I just read the 'tidbit' of the day on this site and I couldn't believe what I read.  It says, 'Orwell was a socialist'.  Are you freaking KIDDING ME!?  I googled this, and people are taking lines from his book 1984 as 'proof' that he was a socialist. 

One line used in this argument is that he said,
'A government by the people, of the people and for the people'.  This is not socialist ideology, but DEMOCRATIC ideology. 

They also took other single lines from his work to argue their point.  You could take any single line from any argument and flip it over, but if you read the WHOLE of '1984' you see very clearly that he was against big government. 

If anything, he was a libertarian!  Next they'll say Ayn Rand was a socialist.  Appalling! 

George Orwell was a socialist and, like all good socialists, was a critic of totalitarian regimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views

It's not even an argument.

Ronda,

It all depends on the definition of “is.”

I think part of your disagreement with the blurb is based on the current political atmosphere in America that sweeps all forms of socialism into one bucket labeled “Communism.”  Historically, Communism is to Socialism as Hamas is to Islam.

Orwell was openly anti-Communist, anti-Nazi, anti-anarchist, while he was also openly, and self-proclaimed, a democratic socialist.

Here’s part of the record from Wikipedia:

“According to biographer John Newsinger,

“the other crucial dimension to Orwell's socialism was his recognition that the Soviet Union was not socialist. Unlike many on the left, instead of abandoning socialism once he discovered the full horror of Stalinist rule in the Soviet Union, Orwell abandoned the Soviet Union and instead remained a socialist--indeed he became more committed to the socialist cause than ever."

“In Part 2 of The Road to Wigan Pier, published by the Left Book Club, Orwell stated: "a real Socialist is one who wishes - not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes - to see tyranny overthrown". Orwell stated in "Why I Write" (1946): "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."[

“He wrote to Cyril Connolly from Barcelona on 8 June 1937: "I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before".

“In his 1938 essay "Why I joined the Independent Labour Party", published in the ILP-affiliated New Leader, Orwell wrote:

“For some years past I have managed to make the capitalist class pay me several pounds a week for writing books against capitalism. But I do not delude myself that this state of affairs is going to last forever ... the only régime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a Socialist régime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer - that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a Socialist party.”

Wherein we see that a search on Google is not the same as real research.

(Then again, everyone else only went to Wikipedia, and that's not much better... )

One line used in this argument is that he said,
'A government by the people, of the people and for the people'.  This is not socialist ideology, but DEMOCRATIC ideology. 

Actually this is quite socialistic as well as democratic.

It's important to note that Socialism is not a form of government but (several) forms of economic theory.  Saying that Socialism is incompatible with Democracy is about the same as saying that Capitalism is incompatible with it.  They're just different ways of handling the economic aspects of governance.

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

So we see that Socialism is in fact by the people ("direct worker ownership and administration"), of the people (isn't this the same thing?  I never got that quote...) and for the people ("characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals").

Personally, I think the current Rightist view on Socialism in the US is absurd, and a gross misrepresentation of the thing.  But that's a whole different can of worms to open.

Thanks, Stewart, for expressing that so well.  If I may, I will borrow it to send to a few of my grandchildren, who seem somewhat confused by the current state of affairs.  

 BAbs,

You might also send it to Congress and every aspect of the media.

And to borrow from Forest G. "And that's all I have to say about that."

Thanks, Stewart, for expressing that so well. If I may, I will borrow it to send to a few of my grandchildren, who seem somewhat confused by the current state of affairs.

I'm aghast. I'm more than horrified. To say that Eric Blair wasn't a socialist is like saying that the Pope is made of cheese.

I guess I do see socialism as pretty much the same thing as communism.  I'll have to think about that.  Co-ops are the same as socialism and I like those, so .....

My fear is probably based on my total mistrust of big government (which I think is reasonable at this point) and I see socialism as something which requires big government to run it. 

I'll have to re-read 1984 when I have some time.  I haven't read it in years because it scares the crap out of me. 

I guess I do see socialism as pretty much the same thing as communism. I'll have to think about that.

Please don't just think about it. Research it. The differences are pretty stark. This obviously isn't the place for this kind of discussion but if you're running with those kind of definitions as your background understanding, you are horribly, horribly mistaken and it's going to take a lot of work for you to undo the damage.

I'll have to re-read 1984 when I have some time.  I haven't read it in years because it scares the crap out of me.

Good. Pay particular attention to everything concerning newspeak, because you are currently a victim of it -- conflated terms, the erasure of terms deemed non-useful by Authority, and so forth. If someone has managed to persuade you that Orwell was anything other than a socialist ... well, you're quite a way down the rabbit hole, there.

You have my email address; I'd be very happy to discuss these issues outside Scrib.

Feng I might just take you up on that kind offer :: wink ::  

 I make it a point not to get involved with political discussion; I will say however that this was fun to read (simply because all of you make me laugh at times...as I've heard someone say before, scribophile restores my faith in humanity), and it certainly helped me understand a few things. Thanks guys!

Google is my friend:

"Orwell's feet were size 12. In Catalonia his boots had to be
specially made." - Bernard Crick

Maybe:
proto-post-structuralist anarchist?
or:
literary Trotskyist
or:
anarcho-socialist (libertarian socialist)?

Way too much Orwell stuff here
(complete with links to other "GO" sites):
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/

Liked this specifically:
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/opinion/essays/storgaard1.html
wow! (I only read section 2-2.3 & 5 (conclusion/CliffsNotes)
but hey...

Ray

"Orwell's feet were size 12. In Catalonia his boots had to be specially made." - Bernard Crick

If for no other reason, this tidbit makes me glad that this discussion was held.

I must admit though that I like the idea of a proto-post-structuralist, as well.

Thanks, Stewart, for expressing that so well. If I may, I will borrow it to send to a few of my grandchildren, who seem somewhat confused by the current state of affairs.

It weren't me!  It were Wikipedia.  Please send it wherever you wish, though.

 George Orwell - if I may make so bold - was an upper middle-class fuckwit who, in his books like 'Road to Wigan Pier' insisted on his own prejudiced vision of the working classes as filthy, uneducated and unhygenic masses in order to support a political agenda.

The fuckwit.

However, 1984 is one of the finest novels ever committed to paper. Damn.

Ade.

Personally, I think the current Rightist view on Socialism in the US is absurd, and a gross misrepresentation of the thing.  But that's a whole different can of worms to open.

I 100% agree with the above statement.

Also, this was the best discussion ever.

 George Orwell - if I may make so bold - was an upper middle-class fuckwit who, in his books like 'Road to Wigan Pier' insisted on his own prejudiced vision of the working classes as filthy, uneducated and unhygenic masses in order to support a political agenda

I wish I knew more about Orwell.  This sounds off. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier ;-- this seems to address the (mis)interpretation of Orwell as having a "prejudiced vision of the working class" 

Coal mines stink.  Industrial ghettos stink.  For lots of reasons, but mainly because they do indeed create a huge social space that harbors absence of education as well as unhygenic masses, particularly in his day and immediately preceding his day. 

What we see as "working class" today (in U.S.)  is entirely different than what was "working class" in his generation.  The working class today have running hot water, TVs, computers, libraries, access to public education, etc. etc.  Now, we have a working class that is below middle class (often way below middle), and minimum-wage earner class (which is essentially poverty level and more equivalent, I think, to the "working class" of Orwell).  Both these classes have access, however limited, wherein I doubt Orwell's working class did, hence the descriptions of unhygenic uneducated masses.  Did he or did he not see these things and feel compelled to describe them?

What Orwell saw was likely horrific, if it resembles anything like what my parents have shared with me about their lives and that of their parents. 

  This sounds off.....What Orwell saw was likely horrific,

Actually, it probably wasn't.

A while back when I was interested in such things during my stint in education, the general consenus was that Orwell, despite phrasing his work as reportage, wasn't above, shall we say, 'embellishing and exaggerating' the conditions under which the working classes toiled in order to add weight to his political arguments.

Ade.

 'embellishing and exaggerating' the conditions under which the working classes toiled in order to add weight to his political arguments.

sounds like a novelist. ???

what does "mv" mean?

I have read other accounts (not Orwell's however) of working class conditions in coal mines, etc.  Not pretty.  Do his exaggerations diminish his argument?  And render his observations pointless?

 Do his exaggerations diminish his argument?  And render his observations pointless?

Not necessarily. But, in the grand tradition of ruling class ideology it disenfranchises the working classes entirely - they become nothing but a symbol to be used in the ideological struggle. A variation on "won't somebody think of the children!"

Ade.

No, most of Orwell's stuff is trash, and I have a hard time seeing through the trash to the greatness of 1984 sometimes. It frustrates me that his writing his own worst fears on paper led to such a fantastic book. It seems almost as if he stumbled on good writing/themes on accident and, for once, shamelessly advancing his own agenda was also good writing.

As for socialist? I have to disagree entirely- Orwell strikes me as too scared of that sort of government devolving (evolving?) into fascism. Yes, there is a difference, but an extreme version of socialism isn't much different from communism in ideology. I don't know what to think, but the idea of Orwell as a socialist doesn't strike me as kosher.

'A government by the people, of the people and for the people'.

Yeah? So what? Any government which exists in such a way as to not be "for the people" is a parasite. Any government that is not run the people would not be of the people- it would be of whoever it was by. So that seems redundant. Again, I get the impression that Orwell, the bastard, stumbled on genius and literary fame. Still, when I get reading 1984 I can't put it down.

But, in the grand tradition of ruling class ideology it disenfranchises the working classes entirely - they become nothing but a symbol to be used in the ideological struggle.

If anybody's interested in reading more about this particular idea, go check out Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's work.  She calls this sort of disenfranchisement and empty-symbol-making stuff "Subaltern Studies," although she's more interested in it from a post-colonial standpoint. (that is: the way in which Europe continues to rape non-Europe)

As for claims that Orwell was or was not Socialist, I think it would be best to look at what he himself wrote: http://books.google.com/books?id=zaxG_3ivhVAC&lpg=PA370&ots=2NR92EOicI&dq=orwell%20socialist%20letters&pg=PA370#v=onepage&q=&f=false  ; (scroll down to "88: Toward European Unity")   With sentences like "Our activities as Socialists only have meaning if we assume Socialism can be established," it seems fairly evident that's what he considered himself, or he would have said "Others' activities" instead.   The overall tone of the piece is perhaps a bit pessimistic, but still.

I don't know what to think, but the idea of Orwell as a socialist doesn't strike me as kosher.

Buffoon.

 A variation on "won't somebody think of the children!"

And isn't one of the tenets of socialism (in its various forms) that a ruling class DOES indeed render another class powerless, like children?   Doesn't socialism aim to bestow some power, some voice, to the metaphorical child (and I stress "metaphorical" here), created by a rigid class system (not by socialism).  The goal of socialism would be to eliminate the metaphorical children and render them equal to the metaphorical parents.   And the metaphor is pertains only to social structure/system, not to individuals.  Of course individuals have intelligence and dignity and cunning...BUT they still may not,a a group,  have running water or education (exposure), which would certainly make them uneducated and unhygenic.  And they still might be working in unsafe coal mines for lack of alternatives, which would ultimately kill them.  Not because of their lack of education nor their lack of hygiene, but because their intelligence and cunning and dignity has been diminished by a ruling class -- they have been rendered more disposable than others.

I think that the middle class fundraising types (as the ones that spearhead nonprofits) suffer this same problem as you say Orwell suffered.  Spreading hyperbole about poverty rubs people the wrong way, especially the poor.  But how should one communicate to a group of people (people with money to give) who needs to have their head clobbered in order to HEAR?  "Yes, people are starving!  Oh, we really really mean it, people are STARVING!  Look at this malnourished child who has no running water; the one who has no parents," etc. etc.. And we sit in our living rooms, enjoying whatever social class in which we reside, and ignore most things that need attention.  Except maybe the commercial that mortifies us for 45 seconds, and we send off a check.

It's a Catch-22 (and no, let's not talk about Catcher in the Rye).  We humans are earthbound.  We are class-creating creatures.  No matter what system we create, we classify.  It stinks.  We have to accept our fate and do our best.  I like to read authors who are TRYING.  Something, at least.  Orwell, it seems, tried.  There is nothing wrong with political agenda when it is aimed at eliminating greed. (IMO)  Politics and classification is here to stay as are the sky, DNA, parents, and hunger pains. 

We fight it, like Sisyphus.  Its what makes us human.

 If anybody's interested in reading more about this particular idea, go check out Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's work. 

Or, even better, my novel what I'm writing, Darkly's Laboratory. This is what it's all about. (shameless plug)

Buffoon.

You're a fruitloop

Well, you're in an insulting mood today. You big eejit.

We humans are earthbound. We are class-creating creatures. No matter what system we create, we classify. It stinks.

Ok. Agreed.

We have to accept our fate and do our best.

What? Why? If we are doomed to a system of classes why "do our best?"

Also, I don't think Orwell was arguing for any particular system of government, but rather against one. I still find it difficult to believe that Orwell had any more socialistic tendencies than the general benevolence found in man.

 Or, even better, my novel what I'm writing, Darkly's Laboratory. This is what it's all about.

cool

December Ade, December.

 What? Why? If we are doomed to a system of classes why "do our best?"

Because we are imperfect.  And we classify.  Its what we do.  We certainly should not have a political system that classifies, but humans are social animals.  Socialization implies classification.  And no matter how perfect our written political system is (e.g. the constitution), its application is in the hands of individuals...imperfect greedy ones. 

Why and how should we do our best??  We should do our best to eliminate suffering, to give others opportunity that helps them flourish. We should not abuse another for our own self interest.  We should fight for this always.  The reason it is not pointless is that the fight itself has creative properties.  In essence, we battle with ourselves as a human race.  It will be this way always.  Things will get better, but they will always need to be better.  When the flood is over, the fire will come.  When the fire is extinguished, the drought will prevail.  When the drought is over, the flood will come again.  When mathematicians rule, the poets will suffer.  Then the poets will rise, and our bridges will crumble. 

We accept our fate, and do our best to change it, then accept our fate, and do our best to change it, etc. etc.  That's life.   No denouement. 

And no matter how perfect our written political system is (e.g. the constitution)

I would hope that you're not trying to imply the perfection of our system.

I find it harder to argue that Orwell is a socialist now that I'm awake and remembering that he also wrote Animal Farm. If there was ever a novel that argued the inevitable decay of socialism into totalitarianism than Animal Farm is that book. (Wow, I exagerate.) Now, I'm not setting Animal Farm up as a paradigm. (I think Animal Farm is one of those examples of a essay in novel form for the benefit of achieving a greater audience.) BUT while Orwell perhaps dreamed of a world where an ideal communist society (no government, everyone selflessly supporting the society, etc) could exist without a strongman stepping (or being placed) into the power vacuum, I can't believe, based on his writings, that he honestly saw this as a viable future for humanity.

Spreading hyperbole about poverty rubs people the wrong way, especially the poor.  But how should one communicate to a group of people (people with money to give) who needs to have their head clobbered in order to HEAR?

While I would agree with the rest of your arguement, Elaine, I'd have to disagree with this. See one of the recent blogs about the Horror genre. He explores King's classification of fear: Revulsion, Horror, Terror, and that terror is most effective. I'd say this could be applied to any genre. The reason 1984 is Orwell's most successful book is because it does more than just revolt the reader with appalling images, it goes deeper and scares the shit out of them. In the post, they said [and even King said] that a writer can settle for Revulsion if need be, but should strive for Terror. But, I disagree. I think that Revulsion is counter-productive. I think when a reader is revolted, when material is repulsive [i.e. the reader is repelled], they work to just be rid of the images they see, and ignore it the best they can. Revolting images can work to enhance the truly terrifying aspects of the piece, but on their own they're completely unhelpful, even harmful to a message.