Am I to understand this was written as a pro-socialist work?? I mean, I'm not a huge political philosopher...

Am I to understand this was written as a pro-socialist work?? I mean, I'm not a huge political philosopher, but it seems more dystopian than utopian. Read somewhere the other day that Orwell was in fact a fighter for communism?

No its an anti-soviet/stalinism book written by a socialist. Its not really pro socialism

As in, it rejects how they did it in u
USSR? So its more or less the "guys, communisms fine, just not how they did it" in book form?


I've recently been giving communism actual consideration, but can't see how surveillance(thought crimes) and such isn't a final reality for that mode of government assuming the technology becomes available

Orwell was a (((democratic socialist)))

I remember some russian said it wasn't about ussr and was about the west.
I think he was partly right

It was based on Nazi Germany as much as the USSR

It was based on the highly acclaimed Russian novel "we"
Any other statement if a falsification

Orwell was indeed fighting for Communism, part of the reason why it won

>when you find out that huxley taught orwell
>when u find out huxley wrote and his brother is an actual fucking eugenicist

absolute mad man

It's a criticism of extremism. Remember how the Asian countries are called socialist?

It's not for or against any political ideology, just commentary on how they mimic each other in dangerous ways.

Read Homage to Catalonia next, it will give you a better understanding of context.

Better yet, read Road to Wigan Pier, and you will absolutely see what he is talking about.

>pro-socialist work??
>fighter for communism?

Top kek,

One of the most anti-cummunist propagandists.

A "socialist" who supported anarchists and trotskists in the Spanish Civil War who only created troubles to the anti-fascist side.

A man who worked for the British Goverment reporting communists.

And the two famous works which were used as the best anti-communist propaganda books in the Western world:

"Animal farm": An insult to the History. Very ridiculous lies (i.e. "the old hymn was forbidden", kek, when was the international forbidden?). But anyway, he could do that because: who knows anything about the Russian Revolution?

Stalin = Bad, evil
Trotsky = Good, intelligent

"wow the revolution had a good intention but stalin screwed up everything, the communist leaders/'intelligentsia' were just like the aristocracy!!" (average western reader)

And 1984 doesn't have much. "Wow totalitarianism, this is both Hitler and Stalin. This is how the USSR was". Plagiarism of Zamiatin's book.

Orwell fought with socialists who were purged by the Stalinists during the Spanish Civil War. He had to flee the country as a fugitive himself.

I wouldn't read too deeply into it. It's just meant to wake people up to the nightmare of totalitarianism, especially socialists who embraced Stalin just because he was the major leader of socialism at the time.

Goldstein is clearly intended to be a Trotsky of sorts.

I did legit meet a guy in high-school who thought this
>sees me reading Animal Farm
>"ah, reading Orwell, I see"
>"ye sure, it's pretty good"
>"yeah, I never really liked it. Seeing as I'm a communist, I've always preferred 1984

I'm about 90% sure he's read neither. How the fuck could he expect someone to flipflop so hard?

You shouldn't talk about people behind their backs.

*e. g.

See, things need not be black and white.

Orwell was a socialist ideologue, and volunteered to fight for this cause in spanish civil war.

The book 1984 was written in response to the Stalin regime, of which he disapproved - to put it mildly, as you could have seen for yourself.

That's a lot of assumptions with little basis.
Really? We're mimicking popular consensus as an argument now?

Orwell, apart from being socialist, was a big fan of Aldous Huxley's.
In fact it was Brave New World that inspired him to write 1984 (hence why it looks so odd among the rest of his books, and the structure of the novel suddenly seems a lot more familiar, too), and upon printing the first copies, first thing he did was send one to Huxley.

Their correspondence can be looked up and can serve as evidence of his motives when writing the book.

Also what the hell? Where did you get the "reported communists" bit? Never heard that one before.

We're talking Eric "Orwell" Blair, right? The guy who quit Imperial Police in his twenties and rather lived as a hobo than to compromise his sense of integrity.
Who volunteered into a conflict that did not concern him on the basis of his beliefs and convictions.

Typical spineless snitch.

>assumptions

What assumptions?

Wasn't he with the POUM and CNT-FAI?

He was.

Wasn't he a snitch?

Yes he was.

Isn't "Animal farm" a book full of lies and 0 historical facts?

Yes it is.

Isn't 1984 REALLY similar to We?

Yes it is.

Is not his work proaganda that makes people think "ugh socialism has good intention but it ended bad, I know because I read Animal farm, 1984, and I know some guy called Solzhenitsyn"

Yes it is.

>popular consensus

Popular consensus doesn 't mean truth. When it comes to History I don't care about popular consensus among ignorant people.

>apart from being socialist

You can call youself what you want, but that doesn't make it real. You can say you are 2 m when you are 1,70.

> mimicking

Sadly people only have a caticature of the topic. There's nothing else but mimicking in their head. They cannot speak about History because they simply don't know.

Said this, you are the average Western 20 years old kid, so I'm not going to lose more time with you.

IRD.

Search.

>Stalinist detected

You do realise that Stalin was less concerned with helping the lefties win the Spanish Civil War than he was with sending NKVD lads over to purge Trotskyists and Anarchists he didn't like? While the POUM (Trots) and the CNT (Anarchists) were busy forming militias to fight Franco anyone Stalin considered a threat was quietly kidnapped and executed.

>Wasn't he a snitch?
no

>Isn't "Animal farm" a book full of lies and 0 historical facts?
"fiction" you mean?

>Isn't 1984 REALLY similar to We?
wow!

>
Is not his work proaganda that makes people think "ugh socialism has good intention but it ended bad, I know because I read Animal farm, 1984, and I know some guy called Solzhenitsyn"
you're not people, user.

He was, but the CNT-FAI wasn't causing trouble to the anti-fascist side, it was causing trouble to the URSS / NKVD / Stalinist side.

Oh boy here we go

We?

>Goldstein is clearly intended to be a Trotsky of sorts.

are you sure you don't mean lenin?

>Orwell was in fact a fighter for communism?

he fought in the Marxist militia during the Spanish civil war which you can read about in "homage to catalonia"...a good read. you have to understand there were (and still are) are variety of Marxist factions with varying interpretations of marx's works.

Orwell was an English Socialist.
English Socialism predates Marx and is very aesthetic (literally, it came of the Arts and Crafts movement).
The man wrote no shortage of essays etc so this really shouldnt be a mystery.

He passed info on figures of the British left to MI5, including who he thought were queers. I like his work, but he's a huge hypocrite