5 ms·

"In Homage, Orwell said he felt that if the revolution had been allowed to continue, Republican Spain could have won the war. But by five years later, he took a

"In Homage, Orwell said he felt that if the revolution had been allowed to continue, Republican Spain could have won the war. But by five years later, he took a different view, writing in an essay that “the outcome of the Spanish War was settled in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin.” ... All too few writers about contentious political issues are willing to go public when they change their opinion." It seems that the author is missing something crucial. Orwell was consistent in his later remarks. The resources marshaled to suppress the revolution were controlled and financed by the world powers he mentioned later. Destroying the Anarchist revolution took the combined might of the most powerful forces in the world and clearly demonstrates their justified fear of a collective society.

jhbadger 11y ago
You can interpret it that way, but Orwell really did become more cynical as to the feasibility and even desirability of revolutions as time went on. INGSOC was Newspeak for "English Socialism" after all.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  > INGSOC was Newspeak for "English Socialism" after all. To me that's just analogous to the Nazis, who were neither nationalist nor socialist, or the GDR, which wasn't exactly democratic, not to mention that it's in line with titles like "Ministry of Love". It would have been kinda silly to have INGSOC call itself "thugs driven by sadomasochism" or anything else "honest": of course they have a nice name and a handshake as a symbol, while they do the exact opposite. I don't know what Orwell thought of socialism so I'm not saying you're wrong, but that bit by itself is not a very good argument.
  - mrob 11y ago
    For a detailed look at Orwell's views on socialism, read his non-fiction work "The Road to Wigan Pier". It's split into two parts: first an investigation into the living conditions of poor English people; second an examination of socialism, both arguing for its necessity and acknowledging the practical difficulties it faces.
    - markvdb 11y ago
      His first work, "Down and out in Paris and London" was also really interesting in that respect, and highly biographical. http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London/index.html http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_Londo...
    - jhbadger 11y ago
      Wigan Pier was a fairly early work but notice even then how in much of it Orwell is complaining about what he considered "cranks" in the socialist movement. He didn't like vegetarians and was even offended that a socialist convention offered a vegetarian option! He didn't like free-love enthusiasts. He didn't even like people who drank orange juice rather than tea or beer! (OJ I guess was seen as a "health food" back then rather than a normal beverage)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Orwell was generally in favour of a practical, redistributive socialism, and strongly against Communism, especially after getting betrayed by them in Spain. This is a common problem since about the 1930s, that Communist parties were big on loyalty and short on critical thinking, tending to support Stalinism and downplay or disbelieve its totalitarianism. I second the recommendation to read The Road To Wigan Pier.
    - cmrdporcupine 11y ago
      He was against Stalinism. But he fought in a Trotskyist militia. With criticisms, yes. But he took up arms with communists. Which is why I always find it quite amusing when libertarians and conservatives use Animal Farm and 1984 as support in their arguments. Orwell would break no bread with them; he was a socialist of a revolutionary bent.
      - pessimizer 11y ago
        > But he fought in a Trotskyist militia. With criticisms, yes. But he took up arms with communists. That's why he was against Communism. His experience with the Communists and with being a Communist.
        cmrdporcupine 11y ago
        Citation needed.
        vidarh 11y ago
        He was against Stalinism and the views of the British Communist Party (which were Stalinists). But he as late as 1946 pronounced himself a supporter of democratic socialism (in "Why I Write"), which can mean anything from the left wing of social democracy to left communists. In other writings he demonstrated a lot of Trotskyist influences. E.g. a lot of the criticism of Stalinism in Animal Farm is heavily incfluenced by Trotskyism.
        cmrdporcupine 11y ago
  - gjm11 11y ago
    I agree that the Nazis weren't socialist in any useful sense ... but how were they not nationalist?
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      Yeah. "Ein Volk, Ein Riech, Ein Fuhrer." It's certainly collectivist no matter which color socialist it may or may not be. If anything, it's a socialism of blood, both in heritage and in the sense of sacrifice of blood (of the individual) for blood ( in the sense of Ein Volk) .
  - jhbadger 11y ago
    My point is that Orwell at that time in his life was suggesting that no matter how good the intentions of revolutionaries, oppressive regimes would be the end result. Yes, as others have mentioned he remained vaguely dedicated to "democratic socialism" but that presumably wouldn't involve any revolution, just voting in a democratic fashion.
mercurial 11y ago
> Destroying the Anarchist revolution took the combined might of the most powerful forces in the world and clearly demonstrates their justified fear of a collective society. The anarchist movement was only one component of the Republican front. They were not crushed by the fascist side, they were brought down by the rest of the Republicans, under the influence of the Communists (who were almost as busy hunting any movement they considered rivals, such as the marxist-but-not-Stalinist POUM, as they were fighting fascists). The anarchist social experiment in Catalonia was something unique. The Stalin-backed Spanish communist party's line was to not antagonize the middle class (they were, obviously, to be taken care of later), and of course, the other members of the coalition, being closer to the center, were seeing the anarchists with a dim view. Another factor was the mistaken hope that the French and the British would drop the farcical "non-intervention" policy (which meant "don't do anything and pretend that Germany, Italy and the USSR are violating"), which prevented Republican Spain from bringing in weapons from France. Unfortunately for them, the British had made clear that they would not support the French in case of conflict with Germany if they started supporting the Republicans, and a mixture of fear of igniting another world war, fear of revolutionaries and sympathy for the fascists (in particular in the Royal Navy), as well as diplomatic efforts by the Nazi, ensured they would not change their mind.
- dtornabene 11y ago
  But it was far and away the largest component. Also, they were brought down by both sides. It took the combination of treachery and fascist counter-revolution to bring it down. My own studies of it have been fairly superficial, and began with Homage, but the even itself is far from understood I believe, even by scholarship.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    Like all wars, it's fairly complicated. > But it was far and away the largest component. I don't know if that's true. If we're talking number of troops, I don't think so. The bulk would be the loyalist part of the army and the Guardia Civil/Guardia Asalto. Then you had a number of political militias which would eventually be integrated into the regular army. In parallel, communists would introduce the political commissar system to enforce ideological "correctness" within the army, thus giving rise to entirely Communist regiments, based on the prototype of the 5th regiment (originally a communist-affiliated unit, later on integrated in the regular army as an elite corps).
KaiserPro 11y ago
You should read the book, it explains pretty clearly the problems as he saw it, in his part of spain. In fighting, incompetence and dis-unity, presented with a well trained and cohesive enemy meant that it all fell apart.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  That's not at all the impression I got from the book. What I got from the book is that the battle against Franco was taken up by good people doing their best, and were undermined by the Communists and ignored by the western powers until they were destroyed by the Fascists.
  - KaiserPro 11y ago
    The entire anti-facist movement (communist, anarchist, socialist and unionist) were ignored by france and great britian. They basically wanted a nice simple government to "do buisness" with. A democratic/$other government wouldn't be easy to trade with (i.e. buy train systems.)
  - vidarh 11y ago
    They were undermined by the Stalinists. There were communists fighting in Spain who were just as much under fire (as in, actually getting murdered) by Stalinist agents as the anarchists were.
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      It's worth going to "Why Orwell Matters" for much emphasis on this insight. It was written by a (then ex-)Trot, Christopher Hitchens. It'll sound like Rand, which is isn't really meant to, but the issue is and will always be individualism v. collectivism.

jhbadger 11y ago

You can interpret it that way, but Orwell really did become more cynical as to the feasibility and even desirability of revolutions as time went on. INGSOC was Newspeak for "English Socialism" after all.

PavlovsCat 11y ago
> INGSOC was Newspeak for "English Socialism" after all. To me that's just analogous to the Nazis, who were neither nationalist nor socialist, or the GDR, which wasn't exactly democratic, not to mention that it's in line with titles like "Ministry of Love". It would have been kinda silly to have INGSOC call itself "thugs driven by sadomasochism" or anything else "honest": of course they have a nice name and a handshake as a symbol, while they do the exact opposite. I don't know what Orwell thought of socialism so I'm not saying you're wrong, but that bit by itself is not a very good argument.
- mrob 11y ago
  For a detailed look at Orwell's views on socialism, read his non-fiction work "The Road to Wigan Pier". It's split into two parts: first an investigation into the living conditions of poor English people; second an examination of socialism, both arguing for its necessity and acknowledging the practical difficulties it faces.
  - markvdb 11y ago
    His first work, "Down and out in Paris and London" was also really interesting in that respect, and highly biographical. http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London/index.html http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_Londo...
  - jhbadger 11y ago
    Wigan Pier was a fairly early work but notice even then how in much of it Orwell is complaining about what he considered "cranks" in the socialist movement. He didn't like vegetarians and was even offended that a socialist convention offered a vegetarian option! He didn't like free-love enthusiasts. He didn't even like people who drank orange juice rather than tea or beer! (OJ I guess was seen as a "health food" back then rather than a normal beverage)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 11y ago
  Orwell was generally in favour of a practical, redistributive socialism, and strongly against Communism, especially after getting betrayed by them in Spain. This is a common problem since about the 1930s, that Communist parties were big on loyalty and short on critical thinking, tending to support Stalinism and downplay or disbelieve its totalitarianism. I second the recommendation to read The Road To Wigan Pier.
  - cmrdporcupine 11y ago
    He was against Stalinism. But he fought in a Trotskyist militia. With criticisms, yes. But he took up arms with communists. Which is why I always find it quite amusing when libertarians and conservatives use Animal Farm and 1984 as support in their arguments. Orwell would break no bread with them; he was a socialist of a revolutionary bent.
    - pessimizer 11y ago
      > But he fought in a Trotskyist militia. With criticisms, yes. But he took up arms with communists. That's why he was against Communism. His experience with the Communists and with being a Communist.
      - cmrdporcupine 11y ago
        Citation needed.
      - vidarh 11y ago
        He was against Stalinism and the views of the British Communist Party (which were Stalinists). But he as late as 1946 pronounced himself a supporter of democratic socialism (in "Why I Write"), which can mean anything from the left wing of social democracy to left communists. In other writings he demonstrated a lot of Trotskyist influences. E.g. a lot of the criticism of Stalinism in Animal Farm is heavily incfluenced by Trotskyism.
        cmrdporcupine 11y ago
- gjm11 11y ago
  I agree that the Nazis weren't socialist in any useful sense ... but how were they not nationalist?
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    Yeah. "Ein Volk, Ein Riech, Ein Fuhrer." It's certainly collectivist no matter which color socialist it may or may not be. If anything, it's a socialism of blood, both in heritage and in the sense of sacrifice of blood (of the individual) for blood ( in the sense of Ein Volk) .
- jhbadger 11y ago
  My point is that Orwell at that time in his life was suggesting that no matter how good the intentions of revolutionaries, oppressive regimes would be the end result. Yes, as others have mentioned he remained vaguely dedicated to "democratic socialism" but that presumably wouldn't involve any revolution, just voting in a democratic fashion.

mercurial 11y ago

> Destroying the Anarchist revolution took the combined might of the most powerful forces in the world and clearly demonstrates their justified fear of a collective society. The anarchist movement was only one component of the Republican front. They were not crushed by the fascist side, they were brought down by the rest of the Republicans, under the influence of the Communists (who were almost as busy hunting any movement they considered rivals, such as the marxist-but-not-Stalinist POUM, as they were fighting fascists). The anarchist social experiment in Catalonia was something unique. The Stalin-backed Spanish communist party's line was to not antagonize the middle class (they were, obviously, to be taken care of later), and of course, the other members of the coalition, being closer to the center, were seeing the anarchists with a dim view. Another factor was the mistaken hope that the French and the British would drop the farcical "non-intervention" policy (which meant "don't do anything and pretend that Germany, Italy and the USSR are violating"), which prevented Republican Spain from bringing in weapons from France. Unfortunately for them, the British had made clear that they would not support the French in case of conflict with Germany if they started supporting the Republicans, and a mixture of fear of igniting another world war, fear of revolutionaries and sympathy for the fascists (in particular in the Royal Navy), as well as diplomatic efforts by the Nazi, ensured they would not change their mind.

dtornabene 11y ago
But it was far and away the largest component. Also, they were brought down by both sides. It took the combination of treachery and fascist counter-revolution to bring it down. My own studies of it have been fairly superficial, and began with Homage, but the even itself is far from understood I believe, even by scholarship.
- mercurial 11y ago
  Like all wars, it's fairly complicated. > But it was far and away the largest component. I don't know if that's true. If we're talking number of troops, I don't think so. The bulk would be the loyalist part of the army and the Guardia Civil/Guardia Asalto. Then you had a number of political militias which would eventually be integrated into the regular army. In parallel, communists would introduce the political commissar system to enforce ideological "correctness" within the army, thus giving rise to entirely Communist regiments, based on the prototype of the 5th regiment (originally a communist-affiliated unit, later on integrated in the regular army as an elite corps).

KaiserPro 11y ago

You should read the book, it explains pretty clearly the problems as he saw it, in his part of spain. In fighting, incompetence and dis-unity, presented with a well trained and cohesive enemy meant that it all fell apart.

pessimizer 11y ago
That's not at all the impression I got from the book. What I got from the book is that the battle against Franco was taken up by good people doing their best, and were undermined by the Communists and ignored by the western powers until they were destroyed by the Fascists.
- KaiserPro 11y ago
  The entire anti-facist movement (communist, anarchist, socialist and unionist) were ignored by france and great britian. They basically wanted a nice simple government to "do buisness" with. A democratic/$other government wouldn't be easy to trade with (i.e. buy train systems.)
- vidarh 11y ago
  They were undermined by the Stalinists. There were communists fighting in Spain who were just as much under fire (as in, actually getting murdered) by Stalinist agents as the anarchists were.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    It's worth going to "Why Orwell Matters" for much emphasis on this insight. It was written by a (then ex-)Trot, Christopher Hitchens. It'll sound like Rand, which is isn't really meant to, but the issue is and will always be individualism v. collectivism.