many aspects of the "human spirit" to flourish..

in my opinion the greatest merit that can be attributed to the old eastern bloc was their support for national liberation and communist movements in the third world, internationalism in other words. there certainly was many problems inside the eastern bloc, and many mistakes were made that eventually played to the hands of the west. for example the berlin wall. but it should be noted that soviet union existed practically for whole of its time in a state of siege, which in my opinion made soviet bloc countries overreact to perceived internal threat (not to say similar repression didn't happen in the west). but then again soviet union stood on internationalist principles and gave huge support to other nations' struggles. whereas the 'free' west supported most vicious reaction, racism and imperialism, and many times successfully helped to thwart any progressive movements in the third world.

it is also interesting how the most vocal anti-soviets are usually persons with the most despicable views. like solzhenitsyn, a literal fascist. most common people were not brutally repressed like western propaganda likes to make it seem, and this view is supported by many people who lived in these countries as you state. it is an ideological war mostly, not one based on facts and history.