7 ms·

> Orwell maintains that revolution is the only way to remove from power the oppressive business-based ruling class of the type that has dominated the West since

> Orwell maintains that revolution is the only way to remove from power the oppressive business-based ruling class of the type that has dominated the West since World War II. This line from the article seems to misrepresent Orwell. Perhaps it’s been too long since I’ve read Homage to Catalonia, but I’m pretty sure he arrived in Spain without any grand ideas of being part of a revolution, and quite simply wanted to fight against fascists. He makes it clear in his book that he initially had little understanding of the differences in ideology among the various left-wing groups, and chose to join the anarchists rather arbitrarily.

AndyNemmity 2y ago
It's been too long since I've read Homage to Catalonia as well, and I agree with your understanding. However, he did have quite complex views after learning more.
- panarky 2y ago
  The one thing that is constant from the beginning of the book until the end is Orwell's antifascism. He believed it was essential to kill fascists, and that he had a duty to personally kill as many as he could. At the beginning, he didn't really care whether he killed fascists under an anarchist flag or a socialist flag. By the end, he was disillusioned with the unwillingness of the free world to support the underequipped antifascist forces. And he discovered to his dismay how Soviet authoritarians undermined the antifascist cause in their own drive to seize power. It doesn't seem that he ever figured out the best way to fight fascism and authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but it's pretty clear that he still thought it was important to destroy them, and he saw up close how Spanish anarchism by itself wasn't very effective at doing that.
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    Sure, but he labeled himself a Libertarian Socialist afterwards, which was what I was referring to. And I would argue he did figure out the best way, he wrote books about it.
    - robocat 2y ago
      An article that clarifies that somewhat: https://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/ https://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/ Eric Blair uses the word socialism in a way that is somewhat different from modern usage and especially he is not communist "Unfortunately, many in America equate Socialism with Soviet Communism.".
      - AndyNemmity 2y ago
        That isn't different in modern usage, Libertarian Socialism has nothing to do with Soviet Communism. Libertarian Socialism, means Anarchism, the topic of this thread. And the reason why America equates Socialism with Soviet Communism is the same reason America associates Libertarianism with Right Wing Corporatism. Propaganda.
        vidarh 2y ago
        Libertarian Socialism also includes groups that do not consider themselves anarchist, such as Libertarian Marxist. All of which are closer to and more sympathetic to anarchism than "Soviet Communism", though.
  - strken 2y ago
    This makes him sound like a serial killer rather than a soldier or a writer. I don't think he gave a damn about killing any individual private or corporal on the fascist side except in pursuit of fighting their ideology, and so far as I know he never tried to assassinate Mosley. Opposing fascism itself was his goal. The controversial second half of The Road to Wigan Pier contains a section where it seems Orwell regards individual fascists almost as mislead socialists and is strikingly sympathetic to them. See the paragraph that begins "In order to combat Fascism it is necessary to understand it, which involves admitting that it contains some good as well as much evil." It is obvious to me that he'd much rather stop them from becoming fascists before the declaration of war than kill them afterwards.
    - lukan 2y ago
      He also states pretty clearly, that he did not feel any hate towards the fascist sniper who shot him. Very british sportsmanlike, he said he would have rather congratulate him for the great shot.
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      > where it seems Orwell regards individual fascists almost as mislead socialists Mussolini, the guy who, like, invented Fascism, was the editor of a socialist newspaper for a while. His views definitely grew out of Socialism, but with the stuff he didn't like taken out, and a whole heap of nationalism added in.
- The_Blade 2y ago
  i read Homage to Catalonia on the TGV to... Catalonia drinking a bottle from De Wijnerij in Amsterdam. it was fantastic 2018. Rebellion broke out on the Spanish side of Catalonia a week later.
feedforward 2y ago
> This line from the article seems to misrepresent Orwell...He makes it clear in his book that he initially had little understanding of the differences in ideology among the various left-wing groups, and chose to join the anarchists rather arbitrarily. The one misrepresenting Orwell is yourself, he joined the communist POUM, not the anarchists.
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  He got a detail wrong, but I think this takes little away from his point. Orwell considered the possibility of joining several of the factions and his choice to join POUM was ultimately arbitrary. His choice to join was not due to a perfect personal alignment of his with the goals of POUM.
- akamaka 2y ago
  Thanks for the correction. One thing I definitely don’t remember from the book is the alignment of all the groups. I checked again and what happened was that the POUM (independent communists) ended up fighting alongside the anarchists against the Soviet-aligned communists.
thomasdeleeuw 2y ago
To me, the book was mostly an eyewitness account. Orwell himself remarks on the absurd amount of factions and how bizarre things were after returning from the front. I agree with your take that he went in quite blind, but you can feel that he has experience as a journalist. I was most impressed by his descriptions of small acts of humanity in a hopelessly complex conflict.
ngcazz 2y ago
In fact, his wider body of work ends up prefiguring a politics that's primarily anti-communist, not leftist.
- orwin 2y ago
  No, anti-authoritarian, and pretty much leftist, as in against hierarchical order and for an egalitarian society.
  - ngcazz 2y ago
    The word primarily is important in my comment; snitching on CPGB members and fellow travellers to the government does very much make you an anti-communist.
cardanome 2y ago
Which also leads to him making a fundamentally wrong analysis of the situation. Now before you all yell at me, let me explain where I am coming from. One of the great tragedies regarding the rise of fascism in Germany is that the left-wing forces did not manage to unite in time to stop it. Communists and social democrats preferred to fight each other instead. They did work together in the resistance later but then it was way too late. This is fundamental for understanding the behavior of the communists in the Spanish Civil War. Simplified, they switched strategies from immediate revolution to focusing on fighting fascism first. The Anarchist and other left-wing radicals like the POUM on the other hand wanted to do a revolution WHILE the republic was fighting for survival against fascism. Do I need to explain why such a strategy was madness? They were destabilizing the country while not really contributing that much militarily. In a war you need a united leadership, you need clear hierarchies, that is how you win. You don't win with romanticism. So what was to be done? Yes, the Republic had to get rid of these radicals. I know people like Orwell's interpretation of history because it fits with their anti-communist biases. Sure you can say the communists had plans for after the war and you might not agree with those plans if you are not very fond of communism, that is fair. But saying the Anarchists and other left-wing radicals where the good ones, makes no sense. At least the communists did focus on fighting fascism.
- orwin 2y ago
  There is reason other than the Soviets that prevented the communists to ally with the social-democrats in Germany: multiple deaths, smear campaigns, and genuine hatred. But other than that you're 100% correct, the Soviet stayed with republican Spain until the end despite POUM secession in Catalonia.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > One of the great tragedies regarding the rise of fascism in Germany is that the left-wing forces did not manage to unite in time to stop it. Communists and social democrats preferred to fight each other instead. That seems to point to some sensible people being in the ranks of the social democrats. Communism would have been a far bigger disaster for Germany than fascism - which is really saying something given that the outcome of fascism was the destruction of the nation and decades of foreign military occupation. The real tragedy here is there were 3 political groups, none focused on and successful in increasing the prosperity of the people who they governed. They needed a competent liberal tradition.
lukan 2y ago
"I’m pretty sure he arrived in Spain without any grand ideas of being part of a revolution, and quite simply wanted to fight against fascists." He was a socialist before going to spain, but his idea was to go there as a journalist. But once there, he felt he had to activly take arms to fight fascism. (and like others mentioned, he joined not a anarchist, but a socialist militia, but not one under sowjet control, so he later experienced first hand, how the sowjets dealt with competition, which lead to "animal farm" and 1984) But he did also met many anarchists and the differences between anarchists and socialist militias were rather blurry for the people in the trenches anyway. What I really like about Orwell, as opposed to the usual glorifying propaganda - he just wrote down what he saw. The good and the bad. He did not close his eyes to the ugly side of the revolution (trash everywhere for example)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 2y ago
He however later explicitly called for revolution, and set out an explicit program for how he believed a revolution in England needed to happen, so whether or not it misrepresents his views at the time of Homage to Catalonia, he not only supported revolution but explicitly argued it was necessary towards the end of his life.

AndyNemmity 2y ago

It's been too long since I've read Homage to Catalonia as well, and I agree with your understanding. However, he did have quite complex views after learning more.

panarky 2y ago
The one thing that is constant from the beginning of the book until the end is Orwell's antifascism. He believed it was essential to kill fascists, and that he had a duty to personally kill as many as he could. At the beginning, he didn't really care whether he killed fascists under an anarchist flag or a socialist flag. By the end, he was disillusioned with the unwillingness of the free world to support the underequipped antifascist forces. And he discovered to his dismay how Soviet authoritarians undermined the antifascist cause in their own drive to seize power. It doesn't seem that he ever figured out the best way to fight fascism and authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but it's pretty clear that he still thought it was important to destroy them, and he saw up close how Spanish anarchism by itself wasn't very effective at doing that.
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  Sure, but he labeled himself a Libertarian Socialist afterwards, which was what I was referring to. And I would argue he did figure out the best way, he wrote books about it.
  - robocat 2y ago
    An article that clarifies that somewhat: https://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/ https://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/ Eric Blair uses the word socialism in a way that is somewhat different from modern usage and especially he is not communist "Unfortunately, many in America equate Socialism with Soviet Communism.".
    - AndyNemmity 2y ago
      That isn't different in modern usage, Libertarian Socialism has nothing to do with Soviet Communism. Libertarian Socialism, means Anarchism, the topic of this thread. And the reason why America equates Socialism with Soviet Communism is the same reason America associates Libertarianism with Right Wing Corporatism. Propaganda.
      - vidarh 2y ago
        Libertarian Socialism also includes groups that do not consider themselves anarchist, such as Libertarian Marxist. All of which are closer to and more sympathetic to anarchism than "Soviet Communism", though.
- strken 2y ago
  This makes him sound like a serial killer rather than a soldier or a writer. I don't think he gave a damn about killing any individual private or corporal on the fascist side except in pursuit of fighting their ideology, and so far as I know he never tried to assassinate Mosley. Opposing fascism itself was his goal. The controversial second half of The Road to Wigan Pier contains a section where it seems Orwell regards individual fascists almost as mislead socialists and is strikingly sympathetic to them. See the paragraph that begins "In order to combat Fascism it is necessary to understand it, which involves admitting that it contains some good as well as much evil." It is obvious to me that he'd much rather stop them from becoming fascists before the declaration of war than kill them afterwards.
  - lukan 2y ago
    He also states pretty clearly, that he did not feel any hate towards the fascist sniper who shot him. Very british sportsmanlike, he said he would have rather congratulate him for the great shot.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    > where it seems Orwell regards individual fascists almost as mislead socialists Mussolini, the guy who, like, invented Fascism, was the editor of a socialist newspaper for a while. His views definitely grew out of Socialism, but with the stuff he didn't like taken out, and a whole heap of nationalism added in.
The_Blade 2y ago
i read Homage to Catalonia on the TGV to... Catalonia drinking a bottle from De Wijnerij in Amsterdam. it was fantastic 2018. Rebellion broke out on the Spanish side of Catalonia a week later.

feedforward 2y ago

> This line from the article seems to misrepresent Orwell...He makes it clear in his book that he initially had little understanding of the differences in ideology among the various left-wing groups, and chose to join the anarchists rather arbitrarily. The one misrepresenting Orwell is yourself, he joined the communist POUM, not the anarchists.

TeaBrain 2y ago
He got a detail wrong, but I think this takes little away from his point. Orwell considered the possibility of joining several of the factions and his choice to join POUM was ultimately arbitrary. His choice to join was not due to a perfect personal alignment of his with the goals of POUM.
akamaka 2y ago
Thanks for the correction. One thing I definitely don’t remember from the book is the alignment of all the groups. I checked again and what happened was that the POUM (independent communists) ended up fighting alongside the anarchists against the Soviet-aligned communists.

thomasdeleeuw 2y ago

To me, the book was mostly an eyewitness account. Orwell himself remarks on the absurd amount of factions and how bizarre things were after returning from the front. I agree with your take that he went in quite blind, but you can feel that he has experience as a journalist. I was most impressed by his descriptions of small acts of humanity in a hopelessly complex conflict.

ngcazz 2y ago

In fact, his wider body of work ends up prefiguring a politics that's primarily anti-communist, not leftist.

orwin 2y ago
No, anti-authoritarian, and pretty much leftist, as in against hierarchical order and for an egalitarian society.
- ngcazz 2y ago
  The word primarily is important in my comment; snitching on CPGB members and fellow travellers to the government does very much make you an anti-communist.

cardanome 2y ago

Which also leads to him making a fundamentally wrong analysis of the situation. Now before you all yell at me, let me explain where I am coming from. One of the great tragedies regarding the rise of fascism in Germany is that the left-wing forces did not manage to unite in time to stop it. Communists and social democrats preferred to fight each other instead. They did work together in the resistance later but then it was way too late. This is fundamental for understanding the behavior of the communists in the Spanish Civil War. Simplified, they switched strategies from immediate revolution to focusing on fighting fascism first. The Anarchist and other left-wing radicals like the POUM on the other hand wanted to do a revolution WHILE the republic was fighting for survival against fascism. Do I need to explain why such a strategy was madness? They were destabilizing the country while not really contributing that much militarily. In a war you need a united leadership, you need clear hierarchies, that is how you win. You don't win with romanticism. So what was to be done? Yes, the Republic had to get rid of these radicals. I know people like Orwell's interpretation of history because it fits with their anti-communist biases. Sure you can say the communists had plans for after the war and you might not agree with those plans if you are not very fond of communism, that is fair. But saying the Anarchists and other left-wing radicals where the good ones, makes no sense. At least the communists did focus on fighting fascism.

orwin 2y ago
There is reason other than the Soviets that prevented the communists to ally with the social-democrats in Germany: multiple deaths, smear campaigns, and genuine hatred. But other than that you're 100% correct, the Soviet stayed with republican Spain until the end despite POUM secession in Catalonia.
roenxi 2y ago
> One of the great tragedies regarding the rise of fascism in Germany is that the left-wing forces did not manage to unite in time to stop it. Communists and social democrats preferred to fight each other instead. That seems to point to some sensible people being in the ranks of the social democrats. Communism would have been a far bigger disaster for Germany than fascism - which is really saying something given that the outcome of fascism was the destruction of the nation and decades of foreign military occupation. The real tragedy here is there were 3 political groups, none focused on and successful in increasing the prosperity of the people who they governed. They needed a competent liberal tradition.

lukan 2y ago

"I’m pretty sure he arrived in Spain without any grand ideas of being part of a revolution, and quite simply wanted to fight against fascists." He was a socialist before going to spain, but his idea was to go there as a journalist. But once there, he felt he had to activly take arms to fight fascism. (and like others mentioned, he joined not a anarchist, but a socialist militia, but not one under sowjet control, so he later experienced first hand, how the sowjets dealt with competition, which lead to "animal farm" and 1984) But he did also met many anarchists and the differences between anarchists and socialist militias were rather blurry for the people in the trenches anyway. What I really like about Orwell, as opposed to the usual glorifying propaganda - he just wrote down what he saw. The good and the bad. He did not close his eyes to the ugly side of the revolution (trash everywhere for example)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

vidarh 2y ago

He however later explicitly called for revolution, and set out an explicit program for how he believed a revolution in England needed to happen, so whether or not it misrepresents his views at the time of Homage to Catalonia, he not only supported revolution but explicitly argued it was necessary towards the end of his life.