There are spots where Orwell gets convoluted. His famous and impactful (on me, lol) essay "On Nationalism" includes a confusing/backtracking carve-out for (presumably) Churchillian patriotism. But I think this is the nature of such ideas. They aren't absolute, falsifiable, scientific ideas. Just observations about people.
Agreed, and it's explicitly that British superiority which Orwell defends in the essay, carving out for it a special place separate from "nationalism" that communism, Trotskyism, Irish republicanism, zionism, etc. are condemned for.
I kind of like the controversial nuance though. It shows that these ideas aren't supposed to be scientific, absolute and such.
I love all his writings about his own experiences, because his observations are so exceptionally well written, with the foreignness of early last century, plus the familiarity of his daily life. He then often writes later in those books about his political thoughts, which can be a bit more difficult to read e.g. Road to Wigan Pier.
IN case no one remembers
United Socialist Soviet Republic
Deutsch Democratic Republic
both not word plays on Democracy but word plays on social theory and what stateless means.
I'm not sure what you mean by "word plays on social theory and what stateless means". Both are perfectly descriptive labels; they just lie.
Depends what you mean by “exactly”. Having a precise vision of everything Orwell puts under the “socialism” umbrella, is of course impossible, but at the same time, there are things that are clear: when he says socialism he definitely means means no capitalism, that is no bourgeoisie sitting atop the society by the virtue of being the owning class.
Then there's the more "theoretical" definition of socialism. In the US it might seem bewildering why Orwell considered the anarchists of that war to be the "true socialists" (despite Orwell being a communist, he had a lot of support for them). But the truth is that both anarchism and communism far pretty well within the boundaries of socialist theory historically. And that's quite evident when you think about the fact that the final goal of both of these theories is a stateless society
Those who hated on orwell, really showed their colors back then. Totalitarians, just with different decorations.
The very point of Orwell was recognizing this, and the fundamental similarity across totalitarian ideologies.
I saw the (?) cartoon Animal Farm on elementary school.
What really struck me was how plain it was that laws and rules that are supposed to apply equally to everyone often have in-built repressive aspects, like the fact that you could get fined and jailed for sleeping rough. This is wonderfully summarised by a quote that I found only later: “the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
So yes, Down and out is a must read, just as much as Animal farm and 1984.
- Why I write [1]
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I-FfrkGiWQ
[1]: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Everyone has the right to a different opinion than me on Hitchens and I think my politics are probably closer to (late stage) Hitchens than Orwell and I think I'm surely no more a great intellectual than Hitchens. Orwell really was a great intellectual, this is clear to me even if I think he was wrong about a bunch of stuff. Where I agree with Hitchens it remains lightweight by comparison.
I love Hitchens, and agree with you 100%.
“Politics and the English Language” is a particular delight.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
And it’s fun because I’m one of may a few hundred people on the planet to have read them.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
What I found striking is how much of the landscape described there is familiar aside from the names.
"One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."
"But freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg said, is ‘freedom for the other fellow’. The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: ‘I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilisation means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way. Both capitalist democracy and the western versions of Socialism have till recently taken that principle for granted. Our Government, as I have already pointed out, still makes some show of respecting it. The ordinary people in the street – partly, perhaps, because they are not sufficiently interested in ideas to be intolerant about them – still vaguely hold that ‘I suppose everyone’s got a right to their own opinion.’ It is only, or at any rate it is chiefly, the literary and scientific intelligentsia, the very people who ought to be the guardians of liberty, who are beginning to despise it, in theory as well as in practice."
"The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
What's even more striking is that it's a socialist writing this. I'm far left myself and I'm with Orwell on this subject, but I see very few fellow lefties who are; as a whole, they're far more interested in deriding "freeze peach". Indeed, the quotes above would likely be quite sufficient by themselves to "cancel" Orwell if he were alive today - and I didn't even bring up the meatier parts where he e.g. defends Moseley's due process rights.
I've definitely noticed that the more formal education people have had - and the better they've done in that system - the less socially conservative they are. I live in a rural working class area but work remotely with middle class professionals from big cities, there's a pretty distinct divide in social attitudes.
As for attitudes in the upper class, I can't speak to that.
Indeed, if you add in the (more impoverished) rural classes, your thesis would still be stronger, for these are socially conservative by virtue of not being as educated or sophisticated as the urbanites.
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
I only started drinking tea a few years ago and found this advice to stand the test of time.