The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism...

I feel like Orwell was an economic socialist, but also somewhat of a cultural conservative, in that he liked normal English traditions and customs. He was confused why socialists always seemed so obsessed with destroying traditional culture and attacking every aspect of it.

If you read "Politics and the English Language" it's pretty clear disliked modernism and experimental writing/art.

That doesn't undermine or conflict with his strong left-wing convictions, otherwise he wouldn't have risked his life to fight with Marxists in Spain (against a traditionalist insurgency).

Tbh it's pretty pathetic to see right-wings try to claim him as one of theirs just because he was critical of Stalinist and liked old English culture.

>secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings
kek

The only hardcore socialist types, yes. People who talk about socialism.

But there are plenty of left-wing working class. This is something educated, middle class right wingers in particular don't seem to see.

Many of the more politically conscious members of the working class in my country are left wing voters, in fact, I might even say over half are. Of course, it's easy not to realise that when the most vocal of the working class tend to be the right wing rabid protectionists (because, justifiably, they feel threatened by imported labour and jobs being moved offshore.)

Well since modern leftists like Satlin and despise western culture in all its forms it's unlikely he would still have much heart for politicking.

No, he thought they were all liars and shams as is evidenced by that exerpt. His view of socialism was simple. Common decency for his fellow man that he felt because of aidos. On the Road to Wigan Pier he wrote about the disregard of the worker class for socialism. Nobody gave a damn about it, they were too busy coughing up their lungs and dying in shacks with their 10 member families in 2-floor 6x8 large row houses. He noticed the similar lack of awareness in Spain. In the end he gave up on it, as I feel is self-evident, with 1984. The culmination of his experiences and works up until that point were masterfully woven into a book that, I believe, enlightened him, but unfortunately we won't ever know for sure since he died 6 months later. I like to think he did forsake it. He, like Wilde and Dostoyevski, after closer examination of socialism concluded that it was corruptible, immoral and vapid.

Conservatism and revolution aren't on the political spectrum. Orwell was a left-wing conservative. As were most of the labour unions, the respectable working class and old Labour.
Bismarck was clearly right-wing, but he was also a revolutionary that did away with the established political order; he was a white (as opposed to red) revolutionary.

Orwell gives me the impression of a man desperately trying to find a flower in a landfill site getting more and more frustrated as all he turns up is garbage.

This passage from 1984 always jumped out at me

>He meditated resentfully on the physical texture of life. Had it always been like this? Had food always tasted like this? He looked round the canteen. A low-ceilinged, crowded room, its walls grimy from the contact of innumerable bodies; battered metal tables and chairs, placed so close together that you sat with elbows touching; bent spoons, dented trays, coarse white mugs; all surfaces greasy, grime in every crack; and a sourish, composite smell of bad gin and bad coffee and metallic stew and dirty clothes. Always in your stomach and in your skin there was a sort of protest, a feeling that you had been cheated of something that you had a right to. It was true that he had no memories of anything greatly different. In any time that he could accurately remember, there had never been quite enough to eat, one had never had socks or underclothes that were not full of holes, furniture had always been battered and rickety, rooms underheated, tube trains crowded, houses falling to pieces, bread dark-coloured, tea a rarity, coffee filthy-tasting, cigarettes insufficient — nothing cheap and plentiful except synthetic gin. And though, of course, it grew worse as one’s body aged, was it not a sign that this was NOT the natural order of things, if one’s heart sickened at the discomfort and dirt and scarcity, the interminable winters, the stickiness of one’s socks, the lifts that never worked, the cold water, the gritty soap, the cigarettes that came to pieces, the food with its strange evil tastes? Why should one feel it to be intolerable unless one had some kind of ancestral memory that things had once been different?

I think Orwell thought that everyone, no matter their class, deserved good living conditions and thought that cooperation was needed to get that done.

>In his tramping days, he did domestic work for a time. His extreme politeness was recalled by a member of the family he worked for; she declared that the family referred to him as "Laurel" after the film comedian. With his gangling figure and awkwardness, Orwell's friends often saw him as a figure of fun. Geoffrey Gorer commented "He was awfully likely to knock things off tables, trip over things. I mean, he was a gangling, physically badly co-ordinated young man. I think his feeling [was] that even the inanimate world was against him ..." When he shared a flat with Heppenstall and Sayer, he was treated in a patronising manner by the younger men. At the BBC, in the 1940s, "everybody would pull his leg," and Spender described him as having real entertainment value "like, as I say, watching a Charlie Chaplin movie." A friend of Eileen's reminisced about her tolerance and humour, often at Orwell's expense. Psychiatrist Michael Fitzgerald has speculated that Orwell's social and physical awkwardness, limited interests and monotone voice were the result of Asperger syndrome.

found another robot lads

Hmm true, but it's mist to draw attention to the stupidities of the so-called SJW in eyes of a real left-wing thinker

Don't cherrypick Orwell. Please.

It is a massive landfill site and I am in it.

Orwell clearly disliked the socialist political party of the time. And vegetarians, also, as I could read in Wigan Pier.

Lenin also disliked socialists of his times.

What a guy!

Those were the people they dealt with, so they are the people who fell under their critisism. I have met my share of weirdos, and was probably one of them for a period. Guess what? They are everywhere to be found.
If you think Orwell as some anti-socialist guy think again. He was an independent journalist.

I obviously don't think Orwell was an anti-socialist if I mention Wigan Pier and Lenin having his same postures (most socialists or left-leaning people don't really read Marx haha). He, however, dennounced communists at the end of his life, though.

I agree.
People just seem to mix criticism with attack.
Tramps of Paris and London is my peronal favourite of his.
>I have been in the shitposting Zoo for too long and forgot how to talk to humans...

It takes a certain kind of Aspergers to have the kind of realism that Orwell had—that nobody is truly willing to consider that they're wrong, and that most of human progress is stifled by our own lack of human maturity. Orwell wasn't redpilled, he was blackpilled.

Well, aparently he didn't like tetotallers, vegetarians, Quakers, and pacifists

He had seen and been through many and different situations and could not concentrate on the mundane.
I was like that for a while, your.experiences are catxhing up to you.

I agree with him on everything other than his disdain for pacifism.

Pacifism is impotence

WRONG

Edgy.

lel no

Wrong - pacifism is for cucks.

Literally.

>resorting to /pol/-tier arguments

>Thinks you can defeat evil without fighting it
Whatever user, go ahead.

Where does evil fit in all this?
>Generalizations are the death of conversations.

Well, 'evil' is a short-hand - but a group like the fascists in Spain that Orwell fought in. Do you think you can beat Franco without firing a shot?

Conversation literally requires generalization. What do you think words do?

>Wants to have a conversation
>Doesn't like generalisations
>Using language to express a generalisation
>Using language to attack generalisations

Not very smart are you, user?

>foreign

That's the spookiest thing I've seen all day

Pacifism, as anything with -ism, is a mass wave.
Think of it as a tool, you cannot do all the work required using only one tool.
Sometimes it is correct, sometimes bot, but lumping ot all together is just moronic.

I do not talk with goblins.

Surely an -ism is an ideology that ascribes it's use universally? I'm not against trying to be peaceful and diplomatic, but to make it an -ism instead of a tool is moronic.

More because you've been proven to contradict yourself, thus your logic is inconsistent.

We live post ww2. We have the experience of the dead-ends that blind and uncontrolable -ism's lead to.
A consious -ism with a specific goal is a tool.
A totalitarian -ism that wants to be applied universally, is the 22 that burns you in the Blackjack game of life.

>my opinion, don't bully pls.

I'd say that's fair in theory, but I guess I wouldn't be comfortable with the expression - the idea an -ism that is conscious is a tool seems even these days naive. People can do evil things now, knowing they believe in an -ism.

Been there, seen it.
What I am saying is purely theoretical.
As individuals we can see it coldly and "logically", but -isms are constructions that incorporate people, sometimes in mass numbers.
Sometimes they are just about you voting yes or no in a referendum, others want to stop a large scale mismanagement, others are purely exploitative under the veil of a cause.

Was Orwell the rare combination of economic socialist and cultural traditionalist?

When I hear arguments about fighting the evil baddies, it reminds me of my one and only trip to Reddit. It was an Anarchism/Socialism subreddit, and it was around the time protesters at Trump rallies were getting violent. They justified the acts because they were Nazis, and when I began to persuade people they banned me for liberalism. Frankly, I found that absolutely galling - going to Reddit as an avowed Veeky Forums anime masturbating volkisch ubermensch and getting banned for liberalism because I criticised their mindless chimping out. It demonstrates the mentality though - stark black and whites which would if successful inevitably lead to a system of oppression equal or worse than the one they're fighting.

>not coldsteel pilled
get on my level

I suppose I'd again agree with that in principle - but there is a difference between thinking about something logically in seclusion and what will likely happen. I mean, I don't disagree, I just don't think your perspective (from what I understand of it) is workable in the real world.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I think you are right, but I don't think things work that way.

I guess it is because my perspective is a pet Analysis. I could probably be considered a part of a fair number of
-isms right now.

Btw what do you mean workable?
We havent really talked about applying anything...

CRAWLING

I mean 'workable' in the sense of how it could go from a pet analysis to something that can be used to actually improve people's perspectives. Say like communism, might be a great idea that works in theory - but when tried out in the real world has been (to be charitable) often a bit of a let down.

What I mean is that you can have the most logically sound idea in the world, but it doesn't mean it will work in the real world.

Well, working conditions did improve under the age of the Communist threat, so I guess something stayed.

Personally, I sometimes think that logic is the balance and merging point of emotions. Same as ideology. As long as you dont brake contact with base reality, you may go as deeply or high you can/must/want.

>application in real life
Well, artists need layers of marketing people to sell their stuff no?
Division of labour, even for theoreticall stuff, is not a spook.

No. Ideas don't just come from artists.

Thanks for this.
>I'm fucking done with /his. I will just go there to post objective truths about Byzantium.

Being in Spain during the Civil War meant he was exposed to effectively all the left-leaning political thought of the time. This doubtless brought into focus the contrast between the kind of Socalist he describes here and those who were actively fighting for their beliefs. He also probably felt a degree of resentment for those who declared themselves Socalist yet didn't come over to fight like he did.

I said it as an analogy.
You might be a great thinker and make a great breakthrouhght, but you also need a envinronment adaptable and "coherent" with your idea.

>is adaptable the correct word?

Ah, sorry user, I misunderstood. Fair enough.

Got anything cool in mind?
>best -ism is comfyism.

Mason and Dixon. It is the comfyist.

Homage to Catalonia gives me a lot of hope for the modern doctrinal left never succeeding in gaining any long term power. They'll devour themselves from within the second they get a taste of being on top, and I will be very smug

Pynchon?

Yip.

Νοιce!
I have a pulp Soviet sci-fi called the invisible light.

Never heard of it, will check it out - thanks user.

While I dislike socialism in any form, Orwell is among some of the leftists I truly admire. He did turn me into a libertarian after all -- just not a left-wing one

holy shit orwell really knew what's up with socialists, that shit is the truest thing i've read

>vegetarian leanings

lol a nice jab

>with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting

bam and there's the right cross

socialists ktfod

most of the socialists i've seen seem pretty fucking comfy and in no real hurry to see any sort of social unrest, like is a tenured professor with a 6 figure job for life really going to risk their life overthrowing the government so that some dropout at mcdonalds can keep the "surplus value" on the big mac he made? not likely.

lol m8 you're all over the place, take a few years to do some reading and thinking, you don't have to have political opinions if you're not ready

pathetic samefag

A national socialist, if you will

>fruit-juice drinker,
what the fuck is wrong with juice?

...

this seems to be a running theme...