PDA

View Full Version : George Orwell's Political Development: Socialist, Anarchist Or What...?



Frans_Jozef
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 12:43 AM
George Orwell - Socialist, Anarchist or What...?

http://members.tripod.com/wintermute10/cbs-uk.htm

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 07:28 AM
I am not a literary person but have read "1984" and listened to literary people discuss this book. It seems to me Orwell was reacting to a possible future world. This world Orwell feared was a Soviet-type state on steroids. But, the world he described in his novel was a world we could relate to in the West. This is becaue there were elements in that book which we found emerging in our society--our capitalist "free" society. This is because both in the East and West during those years aspects of a government of total control were emerging. Perhaps the manifestations were not the same in the East and West but each had something which identified it with that novel. I think Orwell was reacting to government control. In his reaction, he was saying in his on negative way that anarchism what better than total control.

Frans, a "conservative anarchist" should have some views on this.

Frans_Jozef
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 10:58 AM
I am not a literary person but have read "1984" and listened to literary people discuss this book. It seems to me Orwell was reacting to a possible future world. This world Orwell feared was a Soviet-type state on steroids. But, the world he described in his novel was a world we could relate to in the West. This is becaue there were elements in that book which we found emerging in our society--our capitalist "free" society. This is because both in the East and West during those years aspects of a government of total control were emerging. Perhaps the manifestations were not the same in the East and West but each had something which identified it with that novel. I think Orwell was reacting to government control. In his reaction, he was saying in his on negative way that anarchism what better than total control.

Frans, a "conservative anarchist" should have some views on this.

The book nicely puts together how feeble the prospects of a revolution by the mass or merely the single well-meant intellectual action of an individual is, which is exceptionally true in modern society but also in a pre-industrial world; discontentment and uproars manifest itself in the latter not as a consequence of poverty, but primarily in reaction to intrusion into popular religion and folkloristic events or in case of famine.
Mind you, in the book, the Proles are relatively spared from the party-control and live more or less like every underclass in pacifized exclusion.

The cynical angle and in this Orwell wondrously foreshadows the fears of the Situationists is that the intellectual weapons and icons of the revolt are manufactured, delivered and orchestrated by the Party.

"A new form of domination had been perfected, they( = the Situationists) maintained, in which every act of apparent dissent actually takes place in a worldwide spectacle.
Life had been turned into a show, which even those who staged the play could not escape.
The most radical of movements of revolts quickly became part of the act."
- John Gray, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals; London, 2002.

Frans_Jozef
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 11:35 AM
"The aim of the High is to remain where they are. the aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or the capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins all over again."

-- George Orwell, 1984


I believe that Cioran addressed the same problem concerning revolt/revolution.
Such deeds are primitively newtonian in principle, what goes around comes around.
But the immediate future is more bleak and decomposed than Orwell's pessimistic novel.
The Proles permeate these days every rank and class of our societies. Yesterday I had a similar discussion with a Swedish friend of mine and she concured. I summarized the problem neatly this way:

As long everyone can still pay for access to the
Internet, spends vacation on the Rivièra and wear Hugo
Boss underwear, no much chance that any definete
consciousness about the problems that mar our lives
will show up in their drivel-filled mind.

But there's more.
Juenger noticed how posh the underdeveloped classes have become, bourgeois-like; in other words, not so much struggling to get some bread at the table and feed the children, but lamenting that their computer crashed and the government doesn't give enough hand-outs to pay a technician. Oh, they buy still supermarket cloths, but the collar is stiffly ironed as a pledge to conformity.

The self-hate of the lower classes are but the reflexion upon them by the Middle, their compulsion to imitate the Middle in attitudes and acquisition of material commodities will result that the Middle will strive to the High and secure their social body to further nivellistic usurpation.

Meanwhile the amalgamation proceeds, a selective group will pushed further to the periphery and perish in time, which all comes down to some freakish consequence of social darwinism: the winners are not the cultural educated nor the sensitive low-graded individual, but the conformity-seekers, those who walk in line in blissful un-personality.

gorgeousgal2k2
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 07:40 PM
I dont think he was left wing, Animal farm was an allegory about communism. Excellent book btw.

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, May 11th, 2005, 07:23 PM
On George Orwell's political development:

http://members.tripod.com/wintermute10/cbs-uk.htm


Introduction

Published in 1949, Nineteen Eighty-Four is the conclusion of George Orwell’s writing; it was the last book he wrote because of his premature death, and it was the book that most of his writing had been a preparation to. Politically Orwell belonged to the Left, and many Leftists accused him of joining the reactionaries with Nineteen Eighty-Four because the book was so obviously anti-communist. But anti-communism is not necessarily a very precise concept as one can be anti-communist in various ways and for various reasons. This essay looks at Orwell’s political development and attempts to find out who Orwell was as a political being.

Apart from his novels Orwell wrote numerous essays and articles. This essay mainly deals with the novels except for the period 1940-48 during which Orwell exclusively wrote essays and articles (Animal Farm published in 1945 excepted).
1984 nicely puts together how feeble the prospects of a revolution by the mass or merely the single well-meant intellectual action of an individual is, which is exceptionally true in modern society but also in a pre-industrial world; discontentment and uproars manifest itself in the latter not as a consequence of poverty, but primarily in reaction to intrusion into popular religion and folkloristic events or in case of famine.
Mind you, in the book, the Proles are relatively spared from the party-control and live more or less like every underclass in pacifized exclusion.

The cynical angle and in this Orwell wondrously foreshadows the fears of the Situationists is that the intellectual weapons and icons of the revolt are manufactured, delivered and orchestrated by the Party.

"A new form of domination had been perfected, they( = the Situationists) maintained, in which every act of apparent dissent actually takes place in a worldwide spectacle.
Life had been turned into a show, which even those who staged the play could not escape.
The most radical of movements of revolts quickly became part of the act."
- John Gray, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals; London, 2002.


"The aim of the High is to remain where they are. the aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or the capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins all over again."

-- George Orwell, 1984


I believe that Cioran addressed the same problem concerning revolt/revolution.
Such deeds are primitively newtonian in principle, what goes around comes around.
But the immediate future is more bleak and decomposed than Orwell's pessimistic novel.
The Proles permeate these days every rank and class of our societies. Yesterday I had a similar discussion with a Swedish friend of mine and she concured. I summarized the problem neatly this way:

As long everyone can still pay for access to the
Internet, spends vacation on the Rivièra and wear Hugo
Boss underwear, no much chance that any definete
consciousness about the problems that mar our lives
will show up in their drivel-filled mind.

But there's more.
Juenger noticed how posh the underdeveloped classes have become, bourgeois-like; in other words, not so much struggling to get some bread at the table and feed the children, but lamenting that their computer crashed and the government doesn't give enough hand-outs to pay a technician. Oh, they buy still supermarket cloths, but the collar is stiffly ironed as a pledge to conformity.

The self-hate of the lower classes are but the reflexion upon them by the Middle, their compulsion to imitate the Middle in attitudes and acquisition of material commodities will result that the Middle will strive to the High and secure their social body to further nivellistic usurpation.

Meanwhile the amalgamation proceeds, a selective group will pushed further to the periphery and perish in time, which all comes down to some freakish consequence of social darwinism: the winners are not the cultural educated nor the sensitive low-graded individual, but the conformity-seekers, those who walk in line in blissful un-personality.

Wotanimus
Wednesday, May 11th, 2005, 07:24 PM
Hahaha! I just attached a picture about him :thumbsup

Deling
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 09:27 PM
"I dont think he was left wing, Animal farm was an allegory about communism. Excellent book btw."

He was definitely left-wing, even fighting in the Spanish civil war. An anarchist, anyway.

Death and the Sun
Wednesday, July 27th, 2005, 10:59 AM
"I dont think he was left wing, Animal farm was an allegory about communism. Excellent book btw."

He was definitely left-wing, even fighting in the Spanish civil war. An anarchist, anyway.
Yes, although Animal farm and 1984 were basically products of him becoming disillusioned with Socialism.

Deling
Wednesday, July 27th, 2005, 11:29 AM
"Yes, although Animal farm and 1984 were basically products of him becoming disillusioned with Socialism."

Most anarchists view Hitler and Stalin as the same sort of men. So it's not disillusionment with socialism, he just wrote about a world where the state is ultimately repressive and overwhelming; which was what he despised most of all. But sure, he wasn't fond of Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Ventrue
Sunday, December 11th, 2005, 03:12 AM
"The aim of the High is to remain where they are. the aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or the capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins all over again."


One of the quotes I remember the strongest from 1984. To a degree it is useful, though like all influenced by Marxism his views of society are way too simplistic. Or maybe he just didn't have the inclination to write more about it.

Reading the quote closely I note: "For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or the capacity to govern efficiently, or both."

This is unusual coming from someone who believes or has believed in Marxism: he says they can govern efficiently. A true Marxist would harp on how the rulers are always oppressing the workers with the aid of the middle class; instead, Orwell says people from the middle class become antagonistic toward the upper class, and dupe the lower class to do their bidding. This is not something a Marxist leader (who were/are almost to a man from the middle class) would like to hear, as it is a condemnation of them as lying bastards who just want power for themselves, using the illusion of a classless society to get it.

So was he a Marxist? He fought for the commies in the Spanish civil war, but he couldn't have been a believer in Marxist thought when he wrote this book. Maybe he changed his mind.

Haplotype I
Sunday, December 11th, 2005, 06:07 AM
Ask yourself some questions about Orwell and his development.

Orwell went North to the Isle of Jura to write "1984."

Why did he go way up North to the Hebrides Island of Jura, a Norse island, to write 1984? Why did he feel the Call of the North!
http://www.mearnscraft.co.uk/images/islands/jura.jpg
Was he instinctively trying to get a spiritual connection- genetic connection to ground himself? Look at the Viking ship. Norse blood in Orwell's heart and spirit.

Here he was, caught in a huge web of Capitalism run by Jews, Politics run by Jews and Communism run by Jews.

I don't think he wanted to be a "Christian" anymore. I feel he was trying to get in touch with his spiritual roots, which may have been half way between Norway and Scotland - The Island of Jura, Hebrides Islands where he wrote 1984.


He, and this is my Theory alone, may have been a Pict by genetics.
This is the scary thing for alot of people, Orwell may have been a Druid.

Deling
Monday, December 12th, 2005, 12:55 AM
Haplotype:

What kind of acid do you go on?
Orwell wasn't a "druid". I didn't know he wrote 1984 on some Hebride island, but it certainly had nothing to do with connecting to vikings or something like that.
Orwell was an English anarchist who'd worked in Burma, been in the Spanish civil war, and hated TOTALITARIANISM. It's as simple as that.

Besides, 1984 isn't the best book ever written...it's no special, nor is Orwell.

Ventrue
Monday, December 12th, 2005, 01:22 AM
Here (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gorwell.htm) is a biography on Orwell, with an interesting tidbit:


After the war, Orwell went to Germany as a reporter, but in his dispatches he sent to The Observer and The Manchester Evening News he did not mention the extermination camps or Auschwitz.
Gee, didn't mention any extermination! Makes me think of the Soviet officers who reported finding gas chambers in one Auschwitz camp. No, no, said the Americans, the gas chambers are supposed to be in another Auschwitz camp. So they changed their observation. Neat and tidy, wrap it up, boys. Make sure you only talk of gas chambers in the camps conveniently placed behind the Iron Curtain, not the ones in Germany. But I digress.

Another quote from the biography; Orwell got cold feet about commies, so his book on the Spanish war didn't sell as well as lying commie literature did:



In the1930s Orwell had adopted socialistic views. Like many other writers, he travelled to Spain to report on the Civil War. He fought alongside the United Workers Marxist Party militia and was shot through the throat by a Francoist sniper’s bullet. When Stalinists on their own side started to hunt down Anarchists and his friends were thrown into prison, Orwell escaped with his wife Eileen Blair from the chaos. The war made him a strong opposer of communism and an advocate of the English brand of socialism. Orwell's book on Spain, HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, appeared in 1938 after some troubles with its publication. The book was coldly received by left-wing intelligentsia, who regarded Communists as heroes of the war. In Orwell’s lifetime Homage to Catalonia sold only about fifty copies a year.
Orwell had opposed a war with Germany, declaring that the British Empire was worse than Hitler [. . .]

One more comment on 1984: dictatorship today comes in the form of the final stage of democracy, which is an oligarchy that kills liberty through a thousand little rules and regulations, not in one fell swoop. That way most of the dullards don't see what is going on. In the end, Newspeak and the telescreen turn out to be much more efficient than Miniluv.