Why are all his books heavy-handed cringefests?

>implying Communism is wrong

>Read animal farm
>It's enjoyable and relateable

>read 1984
>its shit

where did orwell go wrong?

It's not. Capitalism is a disease upon our kind. Were it to be stricken out true progress could be made for the people.

This
>people don't realise that """""human nature"""""" is a capitalist invention devised to make us selfish

>implying that the self could ever be stifled by conceptual progress
>implying that a solution is the proposed destruction of will
the curse of the mind is that it will forever out think its own systems, and if incapable, the next brain will.

because you are a commie faggot that hates the flaws of your ideology being pointed out

This
His journalism and essays are top tier too. His full blown fiction work is not as good as his semi autobiografical stuff like Homage to Catalonia and Down and Out IMO

Your way of thinking sucks, my dude. Guys like Bradbury, Orwell, and Herbert arent "cringy" they were received well at the time and have lessons to learn from. Dont act all high and mighty because you've seen these themes come up again and again in different media since you were born.

The fact that you're complaining about a book meant for middle school already exposes you as a man-child.

This desu

>muh communism started off good, only stalin corrupted it

This. His essays are great, particularly "Shooting an Elephant"

"real" communism is bad but stalinism is redpilled

Because of this novel, everyone thinks that only Stalin made Communism bad and all the other leaders (Trotzky, Lenin) were good.

The fact is, that Communism was a vile, Jewish terror ideology since it's inception.

GOAT spanish civil war book desu

>Why are all his books heavy-handed cringefests?

imo they're just overanalyzed (usually on completely wrong premises). It has been propagandized by every country in the West, and almost all the interpretations taught in school are factually wrong (i.e: 1984 is about stalinism, wich is something that virtually every teacher in Europe and in the US will teach you).

When you read these books using these guidelines, yeah they can appear as excessively straightforward and heavy handed.

Please read Bakunin. Marx betrayed the workers.

The way I see it, 1984 is mostly about the inversion of truth.

>all those faux-edgy left-fedoras
grow up

...

kinda true tho, fuck tsarist russia

shallow reading friend

>Someone who is only read Animal Farm and 1984

Just finished this today. The last chapter is fantastic.

1984 would have been more effective if it had been written in the present tense. Past tense, combined with the at times quasi-documentarian style of the prose, suggests a future beyond the Party and thus hope. In this way it silverlines what should have been an unrelentingly bleak story.

the tsars had gulags but Lenin expanded them hugely. Stalin isn't to blame for the failure of the USSR but Communists themselves.

the only failure of the ussr was it's collapse
there is no argument to the contrary that isn't base on muh feels

His main field was journalism. There was so much demagoguery and managerese used to dress up the ideologies of the early 20th century (particularly by the communists). Because of his he came to loath over-engineered writing, seeing it as suspect. Whilst this helped him see through propaganda, it probably made him poorer as a writer. His fiction is fairly plain.

His essay Politics and the English Language pretty much explains why he writes the way he does.
orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

Pretty much.

>where did orwell go wrong?

They are both significant masterpieces of and to exactly what they are

Very good point

>muh feels
That label itself isn't nor does it define an argument and any criticism of communist governments having to do with the way the people were treated or felt is entirely valid

I want communists to leave. Even you fucking trotskyist chucklefucks.

this, i would love to sit with him in the pub that i work in and and just enjoy the stories of his and those around

>muh feels

Oh that's what that was about? I thought it was just a funny story about animals trying to run a farm.

They needed to be heavy handed so young and dumb people get it.

>>people don't realise that """""human nature"""""" is a capitalist invention devised to make us selfish
>As opposed to all of the altruist species that make the rest of the world. We are all big fish eating smaller fish.

Bro, it's not that funny. The part where Boxer dies is honestly really goddamn depressing. I particularly related to Benjamin, and that was the point where Benjamin realized that him standing by and being a sarcastic, contrarian asshole while pretending to be above it all had led to the hell they were living.

>Hasn't even read "Basic Economics"

Squealer is best pig

Stalin did nothing wrong. Orwell was a Bitch who hid behind a country to shit-talk Stalin

Altruism is widely observed in animal species in the wild. It's inversely correlated with degree of genetic diversity - the less diverse the species, the more altruistic. The quintessential example of this is the naked mole rat. Each member of a colony of naked mole rats is almost completely genetically identical to every other. They are notoriously willing to put their lives on the line to help each other.

Humans, incidentally, have an extremely low degree of genetic diversity - even lower than that of the fruit fly. But who cares, ignore the facts. You have an ideology to perpetuate.

>almost completely genetically identical to every other
So not so much altruism as self preservation. Along with aphids, ants, bees. Yes I've read "The selfish Gene", too, fucktard.

> The need to seek sustenance & security is a bourgeoisie invention to depress our class consciousness
> The need to have exclusive use and control of scarce resources is a bourgeoisie invention to depress our class consciousness
> All attempts to re-educate people have ended in failure & death, but that's just a CIA conspiracy to depress our class consciousness
> No one has implemented Marxism the right way, these fake attempts depress our class consciousness
> Everything is a CIA/bourgeoisie conspiracy to depress our class consciousness

Oy vey......people wonder why this shit is just ignored now.

I haven't. I'm a biochemist, so I read real science lit, not memes. Tell me, do you suppose a mole rat's last thought is "well at least I saved my genetically identical brethen?" I think that would be kind of weird. Did it ever occur to you that nearly every mental trait you have is an adaptation for survival or a flaw? How about that the reason for your being a certain way is not teleological? Why are you even on Veeky Forums, senpai?

>capitalist invention
>Cavemen killing each other for food 200,000 years ago
That's what I really call some "mad men"

>do you suppose a mole rat's last thought is "well at least I saved my genetically identical brethen?"
No, because I'm not a complete idiot. Does that mean that you believe ants think "well, I'd better keep grabbing food for the queen because this is best for the colony and in the end it will make for a better society"?

What do Marxists think of the Fabian Societies of the UK & Australia & their attempt of implementing Marxism through gradualism/democracy?

What about the question made you think that I accepted it's premise? Was it the part where I said that it would be pretty weird in the next sentence? To get back on track, why do you think the cause of our altruism invalidates it? It's still very much a real part of our nature, something you were vemently denying not too long ago.

I'm not vehemently denying altruism. I'm denying the fact that "human nature is a capitalist invention to make us selfish". We are inherently selfish; as are the species that we evolve from. The strongest gets to propagate it's genes. The only reason we have altruism is because of the ESS of reciprocal altruism,.

>I haven't. I'm a biochemist, so I read real science lit, not memes. Tell me, do you suppose a mole rat's last thought is "well at least I saved my genetically identical brethen?" I think that would be kind of weird.

There is no line of thought behind it. That behavior is instictual and based on natural selection. Genes that promote this behavior tend to survive because the relatives of the altruistic individual are likely to carry the same genes.

That's why altruism declines the more genetically different the two individuals are. A human is instinctively more likely to help someone who is genetically similar to him, which is most likely one of the the causes for racism and other tribalist behavior.

Good point.

I know. The question was rhetorical. It was to demonstrate the fault in thinking that the Darwinian origin of the trait makes the actual animals think selfishly when acting out their sacrifice. I may be a STEMfag but y'all are seriously autistic.

>animals think selfishly when acting out their sacrifice.
>negating that you ever said "human nature is a capitalist invention to make us selfish"
>I'm a biochemist, so I read real science lit, not memes.
>on Veeky Forums
"This is so many levels of bait that I can't even anymore." -Alyosha Karamazov

You're missing the point - evolution gave you altruism, but you don't have to employ it towards evolutionary ends. Evolution just happens, and when you sacrifice yourself to save your dog having produced no children, your line will be culled AND you will have acted in accordance with your nature. The two are not mutually exclusive. Your altruism exists because of evolution, but it doesn't have to live for it. Human nature contains multitudes. One of those is altruism. Another is to choose. Living selfishly because it's "human nature" is ideological bullshit.

I understand your reasoning, but why then, were there so many examples of native Americans helping escaped slaves? They even formed Maroon communities together.

I didn't say animals think selfishly - i rhetorically asked if they would. Why are you even here if you can't read? Repeating my exact quote:

"Tell me, do you suppose a mole rat's last thought is "well at least I saved my genetically identical brethen?" I think that would be kind of weird."

>Another is to choose. Living selfishly because it's "human nature" is ideological bullshit
What is wrong with choosing to be selfish, then?

Nothing inherently. What's wrong - not morally, but factually - is the claim that it is not a choice, but a necessary product of our nature which will assert itself in spite of our efforts. This is the dogma of capitalist apologetics.

That's the psychology of a common enemy. It holds groups together that would otherwise be divided. And usually when the perceived common enemy disappears, they become divided again. It's a thing in psychology. I am not sure if evolutionary psychology or biology has an explanation for this or if it is just socially learned behavior.

Or of course it could have just been a strategical decision. We are talking about modern humans after all, we can act against our feelings and instincts if logic demands it.

>read Animal Farm
>expect a comfy piggy story
>get some political shit
Fuck off, George

as a commie this is true really

I can't really despise Lenin because he was the first one, he didn't know hat he was doing, but you're stupid if you still clinge to him, vanguardism is bullshit and Stalinism proves it

>implying

humans are animals and animals form biological hierarchies. The only way to live is to give up on this biological drive within a capitalist framework

Yeah the glossing over of Lenins atrocious crimes seems bad, and is certainly not historically accurate to protray Old Major as a Lenin/Marx hybrid. It also seriously downplayed how bad Trotzky was.

Not sure if this should be interpreted as creative license or Orwell being a communist apologist.

Still, Animal farm did serve as an effective criticism of gommunism. It still makes the entire venture seem naive and pointless.

capitalism has never worked

>This is the dogma of capitalist apologetics.

I love when communists accuse capitalists of being apologists for dogma, when they're promoting an ideology that has never worked.

Apologists defend controversial things. Capitalism is the norm. Commies and fascists have apologists, not capitalists. That's the privilege of supporting an economic system that hasn't run every country that has tried it into the ground.

Communists that talk about "capitalist apologists" are just butthurt about being called out as being apologists of a meme.

->

ok this is a joke right?
did all three of you literally not understand the last chapters of the book?

yes I'll take a double strawman with fries, please. hold the counterargument.

w...wha-?

Not only can real life communism can't even compete to real life capitalism, fantasy communism can't compete to fantasy capitalism.

You see, altruism is built into human nature, so in the future, capitalism will become an egalitarian system as the rich give away all their money to the poor. If you disagree, you are believing (((their))) lies. This will result in a perfect society where everybody is rich, beautiful, and tall, and people will have more freedom and individualism than in communism.

>imblying

Because he was more interested in getting his points across cleanly and clearly for the masses, than being flowery for the Veeky Forums audience.

enjoy your famine
kys

Why did you include the oats poster in that?

>communism is good

O Y V E Y
Y
V
E
Y

you do realize Orwell was a firm believer that socialism could work right? That is why he was such a harsh critic of Stalin because he wanted people to see the good and bad sides of communism/socialism and no one in his time would open their eyes.

>suggesting that if no one owned anything and no government to protect the people we wouldn't start fucking eating each other in days.

y'all niggas need kropotkin

wow you must be an anthropologist

Homage to Catalonia should've been mandatory middle school reading instead of 1984

>mfw Marx was an anti-semite and you are a fucking pseud

> Not sure if this should be interpreted as creative license or Orwell being a communist apologist.

I'm not the guy you were replying to but I think it's reasonable to see it as creative license. Although the book is heavily allegorical it's hard to write a true 1:1 allegory without it being either extremely long or an ineffective narrative. Some characters were condensed or slightly changed to keep the narrative simple and the interactions more understandable.

Because he wasn't a great novelist. His non-fiction is his finest work.

They weren't meant for modern audiences, they were meant to be printed on cheap leaflets and thrown out of a fast military plane over the Ukraine and Poland.

>people don't realise that """""human nature"""""" is a capitalist invention devised to make us selfish

I thought it was trash. i literally threw the library copy in the trash and moved to silicon valley and majored in business and started a venture capitalist firm after i read it.

>Most of the leaders of 1917 were jewish
>All the commies in Germany were jews

>Stalin killed all of the jewish leadera.

Burmese Days was good desu

>Why is [generalization] so [buzzword]

Kill yourself