5 ms·

Orwell was a leftist, but also opposed totalitarian societies. "1984" was a dystopia to expose such totalitarian societies. Unfortunately, much of what he descr

by Rochus 5y ago

Orwell was a leftist, but also opposed totalitarian societies. "1984" was a dystopia to expose such totalitarian societies. Unfortunately, much of what he described as a horror scenario in "1984" is already reality today, without people being bothered by it anymore.

anonymousiam 5y ago
How do you define 'leftist'? Orwell also wrote Animal Farm, which is critical of communism.
- detaro 5y ago
  How would you define "leftist" in a way that doesn't contain Orwell? Animal Farm fits very well into > opposed totalitarian societies
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    One of the ways in which modern Western newspeak works is the relentless conflation of "socialism", "communism", and "totalitarianism". Their current project, as far as I can tell, is to fold everything left of blue-dog Democrat into the definition.
- input_sh 5y ago
  If only we had a record of him stating what he's advocating for... Let's see, perhaps an essay titled Why I Write[0] could give us some hints: > Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. That encompasses both Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949). [0] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/why-i-write/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
- quartesixte 5y ago
  Orwell was definitely left/labour leaning in his later years and supported democratic socialism. As a younger man he was very much a Marxist revolutionary, but getting shot through the jaws in Spain and then subsequently witnessing the totalitarianism of Stalin quickly changed his mind. Animal Farm is a criticism of Stalinism in particular.
- spijdar 5y ago
  Orwell disliked Communism with a capital C, probably influenced by his participation in the Spanish civil war fighting alongside the Soviet Russians, but his allegiance was clearly to very leftist socialist causes, leaning towards the anarchist side of leftism. He was also a pretty intelligent guy, and didn't blindly subscribe to partisan politics. More than anything, he disliked authoritarianism.
- Gimpei 5y ago
  I think Animal Farm provides a nice answer to that. In my reading of the text, the problem was not necessarily with the revolution, it was the fact that the revolution was perverted and in the end the pigs (communist cadre) simply replaced the bourgeoisie (farmers) preserving the system. Orwell was a socialist, believing in large scale redistribution, government involvement in the economy, etc. He just thought this be done in a democratic fashion and actually benefit the working classes. He looked at the Soviet Union and saw it as a totalitarian nightmare that didn't live up to its ideals.
  - anonymousiam 5y ago
    I seem to be burning my Karma on this thread, but what the heck. One more question for the group. Can anyone name a communist country that did not devolve into (or begin as) a dictatorship? In the history of the world, has there ever been a truly communist government? I believe the answer is no, and that none will ever emerge because of human nature.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      There was never a truly communist government anywhere, even if you ask the communists themselves. Don't forget: per Marx, communism was supposed to be the final stage, to be achieved after a period of socialism. USSR was thus the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", not "Communist Republics" (although in Soviet sci-fi, USCR would sometimes pop up in the future). If you rephrase the question as whether there's any socialist country that's not a dictatorship, the answer depends on your definition of "country". For example, Rojava is not internationally recognized as such, nor do they claim to be one, but they're a de facto independent polity that leans heavily socialist. For another example, the Zapatistas. If we look at history, there was never a shortage of revolutionary democratic socialists. The problem is that back when socialist revolutions became viable, socialism as a political ideology was generally violently suppressed in all its forms, and only the most ruthless, authoritarian strains could not only take power, but hold it long enough. Bolsheviks in Russia are the archetypal example, and it's worth noting that the first thing they did after the revolution was disbanding the Constituent Assembly, as soon as they found out that they don't have the majority in it (it was held by other socialist parties, most of them democratic). For comparison, consider the Luxembourgists in Germany, and how their revolution fared. The other problem is that there's a positive feedback loop there. Once Bolsheviks won in one country, they would sponsor socialist revolutionary movements in other countries - but any such aid would come with ideological strings attached. E.g. in Germany, the communist party was the one receiving funds from the Soviets, and the democratic socialists were labelled "social fascists"; and in Spain, Soviets even physically purged ideologically disagreeable people from the Republican ranks (Orwell has seen his share of that close up). Needless to say, well-funded movements are the ones that usually win, and so Soviet dominance ensured that authoritarian socialists would usually be the ones running the show everywhere else.
- krapp 5y ago
  Orwell was a socialist, and he supported democratic socialism, but he vehemently opposed (and wrote Animal Farm as a mocking satire of) totalitarian Soviet communism[0], which he didn't consider to be socialist at all. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Politics
  - anonymousiam 5y ago
    Okay, so now we're getting somewhere. He was a socialist, but not a leftist. So were the NAZIs right wing or left wing?
    - krapp 5y ago
      He was a socialist and a leftist but not a communist. Not all leftists or socialists are communists, not all communists are Leninists or Stalinists. >So were the NAZIs right wing or left wing? Right-wing. The only reason anyone claims otherwise is that "socialist" is in their name, but National Socialism isn't socialism any more than North Korea is a Democratic Republic, and the proof is otherwise in the pudding as far as Nazi politics and ideals are concerned.
      - InTheArena 5y ago
        This is a gross simplification, and not really accurate. The nazi party grew from both left and right leaning aspects. (Booth anti-communist and anti-capitalist) Many of the aspects of nazi ideology where socialist in nature - for example, the building projects, the “strength through joy” institutions, and much of their early party doctrine. The Strassers and Goebbels in particular were deeply aligned to the socialist portion of the doctrine, suggesting tie-ups with communism at different points. This combination of socialist plus nationalist was responsible a lot of the parties early ideological success. As time went on the party increasingly shifted more to the “nationalist” then the “socialist” - culminating in the night of the long knives where most of the “socialist” camp (Gregor Strasser in particular) were purged, and Goebbels appears to have given up on his socialist tendencies. The Nazis obviously where not communists - but the ideology is much more similar than not in some key ways. Instead of Marx’s race war, the Nazis instead believed in Racial War. Of course, the only reason this really comes up is because people want to tar and feather political opponents as being fascist, socialist, or communists. The best way to break down all of these movements is simply Authoritarian or Totalitarian or not. If socialism is the thought that the means of production and organization of society should belong to society, Totalitarianism is simply that the state is the society, and thus the means of production and th organization of society belongs to the state. So where the Marxists would call for a class war to violently overthrow the evil capitalists in a all-composing global struggle for communism, the Nazis called for a a “blood and soil” war to eliminate the enemies of the people - with everything subjugated to that violence. Both were totalitarian in their nature.
- nonfamous 5y ago
  The fact that “leftist” is today invoked in relation to communism is an excellent example of Newspeak deployed in the actual world.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Rochus 5y ago
  Looks like you got a lot of answers already; if you're interested, there are good biographies; also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell is quite good.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  Arthur Blair spent time in fighting in Spain, as detailed in Homage to Catalonia. His views are on the politics of both sides are quite well covered there, and he left Spain pretty jaded. It also has an account of trench warfare which is completely terrifying.
- PhasmaFelis 5y ago
  I'm concerned that you seem to think one can't be a leftist without supporting Stalinism.
gotoeleven 5y ago
Perfectly reasonable comments like the grandparent being flagged and killed so quickly... looks like the ministry of truth is staying busy. EDIT: I guarantee you everyone working at the ministry of truth thought they were the good guys, too.
- Rochus 5y ago
  Yes, it almost looks like society values censorship more than free speech these days.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    I don’t think you can accurately call the downvoted comments which are still visible and being debated, ‘censored’.
    - Rochus 5y ago
      We're talking about the flagged one which is no longer visible; the trend to remove comments or even accounts is even increasing with the large providers. I responded to the flagged comment before it was flagged, and I didn't see a reason for flagging it. But you can already tell from the downvotes what values certain people here represent; obviously not exactly liberal. EDIT: as it seems it has been unflagged meanwhile, so it's again visible and you can check yourself.

by Rochus 5y ago

anonymousiam 5y ago

How do you define 'leftist'? Orwell also wrote Animal Farm, which is critical of communism.

detaro 5y ago
How would you define "leftist" in a way that doesn't contain Orwell? Animal Farm fits very well into > opposed totalitarian societies
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  One of the ways in which modern Western newspeak works is the relentless conflation of "socialism", "communism", and "totalitarianism". Their current project, as far as I can tell, is to fold everything left of blue-dog Democrat into the definition.
input_sh 5y ago
If only we had a record of him stating what he's advocating for... Let's see, perhaps an essay titled Why I Write[0] could give us some hints: > Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. That encompasses both Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949). [0] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/why-i-write/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
quartesixte 5y ago
Orwell was definitely left/labour leaning in his later years and supported democratic socialism. As a younger man he was very much a Marxist revolutionary, but getting shot through the jaws in Spain and then subsequently witnessing the totalitarianism of Stalin quickly changed his mind. Animal Farm is a criticism of Stalinism in particular.
spijdar 5y ago
Orwell disliked Communism with a capital C, probably influenced by his participation in the Spanish civil war fighting alongside the Soviet Russians, but his allegiance was clearly to very leftist socialist causes, leaning towards the anarchist side of leftism. He was also a pretty intelligent guy, and didn't blindly subscribe to partisan politics. More than anything, he disliked authoritarianism.
Gimpei 5y ago
I think Animal Farm provides a nice answer to that. In my reading of the text, the problem was not necessarily with the revolution, it was the fact that the revolution was perverted and in the end the pigs (communist cadre) simply replaced the bourgeoisie (farmers) preserving the system. Orwell was a socialist, believing in large scale redistribution, government involvement in the economy, etc. He just thought this be done in a democratic fashion and actually benefit the working classes. He looked at the Soviet Union and saw it as a totalitarian nightmare that didn't live up to its ideals.
- anonymousiam 5y ago
  I seem to be burning my Karma on this thread, but what the heck. One more question for the group. Can anyone name a communist country that did not devolve into (or begin as) a dictatorship? In the history of the world, has there ever been a truly communist government? I believe the answer is no, and that none will ever emerge because of human nature.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    There was never a truly communist government anywhere, even if you ask the communists themselves. Don't forget: per Marx, communism was supposed to be the final stage, to be achieved after a period of socialism. USSR was thus the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", not "Communist Republics" (although in Soviet sci-fi, USCR would sometimes pop up in the future). If you rephrase the question as whether there's any socialist country that's not a dictatorship, the answer depends on your definition of "country". For example, Rojava is not internationally recognized as such, nor do they claim to be one, but they're a de facto independent polity that leans heavily socialist. For another example, the Zapatistas. If we look at history, there was never a shortage of revolutionary democratic socialists. The problem is that back when socialist revolutions became viable, socialism as a political ideology was generally violently suppressed in all its forms, and only the most ruthless, authoritarian strains could not only take power, but hold it long enough. Bolsheviks in Russia are the archetypal example, and it's worth noting that the first thing they did after the revolution was disbanding the Constituent Assembly, as soon as they found out that they don't have the majority in it (it was held by other socialist parties, most of them democratic). For comparison, consider the Luxembourgists in Germany, and how their revolution fared. The other problem is that there's a positive feedback loop there. Once Bolsheviks won in one country, they would sponsor socialist revolutionary movements in other countries - but any such aid would come with ideological strings attached. E.g. in Germany, the communist party was the one receiving funds from the Soviets, and the democratic socialists were labelled "social fascists"; and in Spain, Soviets even physically purged ideologically disagreeable people from the Republican ranks (Orwell has seen his share of that close up). Needless to say, well-funded movements are the ones that usually win, and so Soviet dominance ensured that authoritarian socialists would usually be the ones running the show everywhere else.
krapp 5y ago
Orwell was a socialist, and he supported democratic socialism, but he vehemently opposed (and wrote Animal Farm as a mocking satire of) totalitarian Soviet communism[0], which he didn't consider to be socialist at all. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Politics
- anonymousiam 5y ago
  Okay, so now we're getting somewhere. He was a socialist, but not a leftist. So were the NAZIs right wing or left wing?
  - krapp 5y ago
    He was a socialist and a leftist but not a communist. Not all leftists or socialists are communists, not all communists are Leninists or Stalinists. >So were the NAZIs right wing or left wing? Right-wing. The only reason anyone claims otherwise is that "socialist" is in their name, but National Socialism isn't socialism any more than North Korea is a Democratic Republic, and the proof is otherwise in the pudding as far as Nazi politics and ideals are concerned.
    - InTheArena 5y ago
      This is a gross simplification, and not really accurate. The nazi party grew from both left and right leaning aspects. (Booth anti-communist and anti-capitalist) Many of the aspects of nazi ideology where socialist in nature - for example, the building projects, the “strength through joy” institutions, and much of their early party doctrine. The Strassers and Goebbels in particular were deeply aligned to the socialist portion of the doctrine, suggesting tie-ups with communism at different points. This combination of socialist plus nationalist was responsible a lot of the parties early ideological success. As time went on the party increasingly shifted more to the “nationalist” then the “socialist” - culminating in the night of the long knives where most of the “socialist” camp (Gregor Strasser in particular) were purged, and Goebbels appears to have given up on his socialist tendencies. The Nazis obviously where not communists - but the ideology is much more similar than not in some key ways. Instead of Marx’s race war, the Nazis instead believed in Racial War. Of course, the only reason this really comes up is because people want to tar and feather political opponents as being fascist, socialist, or communists. The best way to break down all of these movements is simply Authoritarian or Totalitarian or not. If socialism is the thought that the means of production and organization of society should belong to society, Totalitarianism is simply that the state is the society, and thus the means of production and th organization of society belongs to the state. So where the Marxists would call for a class war to violently overthrow the evil capitalists in a all-composing global struggle for communism, the Nazis called for a a “blood and soil” war to eliminate the enemies of the people - with everything subjugated to that violence. Both were totalitarian in their nature.
nonfamous 5y ago
The fact that “leftist” is today invoked in relation to communism is an excellent example of Newspeak deployed in the actual world.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Rochus 5y ago
Looks like you got a lot of answers already; if you're interested, there are good biographies; also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell is quite good.
lostlogin 5y ago
Arthur Blair spent time in fighting in Spain, as detailed in Homage to Catalonia. His views are on the politics of both sides are quite well covered there, and he left Spain pretty jaded. It also has an account of trench warfare which is completely terrifying.
PhasmaFelis 5y ago
I'm concerned that you seem to think one can't be a leftist without supporting Stalinism.

gotoeleven 5y ago

Perfectly reasonable comments like the grandparent being flagged and killed so quickly... looks like the ministry of truth is staying busy. EDIT: I guarantee you everyone working at the ministry of truth thought they were the good guys, too.

Rochus 5y ago
Yes, it almost looks like society values censorship more than free speech these days.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  I don’t think you can accurately call the downvoted comments which are still visible and being debated, ‘censored’.
  - Rochus 5y ago
    We're talking about the flagged one which is no longer visible; the trend to remove comments or even accounts is even increasing with the large providers. I responded to the flagged comment before it was flagged, and I didn't see a reason for flagging it. But you can already tell from the downvotes what values certain people here represent; obviously not exactly liberal. EDIT: as it seems it has been unflagged meanwhile, so it's again visible and you can check yourself.