Why did Orwell remain a socialist?
[NOTE: Recently I came across an old post of mine on Orwell and decided to repeat it in edited form, because I think it’s still interesting and timely. So here it is.]
Commenter “Nick” wrote this about Orwell and Animal Farm:
Orwell was a socialist. His problem with the pigs was that they became no different from the neighboring farmers; his problem with Soviet Marxism was that it acted just like capitalism
Orwell self-identified as a socialist, and “Nick” makes a thought-provoking point, but I disagree with it. Animal Farm isn’t about Orwell’s own complicated and contradictory political stance. It’s a parable that was meant to illustrate some of the evils inherent in Communism. Yes, economic exploitation by those in power towards the workers (all in the name of a false “equality”) was part of it. But the focus was on totalitarianism, lack of liberty, and statist control – problems he located in the left, not in capitalism.
That said, it is also true that Orwell was very much against income inequality. In fact, that’s the main reason he identified as a socialist. His socialism was a strange beast, however, and he himself recognized the inherent contradictions and difficulties of adherence to it:
As [Orwell] describes so well in “Capitalism and Communism: Two Paths to Slavery”: “Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect.”
Orwell was a brilliant man, and he struggled to reconcile his wish for a certain type of world with his knowledge that such a world could probably never come to be as he wished it. Much of his writing was devoted to the horrors of failed attempts to achieve that world.
Animal Farm is a critique of Stalinism/Communism, and although capitalism as an exploitative system plays a role at the beginning of the book, by the end the astute reader sees Communism as at least as bad or even worse. Orwell was also aware of the strong possibility that liberty and socialism of any sort (not just Communist Stalinism) could not be reconciled, as the above quotes from him indicate. It is my opinion that Orwell came very close to understanding that his vision of a planned economy plus freedom could not come to pass, that the contradiction was basic, and that socialism would always sow the seeds of its own destruction. I just think he couldn’t fully face and embrace that knowledge because to do so would have meant renouncing a lifelong dream. So he clung to some notion of a kinder gentler socialism without the totalitarianism, while at the same time he wrote tirelessly about the evils of Communism.
More:
Socialists have also raised some interesting questions about what Orwell seems to be saying about Lenin and the rise of Stalinism. In fact, Orwell has suggested elsewhere that Trotsky and Lenin are partly responsible for the rise of totalitarianism in Russia and that Bolshevism itself contained elements of authoritarianism. Molyneux, the British socialist, has written a compelling article with a very close reading of the plot and characters of Animal Farm, and concludes that Orwell equates Lenin with Stalin (morphed into the single Napoleon character). Molyneux argues that Orwell gives no way to understand the reasons for the revolution’s failure except human nature (as opposed to insufficient material conditions). All this leaves the book with the reactionary message at the heart of it – that all revolutions fail.
…Even in his best political writing, and his sharp exposés of aspects of capitalism, Orwell was never sure whether a real alternative was possible. Whatever Orwell’s intentions, his most famous books undoubtedly reflect these frustrations and despair. Writing as an isolated intellectual removed from day-to-day struggle, (with the notable exception of his participation in the Spanish Civil War), Orwell never regained the hope for workers’ power he experienced while in Spain.
And that’s coming from a pro-socialist, writing in a socialist periodical.
The middle-class, a product of our American society, emerged in a significant way, after Orwell’s death. I wonder where his thinking would have led him if he observed this development. I think that a case can be made that the rise of socialism, especially in the last 20 years has negatively impacted the middle class and continues to.
“Orwell was very much against income inequality. In fact, that’s the main reason he identified as a socialist.” neo
Income inequality is inherent to the natural order. Talent, intelligence, ambition and persistence in pursuit of goals being unequally distributed among mankind.
No doubt Orwell recognized that reality but appears to have failed to recognize that, inequality is absolutely necessary as invention, societal progress, civilization and evolution itself are impossible without “the unequal sharing of blessings”.
History demonstrates only one practical and just resolution to the problem of societal inequality, i.e. Judeo/Christian premises; brotherhood, individual freedom and accountability for our actions to a just and loving God.
Orwell was the kind of socialist that wanted to keep his brain and make sure he had a heart… 🙂
Actually if you read a lot of his stuff, not just the iconic things, you might realize that he is in the camp of the people who believe that “real” socialism had not ever been tried. and while he SEEMED to understand things, that was not necessarily so.
the brain does not reconcile contradictions…
not even if they are mutually exclusive
the brains thining is not empirical, its imaginative
Few people are real renaissance men.. that is, people like myself who try to know art, literature, history, chemistry, physics, biology, math, music, languages, cultures, cooking, and a whole lot more and try to know them more than in passing.
this takes an inordinate amount of time, and few normal people are like that today, and the ones of the past were like that because they were wealthy, smart, and in that had the time to do that. [of course, humility would dictate i dont say that so others dont get pissed and cry arrogant – but they dont know me, my work, and my life… ]
we as a culture today like to assume that if your smart enough to know insect psychology, you also know weatehr, and simulations science… or that if you come up with a new incredible theory, you also can comment on politics… or if your just plain famous you can spout that its good to steam clean your vagina and be taken seriously… (i work with lots of smart people in research computing, very very very few… to almost nil, know stuff outside their narrow domain)
and while orwell wrote about such things, he wrote about what he saw, and what he saw he did not clearly or necessarily comprehend or understand!!!!
this becomes a bit obvious in this quote 1933:
Its obvious by his own comments that he does not understand what makes something profitable!!!!!!!! is something useless profitable? not if its really useless in the real sense of the word.
he also doesnt understand why what he sees is universal.. he is a man of his time, and as such, he did not contemplate the history of man as a animal and a creature living in a subsistance reality since before he became man as we know man, but must assume the past is like the present.
if he knew math in detail, he could work out mathematically why… if he knew people better, he might imagine that the beggar was rich, and posing as such to acquire money.
in fact, by decent, does he mean enough, or does he mean socially acceptable? his assertion as to what no one cares about is completely wrong in terms of people, and motivation, and good business… especially today when we know better than in the past. he also doesnt see the difference between work in a subsistence reality in which anything is good, and work in a world of more plenty where one wont do that kind of useless work!!!
so for all his smartness and all his seeming insight, if you did deeper and read and thing, you will notice the cracks in the mirror, the holes in the swiss cheese, etc.
for those that also dont understand the dispizing of the beggar, its not so hard to understand that its many layers and partly biological.
you could rewrite his point as, why do people who work hard refuse to share with people who sit aorund and do nothing but cause trouble, deficate in public, rob when your not looking, spread desease, etc.
he also doesnt see that in a marginal society, there just isnt enough for everyone, and its perfectly possible to be so good everyone dies… that is, given a certain amount of food, and resources, there is a limit to what that can support. one person over that limit or a dozen, can tip that in various ways… what he sees is the people of plenty on one side, and the starving on the other.
if the minimum amount of water a day to survive is 9oz
and there are 11 people, and you only have 90 ounces
something has to give…
In the groups of people in which everyone socialistically shared, they all died. in the groups where someone who didnt contribute was marginalized a share, the others survived. but barely… and in the groups in which a few hoarded, a few barely, and more died, the population survived even better. as there was a healthier more robust core that could meet a problem if it came up, like maybe a fight with another group that did not have water
this is why we are what we are..
and this is why we are also productive beyond our own needs.
here is the problem people like him do not see..
Greed is not to be determined before need is known, and measured.
the socialist wants to say he does not need that, and so he can share that. (and usually the people who say that are people who do marginal jobs!!! like being an author before the JK Rowling era)
but the problem is that you dont know what is needed until everything is said and done… so one cant determine greed, before one determines what satisfies all needs now and into the future.
this is where the lack of the brains validation comes in! its perfectly easy to hold any idea in our brains, real, imagined, twisted, contradictory… they are not put together and validated for referential integrity or contradiction. so if one is missing the key idea, or knowlege, and one cant see it, one can blithly think that something completely unworkable is a good idea (and visa versa)
so, to go back to the water analogy… five or so years ago, california had a lot of water… they thought they were greedy with it, and so did things that mitigated the behavior necessary to insure needs are fulfilled in conditions other than what they imagined! they turned millions of gallons out to sea for a fish, they didnt build desalination plants, they did not build resevours at the end of those huge channels for the massive yearly floodwaters.
why not? they did not need it and did not see a future need they could imagine, and to keep it is then greedy…
so they did not hold on to it, and so now, do not have enough of it… what was greedy five years ago, and prudent, now is need and the past made imprudent.
schindler looks for investors, and would pay them in goods not money. but also, eventually, the money would facilitate the list, and the saving of jews, and the cleaning the reputation of what in other worlds would be a profiteer…
before the hyperinflation, the rise of hitler, the forbidding of money and all that… the excess wealth of these jewish men were seen and used by hitlers socialism as a reason to go after them. the man who had four children, but only enough for three AFTER those things, would have to choose which child stayed and died (along with the man paying and his wife, and other older people, who also did not have enough).
what was greedy before, was now need as the circumstances of life could not be known beforehand… if you knew the outcome of your life to the last point, you could plan exactly how much you would need to have that life, and then anything over would be greed…
and THIS is the key to the whole point…
the assumption of the future invokes greed over what is believed to be an excess today!!!!
we as a people are time aware and so, we plan for an unknown future… the socialists all think that the future is going to be better if they can plan it and do not think that their plans wont work, their plans will lead to the negative outcomes that make greed into need, and so cause horror.
just ask any person who was a socialist, leftist, or liberal, what they thought obama would bring!!! was there doubt? reasonable doubt? not at all…they were so certain of the future, they could give away all their assets knowing that they would only need so much, and were offended that others could not see the obvious future which allowe them to declare greed.
how they doing now? did they predict the future and so know what they would need? or did hey assume the future, and berate those that didnt assume the same?
This is the core of orwell and others ability to want socialism, and all that even if its unworkable, or such. they somehow believe they could imagine a future planned so well that one did not have to worry about unknown events and so unmet needs.
so why do they win? the person that accepts an assumptive future is a person living on faith, the same faith required for religion… but in this case, the faith is made stronger by those that deny it, and its made stronger by the number of lemings in the crowds…
that is until its the faith of the zealot…
they know the future of global warming, and everythign else… its also a contradictory future in which they see disasters that would say: earn as much as you can, you wont know what you need given that disaster… they also assume that there is an amount that if you go over it, there is no way your going to need it!!! which is why the richer you are the more of these people you fall into ill with, and the lower their unreasonable assumptive amoutn is, the more rich are in the crapper
but they have no idea of what they are looking at as its a house of cards that does not exist.. they do not pay attention to the wealthy man whose investments go sour and becomes so poor you dont see him.. they do not pay attention other than to gloat over the wealthy man who loses it all and jumps from a window: good for him! they would say… he had too much anyway…
“Utopos, the place that cannot be”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO-dsETUy6I
the socialists confuse utopia (eu-topos), the good place, with utopos (u-topos) the place that can never be… this is so ingrained you cant even search google without it assuming utopos is a mispelling of utopia
then there is their idea that perfection is attainable…
and in a universe that will end, they see the permanent…
Most people roll their eyes when I tell them that socialism is in our DNA. Why do I believe that? Because tribalism is basically a socialistic model. The tribe was all about the survival of the group, not about the success of the individual. Successful tribes were well led and the tribal members were content to share more or less equally in the work and the food because they had been taught and knew from experience that they were stronger and more successful as a collective than as individuals. Sure, there were outstanding hunters, gatherers, sewers, pottery makers, warriors, etc., but the necessities of life were pretty much shared equally as that kept all tribal members happy. Humans lived in small tribes as hunter-gatherers for far longer than they have been living in agricultural settlements, industrial cities, and nation states, which have only come along in the last 7,000 years. A mere blink of the eye in geological time.
Capitalism is a recent development and, although it is far more efficient, it actually antagonizes our natural bent toward socialism because the benefits are not doled out equally. Only through studying the whys and wherefores of capitalism versus socialism can people happily sign on with capitalism. With some people the socialist instinct is so strong, that no matter how strong the evidence, no matter how clear the facts are showing the superiority of capitalism, they will ignore it. That, I think, is what was going on with Orwell.
I used to think that the obviousness of capitalism’s benefits would eventually win over the vast majority of people. Lately I have concluded that capitalism may well be one of those human inventions like democracy that will come and go on the scene. Reason and facts are not always triumphant in the course of history.
Neo- ive been reading victor klemperer bec of your postings. He also had a similar problem. From the beginning he recognized what path the Nazis were going down, and realized that it and communism were 2 sides of the same coin. Any yet part of his problem wth communism was that it was to capitalistic for him! Furthermore he is prob the first person to equate zionism with nazism. In the end, as youve duscussed previously, he chose to live under the communists.it seems idealism was their biggest blinder
Jimmy J’s assertion that socialism is in our DNA, reflects the recurring quest for Utopia on the part of many. Intellectuals seem to fall prey to this “syndrome” most frequently. I suppose that disillusionment sets in when they realize that every such quest falls short, or fails, simply because of human nature.
Utopia is a chimerical notion at best; and the attempt to achieve it through statism (the more accurate term) is apocryphal. If Orwell was trying to square this circle, disillusionment was certain.
(1) “There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect.”
Did Orwell never read Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” ? — which spells out in excruciating detail why the two can never be combined.
(2) artfldgr’s post contains some valid kernels of information, and his take on tribal survival runs directly contrary Jimmy’s, to whom I say
(3) If you think everyone in the tribe shares equally, then you and I need to do some more reading. What I am familiar with indicates that, although the bulk of the tribe might be on a par with each other, there is always an elite (commander & cronies, or “father” & favorites), and always a lowest caste, and there are generally no sentimental scruples about setting the unproductive aside to die.
(4) Which is why the religious system of the Hebrews & Israelites constituted a vastly superior social mechanism, despite its grudging concessions to the zeitgeist on slavery, patriarchy, and punishments for blasphemy (which were not totally unreasonable for a covenant community in existential crises.)
“…Orwell never regained the hope for workers’ power he experienced while in Spain.”
Odd, since I understood Spain to be the start of his disillusionment.
Looking Back on the Spanish War:
“… Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly
reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw
newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.”
Yes. He was doing precisely that, and just had a better sense of it than most socialists.
Here’s more on the problem you describe. The world that Orwell and the socialists want, is the whole world and everyone in it.
But socialists have already had 6/10s of the world or thereabouts, and they could not make socialism work. Why? Well, they blame it on capitalists and their lack of cooperation in their own self-destruction.
But why should socialists really need all the world? How much is in principle enough? Every last thing and one on the planet?
Apparently.
Yet, they should not need it unless the idea of socialism contains within itself an implicit, if suppressed, totalitarian premise.
In fact, “the world” as defining the field, implies no real exit or choice. The possibility that not every exercise of human will is to be collective or directed, such as the temperature of your bathwater perhaps, does not mean that the scope of the field is not total in principle.
Socialism also assumes, at least explicitly, that men are socially constructed all the way down. However this is also known and admitted by socialists, and explicitly, to be false. Marx himself admits that the so-called “gifts of nature” are not equally distributed.
In fact, under a materialist premise, the very notion of the “gifts of nature” is itself an incoherent concept, since it implies what materialism denies: i.e., nattural and essential kinds with accidents. However, according to nominalistic materialism, there are no actual and essential natural kinds which then randomly receive superadded gifts or talents in the form of accidents; but, only conscious material expressions of the inorganic body: entities simply having more or fewer things in common from one cosmically arbitrary perspective or another
Is socialism in the genes? It is probably in the genes of some, I think. Much like various other tendencies, dependencies, and capacities – or lack thereof: colorblindness, lactase persistence, conformism, sensitivity, et cetera.
And what this implies for the concept of “mankind” probably will not please anyone … unless they can content themselves with only part of the world, rather than all of it.
Matt_SE:
I think it means the hope he had at the outset of his time in Spain.
See this as well as this.
Is socialism in the genes? It is probably in the genes of some, I think. Much like various other tendencies, dependencies, and capacities — or lack thereof: colorblindness, lactase persistence, conformism, sensitivity, et cetera.
2 monkeys were paid unequally…see what happens!
Is socialism in the genes? It is probably in the genes of some, I think. Much like various other tendencies, dependencies, and capacities — or lack thereof: colorblindness, lactase persistence, conformism, sensitivity, et cetera.
Alcoholic Vervet Monkeys!
AesopFan:
Funny you should mention Hayek.
That sentence I quoted of Orwell’s is from a brief review he wrote in 1944 of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom combined with The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus. The entire text of the review is as follows:
I sense from that that Orwell could not accept the nature of human beings—that all systems would be very flawed in the sense of leading to grief and hardship, and that it was necessary to choose between the two nevertheless. They were not equal, as far as I can see—and in that passage, and in his books, I detect more than a hint that he saw Communism as much worse. But he could not accept capitalism and its sorrows; the results bothered him on a gut level. So he held on to the hope that socialism would be a kinder gentler collectivism, although he despaired that it was possible.
Note, also, that he calls Hayek’s book “brilliant” and the other book “vehement.” That tells me where his intellectual sympathies lay, as well as his emotional sympathies. The first were with Hayek, the second with Zilliacus.
AesopFan, I agree that there was a hierarchy within the tribe. Or pecking order, if you will. However, when you consider that hunter-gatherers mostly lived a subsistence sort of life, there was not much in the way of wealth to spread around. Maybe first choice of the women, the best place around the fire (when they had it), an extra piece of meat, etc. All the tribal members pretty much toed the line because being cast out of the tribe meant almost certain death. Unless your name was Ayala. 🙂 Those who could no longer pull their weight and the old were abandoned.
The tribes of Israel were more modern (some agriculture, animal husbandry, etc.) than the people I’m talking about. I’m talking about the earliest humans from 2.5 million years ago reaching up to the time of beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry, which began at the earliest 20,000 years ago. That was a long stretch of time for people to learn what worked to help the tribe survive and continue as a viable entity.
“Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war.” George Orwell
I have never seen “dole queues” in America. Scratch my head at the assertion of a “scramble for markets” (a market can’t arise without a demand) and can think of few if any democracy/republics making war upon another.
Geoffrey Britain:
Orwell wrote that in 1944, and he’d seen plenty of “dole queues,” as had this country (Great Depression). What’s more, he’d seen plenty of capitalist countries go to war.
Of course, there was no reason for him to think that collectivist countries wouldn’t go to war. But at the time, there were only a couple of collectivist countries (although some would consider Fascist countries collectivist even though they retained private ownership). Of course, he says collectivist countries lead to war, too.
Excluding God, false hope is all people have. But even they know it is false. I know, I walked in those shoes. I raised many of their same arguments at times. They decry Christians as close-minded, yet never stop to consider that they are even more so. Far more purposefully, devoutly, consciously, ignorant. It takes a full understanding, and the intellectually honesty it takes to admit, that utopia isn’t, and can’t be, real… here and now… on earth as it is… for a man to begin finding the path.
Now, it was long after I realized man could not make the way, create a truth… not a real one, and then still didn’t want to abide God. A decade and a half, even after I understood there was no man-made way. I resisted, I fought, I argued, I begged, pleaded, whatever I thought would work. Hell, I hoped I might die before… stepping into faith. It really wasn’t that bad, actually it was… pretty good. I shouldn’t spoil the experience, I’ll leave it there.
Yeah, sure, the pope, and probably the last one, have proven to be human secularists, antagonistic to Catholic teaching and tradition, but the current… re-elected… pres is anti-American in every way. I remain Catholic as I remain American, despite rotten leadership. I guess faith has to be tested inside and out. As does true patriotism.
Jimmy J’s correct… as far as he goes… these impulses spring from our DNA.
But the decisive split is that between XX and XY embedded world views.
A mother’s nature is to be unconditionally accepting of her children and to secure for them EVERYTHING she possibly can.
It is not the role of motherhood to ration benefits to her offspring.
Is it ANY wonder that socialism polls stronger with women than men?
A father’s nature is to be conditionally accepting of his children. In the ancient state of nature, husbands had multiple wives and HAD to make the economic decision: Fredo or Michael ?
There can only be one chief of the clan. It’s his father who has to deliver the bad news to Fredo.
See also the bad news delivered in the terminal scenes of “In the Clan of the Cave Bear.”
In a socialist utopia, every son is a Michael, EVERYBODY is above average, and no-one fails at anything.
Economic competition is merely the BLOODLESS modern version of intra-species competition.
Prior to that time, intra-species violence was so intense that it sucked down all spare human labor and capital.
See “Dancing with Wolves” — the whole dang planet was living quasi-feral.
&&&
Once you realize where this impulse is coming from — you realize that it comes from man’s nature — literally his DNA.
Communists talk a great game — and then proceed to be as feral as any rogues ever born.
Islamic norms ARE a return to the feral rules set: there are no rules.
cf Boko Haram murdering Muslims at prayer — currently in the news. Classic Muslim feral practice. In every way this crime echoes that of Mohammed, himself, who attacked caravans in the prohibited season. Modern fanatics seek to replicate his crimes — as an act of fealty to his example, his style, if you will.
&&&&&
Fathers may love all their children — but they also know that the next generation has to ‘stay on culture’ ( aka honor their fathers and mothers ) and that only the top performers (smarts, bravery, endurance, skill, … ) can possibly constitute the leadership of the next generation.
Any other (emotional) selection is disastrous for the entire clan.
Or as the Godfather laments: only fathers have to make the really tough decisions, endure the worst, to protect the ones they love — especially their women — with the wife at the top of the list.
That ethos is of ancient vintage.
Some call it paternalism.
It rules the world of humanity because no mother can bear to say no to her children.
No mother wants to make Sophie’s choice.
Makes me miss the Hitch even more 🙁
My personal experience is very similar to Doom’s in regard to man’s need for God. I wish I could embrace the Catholic church more but the present pope is such a turn off that I can not. The doctrine of Papal infallibility is totally ridiculous and morally untenable especially in light of the well known history of very fallible and very sinful popes.
“Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war.” George Orwell
I have never seen “dole queues” in America. Scratch my head at the assertion of a “scramble for markets” (a market can’t arise without a demand) and can think of few if any democracy/republics making war upon another.
Geoffrey Britain. I have a theory about Orwell’s use of the phrasing. There are words which have, or are presumed to have, negative connotations which need not be detailed. See Bernie Sanders and “profit”, for example.
Throw those around enough and the unwary Get The Message. Supposedly.
It’s conceivable that the “scramble for markets” is a synonym for colonialism.
Possibly what we see here in Orwell is the issue of sunk cost.
He sank a huge amount of his life, his work, his risk of death, his reputation, friends made and lost, into an idea, an enthusiasm. Perhaps his integrity, and his reluctance to admit his enormous investment is a waste, are in conflict. He’s trying to retain the former, gradually giving way…? Not without a fight.
“Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war.” George Orwell
There is a peaceful win-win market capitalism, and there is gov’t regulated half win- half lose capitalism (not to mention cronyism, strongly anti-market)
Capitalism is about individuals owning property, rather than some collective.
Voluntary socialism, like internal Catholic church monasteries and nunneries, can “work”. But even the high-IQ Jewish Kibutz socialism failed — since over time, “mothers couldn’t say no to their children”, and other pressures for above equal results to some for various reasons.
The wars were NOT based on capitalism, but rather nationalism (a third axis) and/or religion (a fourth axis?). The commie Vietnamese invasion and regime change of the commie Khmer Rouge in Cambodia shows two commie regimes going to war. Heavily under-reported in the US and history.
Successful capitalist economies did ALLOW a more destructive war, due to better capitalist ability to fund more weapon research and production.
No method of investment exists that avoids the possibility of mal-investment. The US 1920s had too much negative return investment. But Hoover’s big gov’t force based responses & policies ensured a deeper and longer Depression than a market correction to the mal-investment mistakes; those bad policies were worsened under FDR.
Much like Bush’s terrible TARP to bail out the Big Banks (and his friends) from suffering the bankruptcy they deserved; and whose big gov’t force based policies were worsened under Obama.
—
By the way, there was a big “bailout of Greece” in 2010, which was actually a bailout of the big private banks which had stupidly mis-invested in Greek bonds (so the Greek people didn’t see bailout money, only mostly-foreign creditors to whom the over-borrowing Greeks had borrowed; the hated money-lenders.)
Why hate the money-lender, but not the money-borrower? Especially not the borrower who fails to repay?
The Greek gov’t will be issuing IOUs — too bad they earlier start with 1 year Bearer Bonds.
too bad they didn’t start earlier with Bearer Bonds.
OT sorry – – G6loq, I hope neo watches that second video. She might be able to incorporate it into her periodic post on non-drinking. It has one of those fascinating facts in life, monkey teetotaler % = human teetotaler %.
(And the first video is hilarious and thought-provoking. It is going to be shown at the cookout tomorrow).
I must say, every post in this thread was a pleasure to read. This level of discussion cannot be found elsewhere.
I suspect that Orwell, like so many on the left (including the Pope), confuse capitalism with corporatism.
When corporations get too big, they become oligarchs or monopolies. Then, they squelch free markets. If they don’t do this directly, they do it through government/regulatory capture (itself a misnomer, since it’s more like a partnership).
This is the purpose of anti-trust legislation. Legislation that few on the right want to be rid of.
I imagine Orwell was an atheist…..
If he weren’t then the contradictions wouldn’t have been a problem.
If there is a God and a Devil, and human souls have free will, then no person can be counted on to be good all the time.
That means people can’t be trusted with power, for their lack of goodness will be used to hurt others. On the other hand, government is required even in capitalism to resolve disputes and provide protection from evil people.
Government is like a woman. You can’t live with it, or without it. The best that you can do is create a limited power republic with competing factions who keep others from getting too much power – with a little it of democratic action to inject power from below. That still won’t be ‘perfect’, no group of people is perfect, but its the closest you can get.
Since Orwell was an atheist, he figured he could solve the problem somehow – which only leads to all of the contradictions.
Socialism can work in a homogenous, closely-held society.
The problem with left-wing ideologies is that they suppress competing interests through capital and labor controls that inevitably fail with the rise of an unrestricted amoral minority. The same potential exists with right-wing ideologies, but by chance, not design. Capitalism — a system with privately-held wealth — is notable for recognizing this runaway condition, and implementing mechanisms to monitor and regulate establishment of monopolies and monopolistic behaviors. America has a marginally capitalistic economy.
There are two moral axioms: individual dignity and intrinsic value. Go forth and reconcile.
If you really think upon it, gaze at your navel, Utopia is but an echo of our universal infancy remembrances.
At such an age, one is largely without want… and we are all totally self-involved.
That bliss comes only as the blessing of our parents.
We are entirely mistaken should be ever presume that we can re-craft that innocence by statute or social structure of man.
As Buddha might put it: we shouldn’t try.
Wariness is the proper emotion when the legislature is in session.
While governments are universally capable of takings — on balance, they are consumptive by their natures; always of treasure often of blood.
That such a large fraction of the world remains ignorant of these traits must engender fear and concern. We are always at risk of the delusions of crowds and enthusiasms of the moment.
Wall Street proves that every hour of every day.
Jimmy J:
The tribe is socialistic to the same extent the old Soviet Union or current China is socialistic: that is, the tribal chief and his cronies and family (the Politburo) must ensure that the low-ranking members of the tribe have the minimum amount of food to eat, the minimum number of women to marry, that they will not challenge his leadership or break off from the tribe en masse. People are social animals, but not socialists.
blert:
Utopia requires either voluntary or coerced conformance. That is in why in practice, left-wing ideologues who seek to secure a stable environment invariably commit the worst violations of human rights (e.g. selective-child), and are often atheist (i.e. undeclared faith) or apostate (i.e. rejecting religious/moral philosophy), which reflects a predisposition to narcissism. While its supporters can be described as infantile, they are also often desperate and vulnerable to corruption.
Women are hardwired to seek out someone to take care of them, to keep them safe, to provide for them. In women’s quest for “equality” they neuter the male, who has traditionally been the ones to provide these things, they then seek them from the government instead, as if by default. This does not explain every aspect of the problem, but it explains much of it.
G Joubert:
You think that’s what was happening with Marx, the Soviet Revolution, and the Fabians?
I don’t. Whole lotta guys in there, and not “neutered” ones, either. Of cdurse, there were some females involved. But they were hardly the driving force nor were they particularly predominant in numbers or influence.
That said, in terms of the creeping advent of the welfare state though the ballot box and the school system, women and their desire for security have certainly played a role that’s quite significant.
I think Orwell must be allowed on some counts to be a man of his times. We have a lot more data about socialism and its regimes than he possessed by the time of his death.
You have to remember Orwell was writing about Britain in the first half of the 20th century. It was a very class-based society and if you were a conservative/capitalist you were, by definition a toff (or a fellow traveller thereof). If you were a middle class intellectual with sympathy for the working class like Orwell, you simply had to be a Socialist. There was just no local equivalent of American-style meritocracy. We didn’t get get that until Thatcher in the 80’s (not that I’m saying Orwell was a closet Thatcherite!)
Such class loyalties ran very deep- when my uncle joined the Tory party when he left the Navy post WWII, his brothers didn’t speak to him for the next thirty years.
Orwell probably could not abide the crony capitalism that the West liked to utilize. Many people fled Europe in search of a different life in the Americas.
Equality is not a real thing nor is it a preferred state for humanity. That’s why when socialism succeeds in making people equal, they also fail to bring any joy or happiness.
Orwell’s criticisms against totalitarian communism could also be applied to capitalism. Since there’s a version of that called totalitarian capitalism i.e. democratic socialism. He just didn’t see as much of that as he saw of crony capitalism, traditionalism, and socialism.
Neo:
I was referring primarily to the here and now. The so-called “gender gap” in American politics, which boils down to single women mostly supporting Democrats and married women mostly supporting Republicans, is illustrative. But I don’t discount its appeal in the past, in Spain, in Russia in 1917, and elsewhere.
The question is who the females obey and owe their primary loyalty to. In Iraq, it was to patriarchs and clans, the bloc vote was proof of that.
In ancient America, it was to the family head. Now? If the government ordered them to bring their family into O care at Thanksgiving, would they gladly obey?
“statist control”
Small-c capitalism is a generic market practice. Large-C Capitalism *is* statist control. The only difference between large-C Communism and large-C Capitalism is the title on the office door.
But ignore this little confession, and keep on believing what our MSM minions tell you to continue to believe.
“Meritocracy” was *also* satirical comment on authoritarians’ self-promotion by *another Brit author* This is in contrast to the original, condemnatory use of the term by Michael Young in 1958, who defined it as a system where “merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications.”
and the USA is very classwarfarist, where classism is *less* based on genetic heritance, and more driven by the requirement to pay dues to the corruptacracy.
Thatcher was merely another servant of the corruptacracy, who as Reagan, fortuitously (unfortuitously for the majority on this planet) arrived when OPEC stranglehold on Western Oil imports collapsed.
neuter the male, who has traditionally been the ones to provide these things
Historically and currently still false.
In crude agrarian and ‘gatherer’ societies, women do much work.
Name:
Well, if you say so, then of course it must be true (you and your sock puppet “Koch Industries”).
Quite a moniker you have there, by the way.