George Orwell Was A Traitor To The Human Race.

reply to post by GaiusMarius

The 'pigs' in China seem far more capable of running an economy and improving the lives of its people than the pigs of America. Thats for sure.

That is a false statement, I will grant you that in the last decade China's pigs have become more like those in America but in the last balance, people in America reap more benefits than those in China by a large difference. But pigs will always be pigs and be concerned only with themselves...

Communism didnt fall with the wall. The world has been going through the proccess of 'stageism'. The Stalinist Two Stage Revolution is nearing completion. This is late capitalism.

Communism and Capitalism as systems were never fully realized and they wouldn't never survive in the same "ecosystem" that is why Socialism (and socialistic policies are prevalent) as it is somewhat of a middle ground as it permits more stability. I'm not defending socialism since I fully recognize it as a trap, less fatal than capitalism but also less egalitarian than communism. My favorite order in Anarchic-Communism...

reply to post by GaiusMarius


Communism is a hugely complex system but it is no better than Capitalism for taking freedom away from the people. It is just like Capitalism in creating an illusion that the power is in the people and you have a freedom of choice when the reality is you are creating purposeful social inequalities. That's why Orwell emphatically rejected both.

Socialism (I prefer Egalitarianism) is truly community oriented. If a famine hits everyone starves together, not just the ones on the bottom while those on top are fine and untouched.

reply to post by GaiusMarius


Orwell was a socialist himself, you know this right?

reply to post by GaiusMarius


Are you insinuating that China is communist? Because it isn't. It's capitalist and has been so for decades.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

The 'pigs' in China seem far more capable of running an economy and improving the lives of its people than the pigs of America. Thats for sure.

That is a false statement, I will grant you that in the last decade China's pigs have become more like those in America but in the last balance, people in America reap more benefits than those in China by a large difference. But pigs will always be pigs and be concerned only with themselves...

Communism didnt fall with the wall. The world has been going through the proccess of 'stageism'. The Stalinist Two Stage Revolution is nearing completion. This is late capitalism.

Communism and Capitalism as systems were never fully realized and they wouldn't never survive in the same "ecosystem" that is why Socialism (and socialistic policies are prevalent) as it is somewhat of a middle ground as it permits more stability. I'm not defending socialism since I fully recognize it as a trap, less fatal than capitalism but also less egalitarian than communism. My favorite order in Anarchic-Communism...

Chomsky is en vogue.

I think 'socialistic policies' are nothing to do with socialism. 'Affirmative Action' isnt socialism. Why would you need 'Affirmative Actuion' under socialism? Why would you need unions? You wouldnt.

Chinas State Capitalism is a hybrid as was National Socialism. State Capitalism is roaring along and is somewhat of a miracle. I think it is proven that they can survive in the same 'ecosystem',. But full throttle socialism would be better in my opinion. I think we are on the way.

In American movies there are always happy endings. Orwell is something different. There is no happy ending in 1984. This is for a reason. If we go down that path, it will be a point of no return. It's bad news, but humanity should be able to understand that the road ahead is dangerous. The only thing that can free humanity, is lots of suffering and struggles if we get to 1984. It will be like abolishing slavery one more time. There will be many tragedies in this process. And, Orwell animal farm is not specific for a reason. It tells that no matter what system you got, you'll get problems if there is an elite. This is true in both communism, and capitalism where you'll get an oligarchy if the powers to be are left unchecked. In modern times we have discovered that the cure to Orwell's diseases are individual rights, personal freedom and accountability for all those who have power. Unfortunately, we have failed in implementing those things. We are at a point in time where the specter of terrorism is used to scare people into thinking it's right to completely ignore the lessons history has given us.

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

Are you insinuating that China is communist? Because it isn't. It's capitalist and has been so for decades.

State Capitalism is what China runs.

The ruling party is Communist though. It is a capitalist empire after all isnt it? You must play the capitalists game to beat them at it.

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

Orwell was a socialist himself, you know this right?

No I do not.

He can claim whatever he like though I guess.

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

Communism is a hugely complex system but it is no better than Capitalism for taking freedom away from the people. It is just like Capitalism in creating an illusion that the power is in the people and you have a freedom of choice when the reality is you are creating purposeful social inequalities. That's why Orwell emphatically rejected both.

Socialism (I prefer Egalitarianism) is truly community oriented. If a famine hits everyone starves together, not just the ones on the bottom while those on top are fine and untouched.

I agree. Socialism is the answer.

reply to post by GaiusMarius

It is a capitalist empire after all isnt it? You must play the capitalists game to beat them at it.

By beating the capitalists do you mean turning into a capitalist yourself.... allowing slave factories and exploitation of the worker?

n his 1946 essay Why I Write, Orwell explains that the serious works he wrote since the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) were "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism".[62] Nineteen Eighty-Four is a cautionary tale about revolution betrayed by totalitarian defenders previously proposed in Homage to Catalonia (1938) and Animal Farm (1945), while Coming Up for Air (1939) celebrates the personal and political freedoms lost in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Biographer Michael Shelden notes Orwell's Edwardian childhood at Henley-on-Thames as the golden country; being bullied at St Cyprian's School as his empathy with victims; his life in the Indian Burma Police – the techniques of violence and censorship in the BBC — capricious authority.[63] Other influences include Darkness at Noon (1940) and The Yogi and the Commissar (1945) by Arthur Koestler; The Iron Heel (1908) by Jack London; 1920: Dips into the Near Future[64] by John A. Hobson; Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley; We (1921) by Yevgeny Zamyatin which he reviewed in 1946;[65] and The Managerial Revolution (1940) by James Burnham predicting perpetual war among three totalitarian superstates. Orwell told Jacintha Buddicom that he would write a novel stylistically like A Modern Utopia (1905) by H. G. Wells.]

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by GaiusMarius


What I think is that Orwell was writing from the perspective of a Socialist who was also realistic. He was living in one of the most volatile decades where all politics were dangerous and lines weren't just drawn in the sand they were cemented. Affiliations to certain parties or ideals could get you arrested or even killed. When World War II ended, instead of easing some of these tensions, they continued to get worse.

And the population ate it up, chose sides, and were unrelenting.

He saw it and knew what it meant. That people would become willing slaves if you tell them its good for them and once the masses become entrenched it would be impossible to ever see it as anything but good.

If you combine 1984 and Brave New World you have the perfect portrait of the society we live in today.

If Orwell did not believe in revolution, why did he fight in Spain? You would have to believe very strongly to pick up a weapon and go against Hitlers Condor Legion which was equipped to test out mechanized maneuver warfare. When the Soviet Union began to split the fighting into 3 groups, Orwell naturally observed the hypocrisy and felt betrayed. He was also a staunch Trotsky supporter, and became more angry and disillusioned when Trotsky was assassinated. To me, Animal Farm is a fable, not a historical retelling of the Soviet revolution, and is less about pitting two real world ideologies against each other than it is about showing the differences between Trotskys ideal system and what occurs when the ideals are corrupted.

Anything is possible, he could have turned into a late life closet capitalist. For example, I had a political science teacher who was ultra liberal, and would make provocative statements that most in the class would nod their heads along to. She was very happy when I began to debate her, and she used to mention that we would never know her true political beliefs. I sometimes wonder if she was a closet republican, and only made such comments to create debate in class. If Orwell was indeed in support of capitalism though, many people seem to have gotten the wrong message from his works, and instead, at least in animal farm, point to the original ideas of the revolution as the basis for how such a government should work.

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

It is a capitalist empire after all isnt it? You must play the capitalists game to beat them at it.

By beating the capitalists do you mean turning into a capitalist yourself.... allowing slave factories and exploitation of the worker?

If you look at what the Communist Party is about from the start you can see that they liked Stalin.

Communism was never meant to happen overnight. That is what most people have trouble with. You dont have revolution and then bam!....instant functioning communism. Not that I am communist but I dont appreciate my Government brainwashing me with nonsense when I was just a child.

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

What I think is that Orwell was writing from the perspective of a Socialist who was also realistic. He was living in one of the most volatile decades where all politics were dangerous and lines weren't just drawn in the sand they were cemented. Affiliations to certain parties or ideals could get you arrested or even killed. When World War II ended, instead of easing some of these tensions, they continued to get worse.

And the population ate it up, chose sides, and were unrelenting.

He saw it and knew what it meant. That people would become willing slaves if you tell them its good for them and once the masses become entrenched it would be impossible to ever see it as anything but good.

If you combine 1984 and Brave New World you have the perfect portrait of the society we live in today.

I got no problem with Aldious. He sure was on the money in relation to these pneumatic chicks of the future. Maybe I am an unrealistic socialist like Jack London. I think The Iron Heel is the greatest anti-capitalist propaganda. Its the best propaganda I have ever read. London was a champion.

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
If Orwell did not believe in revolution, why did he fight in Spain? You would have to believe very strongly to pick up a weapon and go against Hitlers Condor Legion which was equipped to test out mechanized maneuver warfare. When the Soviet Union began to split the fighting into 3 groups, Orwell naturally observed the hypocrisy and felt betrayed. He was also a staunch Trotsky supporter, and became more angry and disillusioned when Trotsky was assassinated.

Spain. I think Spain is what gave him cred.

“Orwell went to Spain largely ignorant of the background, situation and the forces involved. He admits `when I came to Spain I was not only uninterested in the political situation but unaware of it.' Unlike many European intellectuals he had not understood the essential clash between liberty and fascism. Hitler's brutal destruction of democracy in Germany and even Mosley's violence against opponents in Britain in 1934 must have passed him by. Crick, his biographer, could write that before March 1936, when Orwell saw Mosley's blackshirts beating up questioners at a Barnsley meeting, `there is no indication before this incident of any great concern in Orwell with the nature and spread of fascism. . .

“Orwell had no understanding of the world-wide significance of the struggle in Spain, he knew little of the national efforts of the Popular Front government to achieve a united front against fascism, he had never seen the Republican flag, he did not agree with the actions of the POUM - he took a rifle in the role of an outsider, a journalist looking for experiences to figure in a future book. . .

www.stalinsociety.org.uk...
Research seems to be the main reason he want. Many BBC types end up tagging along with real soldiers and come in the line of fire. I think Orwells experience was similar.

reply to post by GaiusMarius

Wow. Actual debate

You want debate? 1984 was a dire warning against totalitarianism. Stalin's Soviet Union was not socialist, not communist, but totalitarian. Party officials decided what constituted science. (Cf: Lysenko) Orwell believed that totalitarianism is evil; it crushes the human spirit and falsifies truth. Stalin's totalitarian state was evil. Agree? Disagree? Why or why not?

animal farm was one of my favorite books growing up!
it helped shape how i think about things.
'all animals are equal,but some animals are more equal than others!'
who are you gonna throw under the bus next?
aldous huxley?
j.d.salinger?
h.g.wells?

nm....

reply to post by GaiusMarius


Well I will give the OP kudos for having the courage to post such a heretical opinion on ATS; although I disagree about Animal Farm in some respects... It was perhaps a bit overly simplistic, and more than a bit propaganda-ist, but considering the context of the time he was going against the societal grain a bit when he wrote it, so I think perhaps he was laying out a simple blue print for people to see that corruption was inevitable in that system.

I will say that I am in 100% agreement regarding 1984. He might as well have titled the thing "Resistance Is Futile" and been done with it. I think it was a testimony to just how much he had given up on the human race, or just how depressed he was at the time, or both. I don't know if he was a tool of... some covert entity... or whatever, but the ultimate message was to just give up, not so much as a warning. Really, I think it was simply a whining, puling, depressing little book, where he drags the reader into whatever emotional funk he was in at the time, and that is that.