George Orwell — 'The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.'

[Squab]

Where do you fall?  And where do you think society is headed?

[Freshwater Spartan]

Orwell was a socialist.

[Squab]

Orwell was a socialist.

 

so authoritarian?  I would have thought not considering what her wrote about but i only read his books and didnt look into his politics.

[Drowned Crow]

If I'm the one calling the shots- authoritarian. Libertarian otherwise.

[The King in Black]

 
so authoritarian? 

What ?

[IamMe90]

What ?

I think he's saying that socialism falls more toward the authoritarian end of the political spectrum than libertarian. Ergo, if Orwell really thinks the only true political dichotomy is authotarianism vs libertarianism, then as a socialist Orwell would consider himself authoritarian. However, given his bibliography full of decidedly anti authoritarian literature, this doesn't seem right to me. What's the context of this quote? When and where did he say it?

[Squab]

I think he's saying that socialism falls more toward the authoritarian end of the political spectrum than libertarian. Ergo, if Orwell really thinks the only true political dichotomy is authotarianism vs libertarianism, then as a socialist Orwell would consider himself authoritarian. However, given his bibliography full of decidedly anti authoritarian literature, this doesn't seem right to me. What's the context of this quote? When and where did he say it?

 

in a letter to a journalist in 1948

 

ETA: Date

[Rise Above]

I believe in George Carlin

[emberling]

interpreting socialist as necessarily authoritarian requires assumption of a certain set of values - specific liberties that are lauded and others that are ignored - which may not be consistent with an individual's views, especially if that individual is a political radical of any stripe.

 

take for example a view that government is, and should be exclusively, a tool to minimize the coercion and mistreatment of its people and therefore maximize their liberty. (this is not orwell's ideology, which i do not know, but derived from my own and modified a bit for the sake of argument.) focus analysis on whether de facto coercion or inhumane conditions exist, not on whether another individual is liable for causing them; if I am trapped by a cave-in or by a jailer I am equally unfree. recognize that capital and property depend on government enforcement, and possession of them has greatly diminishing returns in terms of personal freedoms to act.

 

these are socialist ideals. they are also, to my mind, in terms of authoritarian/libertarian, firmly on the libertarian side. actually implementing them would entail a significant degree of compromise that shifts towards authoritarian, but if one does not conflate capital with personal belongings, i believe a significant amount of that authoritarianism fades (though far from all). the common implementation of libertarianism as a position on the multivariate political spectrum may view taxation as akin to theft, but the belief that taxed money is personal property is ancillary to the lib/auth axis.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Orwell was obviously a socialist. But he was also sympathetic to F.A. Hayek, and his two main contributions to literature - Animal Farm and 1984 - are virulent condemnations of statist/bureaucratic socialism.  

 

Those books have probably done more to sway people toward libertarianism than anything Ayn Rand ever did.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Orwell was obviously a socialist. But he was also sympathetic to F.A. Hayek, and his two main contributions to literature - Animal Farm and 1984 - are virulent condemnations of statist/bureaucratic socialism.  

 

Those books have probably done more to sway people toward libertarianism than anything Ayn Rand ever did.

 

We're also talking the author of The Road to Wigan Pier.

 

1984 isn't a condemnation of socialism. It's a condemnation of power, whereby language itself is twisted, war is peace, slavery is freedom... and Ingsoc is socialism. That the book has been hijacked by the Right to demonstrate the evils of left-wing economics is itself an Orwellian irony. As for Animal Farm, that's a commentary on Stalin. Orwell certainly doesn't portray Marx (Old Major) or even Trotsky (Snowball) in a bad light, nor does he make you feel sorry for the old order (Mr Jones).

[Ramsay Gimp]

 

We're also talking the author of The Road to Wigan Pier.

 

 

And how many people have heard of that?
 

1984 isn't a condemnation of socialism. It's a condemnation of power, whereby language itself is twisted, war is peace, slavery is freedom... and Ingsoc is socialism. That the book has been hijacked by the Right to demonstrate the evils of left-wing economics is itself an Orwellian irony. As for Animal Farm, that's a commentary on Stalin. Orwell certainly doesn't portray Marx (Old Major) or even Trotsky (Snowball) in a bad light, nor does he make you feel sorry for the old order (Mr Jones).

 

To say 1984 is just a "condemnation of power" reduces it to trite irrelevance.  It is that generally, but more pointedly the novel is a condemnation of the statist, authoritarian socialism that was the flavor of the day when Orwell wrote it. His review of the Road to Serfdom, and many of his other writings, makes this clear

[Jo498]

This is all the more ironic as the modern "liberal" states have and use surveillance tech Orwell (and Stalin) could only dream of (and also much more subtle methods of indoctrination and propaganda)... Economics is not elaborated in 1984, so it does not say anything about the problems or advantages of planned economies. The economy of the authoritarian state in 1984 is simply beside the point Orwell wants to make there.

[The Marquis de Leech]

And how many people have heard of that?

 

If you know Orwell was a socialist (rather than just a writer of anti-Soviet bedtime stories), chances are you'll be familiar with The Road to Wigan Pier.

 

To say 1984 is just a "condemnation of power" reduces it to trite irrelevance.  It is that generally, but more pointedly the novel is a condemnation of the statist, authoritarian socialism that was the flavor of the day when Orwell wrote it. His review of the Road to Serfdom, and many of his other writings, makes this clear

 

You're missing one of the key points of the book. The Party has no ideology beyond power for the sake of power. It's not about capitalism or socialism, but simply about keeping the boot stamping on the human face forever via control of language and thought. This is actually what Orwell was getting at with the OP quote - for him it had no longer become a battle of economics, but rather a battle over the nature of power.

 

1984 is only a critique of Stalinism insofar as Stalinism had ceased to be socialism.

[Gasp of Many Reeds]

Where do you fall?  And where do you think society is headed?

World state ruled by a malevolent AI accidentally programmed with the works of de Sade is my hope. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

World state ruled by a malevolent AI accidentally programmed with the works of de Sade is my hope. 

 

You mean this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Scream

[Red Tiger]

 

You mean this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Scream

I loved reading that story!

[Gasp of Many Reeds]

 

You mean this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Scream

Indeed. AM for Earth President!

[Balefont]

Individual freedom.  Corporate regulation.   

[Horza]

To say 1984 is just a "condemnation of power" reduces it to trite irrelevance.  It is that generally, but more pointedly the novel is a condemnation of the statist, authoritarian socialism that was the flavor of the day when Orwell wrote it. His review of the Road to Serfdom, and many of his other writings, makes this clear

 

This is the weird thing that happens with Orwell: everyone desperately tries to latch on to the bits of the cussed old weirdo that they like and ignore the rest of the picture. Orwell at the time of writing Animal Farm was an admirer of Nye Bevin and bemoaned that Attlee's Labour government hadn't abolished the House of Lords. In other words, the same Labour Government that Hayek was confident was ushering in the Road To Serfdom wasn't going far enough for Orwell.

 

Orwell was an economic dunce and his definition of socialism was starkly simplistic and mutable. I can't bear to imagine what Freddy H would have made of this:
 

 

Socialism is usually defined as ‘common ownership of the means of production.’ Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does not mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it does mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc. etc.) and always unemployment. In time of war, on the other hand, it has difficulty in producing all that it needs, because nothing is produced unless someone sees his way to making a profit out of it.

 

In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.

 

"simply calculates." Hoo boy.

 

Orwell is an fiercely contradictory character, whose writing is at times brilliant and otherwise ridiculous. But most of all he was a man of his time and place, and it's worth digging into his back catalogue to get a sense of his confounding views.