If Orwell was a hardcore socialist, why did he feel the need to write books really damaging communism...

If Orwell was a hardcore socialist, why did he feel the need to write books really damaging communism? I understand he had a problem with Stanlism at the time, but I don't see how it did any good for socialist ideas in general to greatly disparage communism. Orwell actually set back the acceptance of socialism for decades because most people do not have a nuanced understand of the differences between communism and socialism.

Why didn't he write an epic books of novellas really disparaging capitalism?

read homage to catalonia

Because the best thing you can do for something you love is to criticize it.

A lot of European communist hated soviet russia. Also this "my side :)" mentality is retarded.

Orwell was hardly a socialist when he sold his comrades out to the British government. He should have hanged.

>Stanlism

>If Orwell was a hardcore socialist, why did he feel the need to write books really damaging communism?
>Orwell actually set back the acceptance of socialism for decades because most people do not have a nuanced understand of the differences between communism and socialism.

dude i..
never mind

>Why didn't he write an epic books of novellas really disparaging capitalism?
he did criticise capitalism
in fact he criticised most things
he was a bit of a grumpy sod and that's part of what makes him great

trotskyites are damaged people

But Orwell wasn't really a Trotskyist.

>The fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i. e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference.

"Up to 1939, and even later, the majority of English people were incapable of assessing the true nature of the Nazi régime in Germany, and now, with the Soviet régime, they arc still to a large extent under the same sort of illusion.
This has caused great harm to the Socialist movement in England, and had serious consequences for English foreign policy. Indeed, in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country "

From the preface of the Ukrainian version of AF

Socialism and the leftist intellectuals of Britain were a hypocritical indicting bunch. They had to be weeded out before a real socialism could be established.

Also read the "lion and the unicorn..." part III specifically if you want to see Orwell write on real socialism. It includes an easy bulletpointed list on how to turn England socialist.

>Why didn't he write an epic books of novellas really disparaging capitalism?
He did, but those books weren't used by the CIA as propaganda tools.

despite being hugely prescient in a lot of ways, orwell couldn't anticipate how thoroughly the labor movement in the first world would be minimized

he most likely didnt imagine a future where people couldnt make the distinction between stalinism and good old fashioned socialism, but here we are

Based Orwell

This

worse than Hitler

Stalin saved his people from ruin and Hitler ruined Europe forever. Tough call.

Is there a way to tastefully weave political messages into stories?

Does it count as a political message if it's literally just supporting individual freedoms? What if the whole story is about resisting authority?

Or is the audience always put off if they realize the story is advocating for a political stance they oppose?

Has a work of fiction ever successfully made you question your political opinions?

"trotskyist" morphed into social democracy sometime in the 40s, 50s, worth keeping in mind

I was referring to Stanley you mongoloid

He hated the hypocrisy of the West Hampstead set he lived with, the people who advocated for this kind of thing on ideological grounds but didn't care that it would harm the poor, the experience of the Spanish Civil War shook him up and he was surprised to discover that it was a lot more morally complex than the simple heroes vs villains narrative he had expected.

At his heart he was a deeply thoughtful and observant man. He was anti-capitalist but he saw what was going on with socialism and became very disillusioned with the left in later life. He was quite conservative in some ways. Ultimately he wrote these books because they were true and because he was horrified by what was going on, he was not a propagandist (except in Spain!).

He did, he lived throuh it. The Ukrainian preface to animal farm he states the book isnt anti stalin, it is convincing people socialism isnt stalinism

>Orwell actually set back the acceptance of socialism for decades because most people do not have a nuanced understand of the differences between communism and socialism.
Doesn't matter, you'd still have morons trying to tell you "well, that's not REAL socialism"

Soviet Union
>70 million deaths
Nazi Germany
>6 million deaths
ur a faget lol

Soviet union
>170 000 000 people in 1939
>Population grew steadily and was far larger most of the time
>Lasted 69 years

Nazi Germany
>80 000 000 people in 1939
>Lasted 13 years

>Leftists criticize and shit on each other
In other news water is wet

>it is convincing people socialism isnt stalinism
Well he failed spectacularly, not that I blame him

weren't the first neoconservatives troskyites?

Orwell noticed that there's no binary option on how things work. he saw what socialists were doing to the poor people and stopped beliving on fairy tales.
You can never have a idealistic society with humans as variables

Is your education, dare I say it, American?

>397▶
>
people still died in mass numbers, retard

there was nothing socialist about the ussr

He didn't. Bureaucratic collectivism is neither socialism nor communism

I don't think you can seriously claim the Soviet Union was a success, people seem to leap between lionising it and saying "it wasn't real socialism". If it wasn't (it was), then stand by it, don't just claim its achievements then denounce it when you feel like it.

More people died in the 33 - 45 period in the Soviet Union than Nazi Germany, and countless more than in Italy or Romania. It was a bloody failure, get over it

You should read "the City of God" by St Augustine. The whole "only my pure ideal is real all attempts to reach it can't be used as moral judgements on the ideology" idea only works if you aren't attempting to actually bring it about. Asides from being incredibly anti-intellectual by shutting down any debate with a one line phrase that means little, it betrays your ignorance about the people involved in these atrocities. They weren't cynical power-grabbers, they were absolute ideologues who dedicated their lives to this ideology. And the result has been replicated in every place on earth its been tried, the actual idea behind it itself is also reprehensible - its the sin of envy given a political form. The lower revolting against the higher. Low culture vs high culture.

People are unequal.

You can always say it was a success and TRIED to reach real socialism but didn't.

He realized that most socialists just hated the rich and didn't give a fuck about the poor, and if they were ever put into power the world would be made much worse for both.

Everything thats abject and evil about fascism doesn't need to be said. It's de trop, its like trying to explain why eating someone is wrong. There is no intellectual argument FOR fascism, so there's none to be made against it.

Most European intellectuals were/are socialists, and making a point about how it was manifesting itself in Soviet Russia needed to be made.

'murica

Nonsense, Heidegger, Elliot, Pound, Cioran many others flirted with or embraced Fascism. That's a non argument.

What was evil about fascism is only evil if you continue to hold onto a post-Christian morality. Once you step outside of that, it becomes positively enlightened.

Most of the "intellectuals" of the period were actually like scared children clinging onto the coattails of the Victorian moralists while pretending to be radicals.