Posted on 02/05/2007 6:20:39 AM PST by shrinkermd
Dr. Daniels begins predictably witht this:
...Why should Orwell be so desired and desirable, in short so unanswerable, an ally? He is a secular saint, over whose relics everyone squabbles. There are good reasons for this, no doubt. In his essay, Why I Write, published in 1946, Orwell disarmingly tells us that all writers are to some extent egotistical: they desire to seem clever, to be talked about and admired, and to be remembered after their death....
But finally Dr. Daniels points this out:
...But by far the worst aspect of Homage to Catalonia is its strong advocacy of totalitarianism. It is the literary equivalent of an urban myth that the book argues against the Stalinist deformation of socialism, when the very opposite is much nearer the truth. Of course, Orwell does indeed object to the Stalinist resort to lying on an industrial scale, but that is only a minor part of his objection to Stalin’s policy in Spain. His real objection is that Stalin did not want the radical revolution—as exemplified by the destruction of the church, the collectivization of the land, the nationalization of all major industry, the elimination of the bourgeoisie, the prohibition of prostitution and the legal profession, and the complete equalization of wages—to proceed, because he thought that a popular front, in which liberal democrats would be taken into temporary partnership, would be more effective in stopping Franco.
Orwell objected to Stalin’s policy because Stalin maintained that “we can’t afford to alienate the peasants [in Spain] by forcing collectivization upon them,” whereas Orwell thought that the war was lost unless it was turned into a true revolutionary war, which included such forced collectivization.
(Excerpt) Read more at newcriterion.com ...
Orwell was clearly a product of his age. But it is equally clear that he was in the process of rising above some of that influence.
In my opinion he was a better man than FDR, though not as good as Churchill.
It is an extensive collection of most of his writings in journals and newspapers from the late 20's until 1949. He reviews books, writes short commentaries on politics and religion and gives great little snapshots into what life was like in Britain during his life. The book is nearly 1300 pages but well worth reading it.
Pity he didn't live a few more years, we would have seen whether he would have abandoned socialism completely, or not!
In my opinion he was a better man than FDR, though not as good as Churchill.
That's an accurate description, I wonder what Orwell thought of the New Deal? ;)
He predicted the collapse of Soviet system and return of capitalism - in Animal Farm.
Ah.. I was a bit puzzled by that last bit of the book!
It's only 50+ pages long, I read it one evening, maybe I would have been better to read it over a couple of days! ;)
Golly gee willikers, I wonder why you would bring me into the discussion. :-)
When analyzing the works of Orwell or Huxley's "Brave New World" you have to take into account the period in which they wrote and not just look back on it with the benefit that we have of 20/20 hindsight.
Granted, Orwell was a Socialist. I'm sure he meant well...the idea sounded good in theory...everybody is equal, there is no hunger or poverty or class warfare. But this was in the 1940's, long before the experiment had proven to be a failure in reality as seen in Cuba, USSR, California.
Orwell's vision of a state in which the Gubmint used technology through telescreens which monitored their citizens every move wasn't wrong per se...he just didn't realize 60 years ago that the same technology could be used by the masses through mediums like the internet and sites like FR, or radio hosts like Rush, Hannity or Levin or cable TV with channels like FOX that could break the hold of carefully orchestrated left wing propaganda. (see the Global Warming fraud)
I saw your screenname pop up before, figured you might be interested in this thread! :)
When analyzing the works of Orwell or Huxley's "Brave New World" you have to take into account the period in which they wrote and not just look back on it with the benefit that we have of 20/20 hindsight.
True, Huxley was in many ways Orwell's counterpart - representive of Fascist-leaning ideology, both in the end started to see the fallacies of their respective ideologies.
Granted, Orwell was a Socialist. I'm sure he meant well...the idea sounded good in theory...everybody is equal, there is no hunger or poverty or class warfare. But this was in the 1940's, long before the experiment had proven to be a failure in reality as seen in Cuba, USSR, California.
Yeah, I generally look more favourably on the Old Left than I do with the modern left - they could be given the benifit of the doubt considering, as you have said, that socialism wasn't yet proven to be flawed, plus; there was extreme poverty in the West until the '50s (resolved by the Free Market, of course).
They may have had flawed ideas, but they also had a moral compass - something modern-day liberals wholly lack!
Orwell's vision of a state in which the Gubmint used technology through telescreens which monitored their citizens every move wasn't wrong per se...he just didn't realize 60 years ago...
I would imagine if the technology we had today was controlled centrally, the results would be far different than what we know today!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned David Horowitz, to provide a very contemporaneous example. He's such a good resource for conservatives.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.