3 ms·

[flagged]

cardanome 2y ago
> No, they are popular because someone who lived 80+ years ago got it right, when all the Pompous People got it wrong. When everyone who was anyone was a Communist and thought Stalin was just great, and the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War was the essence of Purest Virtue. What did he get right? His analysis of the Soviet Union that we read is Animal Farm is plain Trotskyism. I don't see any original thought. The idea that all would have been well if just Trotsky instead of Stalin won the power struggle does not hold up to any serious thought. If anything "mister world revolution" would have been by far the worse alternative. What did the POUM, that weird Trotzkyist faction that he joined in the civil war, achieve again? Nothing. If anything the Republican movement suffered from lack of unity. Those weird sectarian splitter groups did more harm than good. > Really now? Before 1948? If you wouldn't mind, please enumerate those "substantial" things and tell us who did them all better, before Orwell. We could always cite the classic Brave New World but how about The Iron Heel by Jack London which perfectly predicted the rise of fascism. So many better takes out there.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  [flagged]
- int_19h 2y ago
  Orwell was a democratic socialist, not a Trotskyist.
Barrin92 2y ago
>No, they are popular because someone who lived 80+ years ago got it right That's a very charitable reading, Asimov had a very different interpretation in his not very positive but I think great review of 1984 (https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm) "The communists, who were the best organised, won out and Orwell had to leave Spain, for he was convinced that if he did not, he would be killed From then on, to the end of his life, he carried on a private literary war with the communists, determined to win in words the battle he had lost in action. During World War II, in which he was rejected for military service, he was associated with the left wing of the British Labour party, but didn't much sympathise with their views, for even their reckless version of socialism seemed too well organised for him. He wasn't much affected, apparently, by the Nazi brand of totalitarianism, for there was no room within him except for his private war with Stalinist communism. Consequently, when Great Britain was fighting for its life against Nazism, and the Soviet Union fought as an ally in the struggle and contributed rather more than its share in lives lost and in resolute courage, Orwell wrote Animal Farm which was a satire of the Russian Revolution and what followed, picturing it in terms of a revolt of barnyard animals against human masters."
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 2y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Lest we forget, the Soviet Union did a great deal to allow WW2 to happen in the first place, and fought as an ally of the Nazis initially - and remained friendly and economically supportive all the way up to the German invasion. Orwell was absolutely correct to treat that regime nearly as bad as the Nazis.

[flagged]

> No, they are popular because someone who lived 80+ years ago got it right, when all the Pompous People got it wrong. When everyone who was anyone was a Communist and thought Stalin was just great, and the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War was the essence of Purest Virtue. What did he get right? His analysis of the Soviet Union that we read is Animal Farm is plain Trotskyism. I don't see any original thought. The idea that all would have been well if just Trotsky instead of Stalin won the power struggle does not hold up to any serious thought. If anything "mister world revolution" would have been by far the worse alternative. What did the POUM, that weird Trotzkyist faction that he joined in the civil war, achieve again? Nothing. If anything the Republican movement suffered from lack of unity. Those weird sectarian splitter groups did more harm than good. > Really now? Before 1948? If you wouldn't mind, please enumerate those "substantial" things and tell us who did them all better, before Orwell. We could always cite the classic Brave New World but how about The Iron Heel by Jack London which perfectly predicted the rise of fascism. So many better takes out there.

AlbertCory 2y ago
[flagged]
int_19h 2y ago
Orwell was a democratic socialist, not a Trotskyist.

Barrin92 2y ago

>No, they are popular because someone who lived 80+ years ago got it right That's a very charitable reading, Asimov had a very different interpretation in his not very positive but I think great review of 1984 (https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm) "The communists, who were the best organised, won out and Orwell had to leave Spain, for he was convinced that if he did not, he would be killed From then on, to the end of his life, he carried on a private literary war with the communists, determined to win in words the battle he had lost in action. During World War II, in which he was rejected for military service, he was associated with the left wing of the British Labour party, but didn't much sympathise with their views, for even their reckless version of socialism seemed too well organised for him. He wasn't much affected, apparently, by the Nazi brand of totalitarianism, for there was no room within him except for his private war with Stalinist communism. Consequently, when Great Britain was fighting for its life against Nazism, and the Soviet Union fought as an ally in the struggle and contributed rather more than its share in lives lost and in resolute courage, Orwell wrote Animal Farm which was a satire of the Russian Revolution and what followed, picturing it in terms of a revolt of barnyard animals against human masters."

AlbertCory 2y ago
[flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
int_19h 2y ago
Lest we forget, the Soviet Union did a great deal to allow WW2 to happen in the first place, and fought as an ally of the Nazis initially - and remained friendly and economically supportive all the way up to the German invasion. Orwell was absolutely correct to treat that regime nearly as bad as the Nazis.