>read George Orwells Down and under in Paris and London
>antisemitism out of nowhere
>later, he's sleeping in some house for hobos
>they have to sleep naked
>so their dicks touch all the time apparantly
>the other dude makes homosexual advances
I did not see that coming. Anyone else read this book?
Apparently being a hobo and never getting laid turns you homosexual
Yeah man, I've read it. The rape scene with Charlie and the hooker at the beginning is the finest thing Eric ever wrote. Orwell is often called out by "liberal" critics today for "homophobia," but his style of opposition to "nancy boys" and "poofters" is still a thing today among working class englishmen. There's no malice in it, it's more like an exhortation to manliness.
>There's no malice in it
There's a fair amount of malice in it.
But it's not "these are bad people who should be dealt with" malice, no. Not usually.
LMFOA what the actual fuck was he thinking with that "facial hair"?
Orwell, for being a Socialist, was very conservative socially.
If he say the way Socialism is today, and life of the ordinary man is today. He'd probably kill himself.
But first he would proclaim his love for Aldous Huxley.
>Down and under in Paris and London
>under
fuck off australian shitposter. It's Down and Out. OUT.
>it's another American can't tell socialism from social democracy / left liberalism episode
The average socialist today is a tankie shit for brains so yeah he wouldn't be happy
...
Were you not around when Orwell gave the government the names of Trotskyists and Stalinists?
What are you trying to say? That Orwell was a liberal pseudo-commie? I don't need convincing.
The book is a recount
Orwell was literally a sperg, he went and fought in the Spanish civil war. The modern day equivalent of that little ginger kid who went to syria to join Isis. He could write prose fiction, an. Anyone can with dedication, intellect and an editor
>Orwell wouldn't be happy with how socialists are today
>Hurr socialists aren't liberals
>Orwell hated Leninists though
>Hurr fuck Orwell, what are you trying to say!?
Okay
>fighting for democracy is the same as fighting for islamist theocracy
I didnt read it in English. I just wrote the title from memory
I don't see any contradiction here.
I'm sure you don't see a lot of things
>for democracy
Fuck of you idiot, he was fighting for a bunch of commies. Far from democratic. Franco was the status quo. The word fascist has been hijacked by modern deluded leftist politics and is used as an ad hominem which pretty much ruins Francos reputation by assocation
Have you not read the book? It's very critical of leftists politics and how they are intertwined with the war
Can see the stain on his jumper from the thumbnail.
He was fighting with anarchists. The POUM got purged by the commies.
well I can't take Orwell seriously anymore
it's a shame as he has massive weight and value in the current political landscape
>it's a shame as he has massive weight and value in the current political landscape
Only if you're stuck on a high school reading level
>he was fighting for a bunch of commies.
True, though he fighted for the trotskyist group, and admitted in the book he would have rather fighted with the CNT, had he known that the Republican side was so heavily divided.
>Far from democratic.
The republican government had been democratically elected and intended to keep it that way. Franco tried to overthrow the republic and instaurate a dictatorship. The later authoritarian derive and the rejection of the anarchist idea of "revolution before war" came from the heavy russian influence in PCE, given that it was the only country that aided the republican side. The original pre civil war government was not stalinist in any way, and not really revolutionary either.
>Franco was the status quo.
Right, that's why he had to sieze power by force, plunging the country into a bloody civil war that lasted three years. Because he was the status quo all along.
>Apparently being a hobo and never getting laid turns you homosexual
I've no joke seen this happen first hand.
>Franco was the status quo
>Only if you're stuck on a high school reading level
Most people are. Which is why Orwell is so valuable, every bleeding anus-heart leftist cuck in the world wants to spout Orwellian like it's the new Kafkaesque. They made it a point in the media to let everyone know sales of 1984 have skyrocketed...
Well guess what, Orwell would have voted for Trump. He fucking despised the brand of 'liberalism' that has completely dominated the political discourse of the last 30 years. When you drop that bomb on them just for a brief fucking second, they flirt with the self awareness to doubt their ideology, when you quote Wigan Pier and reveal the very figure they ignorantly extol detests everything they stand for their buzzwords fail and one can almost believe in progress again.
>Liberal: a power worshipper without power.
>t. Georgey Orwell
>Orwell would have voted for Trump
He would have voted for Bernie and then moved to Rojava to fight for the dream, actually.
I can't believe americans are so fucked that you can't even into leftism and have watered versions like liberalism labeled.
>The modern day equivalent of that little ginger kid who went to syria to join Isis
Forgot to quote you in the last post but try reading about Rojava, that's closer to what Orwell did.
POUM was communist but was framed and acussed of being a traitor faction.
>Well guess what, Orwell would have voted for Trump
Some people on here will never leave the cave
Feel free to enlighten us.
Orwell was not a retard who could fell into simple populist rethoric neither a right wing person.
>Orwell was not a retard
[Citation needed]
>anarchists
>far from democratic
really meddles my midchlorians
I will never understand how americans can't really grasp on the existence of politics outside of big two primaries and subsequent elections.
Orwell was a anarchist, probably the least likely group of people to support Trump.
>whole argument here is literally 'Orwell was smart and good whereas Trump is dumb and bad'
>could fell
>rethoric
>neither a right wing
English is hard.
Also, the populist candidate was Clinton you nub.
I'm not a native speaker. A non-american subhuman.
The wall and the MAGA motto are pure populism. I don't care about Clinton, she wasn't good either, and I feel insulted by your dichotomic reasoning.
>Not being a retard means you're smart
>Not being a rightie means you're good
Your words, not mine.
I didn't say Trump was dumb, I said some people who voted for him were.
>I feel insulted by your dichotomic reasoning
Jesus dude don't look in the mirror. The cognitive dissonance is real.
So you think he would have voted for Clinton?
>Trump is massively reducing the government and bringing America into disarray
>incompatible with anarchism
It's the Zizek explanation, he will make things so bad it will facilitate reactionary and meaningful change. I know of at least 3 people who voted for him because of a similar reasoning, precisely because he is bad for the country and unlike the left doesn't view stagnation as something to defend.
Well played
>are pure populism
Yeah #Istandwith her and relying on your vagina is not
Really makes you ponder...
He also used to call himself a Tory Anarchist
I'm Canadian and I know the difference.
It doesn't make him any less of a Socialist.
Test
>Democratically elected government
>Far from democratic
>Militar cue instigated by right wing radicals which lead to a three year civil war
>Status quo
Sometimes I forget that to be a fascist you have to be a fucking moron
Why do americans keep thinking as a switch between Trump and Hillary for gods sake. Both of your options were shit, the equal kind of shit both of them were pure and utter shit. And you know why? Because your country is full of retards.
the republicans won the election fair and square. Franco organised a coup with his fellow ass-backward army friends and overturned a democratic decision. Read some fucking history you idiot.
>tfw didn't vote for either of them
This.
>I would like something that looks terrible but it also has to be very uncomfortable and weird for a woman to kiss.
It's undeniably distinctive, though.
Not voting for Clinton is voting for Trump. The existence of independent candidates like Stein or Johnson literally won Trump the election, they were the difference in states like Florida. There's a reason they're called spoiler candidates.
The Spanish Republic was highly unstable and the new government was firmly in the pocket of the Soviet Union. The middle classes, clergy, and elite all supported Franco. Guess what the peaceful, democratic Republicans did to those people?
What you americans need to learn is democracy; not voting for the two sides of the same coin
I hope Trump causes such disarray that the two major parties there break apart
>I hope Trump causes such disarray that the two major parties there break apart
That's such a common and even trite sentiment. Way to escape the political dichotomy.
> democracy is blackmail
lol
trumpy and hillary were and still remain very good friends
>Orwell definition of Liberal.
you do know that in his time and outside of the US, Liberal refers to what both american liberals and conservatives are? like the Democratic party and GOP are both on the Liberal side of the spectrum with GOP more conservative, and Dems slightly more moderate.
also he would've voted for Bernie, not because he believed in his policies, but because he would've frightened him the least.
Ridiculous.