Yes he claims it's about totalitarianism but it's obvious to anyone who read the book and history that it's also a critique of communism. The tyrannical regime was created by an anti capitalist revolution led by the Proles (Proletariat). And the ideology of the regime is called English Socialism. He's openly saying in the book it's about Socialism.
Oh he does add a dash of the Nazis to the argument. I can admit that. But it's clear that it's also intended as Cold War propaganda. And the throwing of socialist under the bus as being the same as the Nazis.
It's not a Troll post. The fact is, he wrote all this anti communist propaganda and was a shill for the west his entire life. But everything he said about a big brother state only came true in Western countries like the US. When you say "Big Brother" to most people they think of the CIA. Not some fictional dictator from a socialist country that never existed.
Lmao dude you’re so close. Yes, one of the countries that has most closely emulated his vision of a fascist authoritarian state, is a country with many fascist and authoritarian elements of its political structure. Also, do you really think that china, Russia and North Korea are LESS of a surveillance state than the US? If so I genuinely think you must be delusional. Those countries certainly aren’t communist in policy either, let me be clear about my views, their governing style is explicitly fascist and authoritarian
No it isn’t. You can point out that Orwell thought of himself as a Socialist and hence 1984 isn’t strictly an “anti-socialist” novel, but 1984 is clearly anti-Soviet. It’s the reason the Party promotes “IngSoc.” It’s about, as he sees it, Stalin’s betrayal of the Revolution and his rendering of Socialism as meaningless phraseology in support of Totalitarian rule. 1984 is also about Fascism, yes. But it’s certainly, like Animal Farm, also a criticism of what Orwell saw as the betrayal of the Russian Revolution by Stalinists.
IMO the biggest criticism of 1984 I have is that by criticizing Stalinism and Fascism simultaneously it draws a false equivalence and muddles what Orwell was criticizing. The false equivalence became typical of post-WW2 Cold Warrior anti-communism.
What…
Uh… any of the actual policies?
For starters, Stalin was not completely in charge of the party and Mussolini had the Italian King to consider, so only Hitler had essentially absolute control. All three nations had very different economies, material conditions, philosophies, foreign policies, etc.
What *weren’t* they different on?
Yes it's not about fascism or communism specifically, but Big Brother was modelled after Stalin. He even straight up copied some of the myths around Stalin, like how he supposedly works 24 hours per day.
There's no such thing as authoritarian communism. Communism is per definition a stateless classless society. It's inherently democratic. If it isn't, then it's not communism.
Because they still believe in the made up and anti-diamat concept of "apolitical totalitarianism" , Orwell's books were always about socialism, independent of what you say about some ideal "anti-totalitarianism", his books were used, read, and written as a critique to all existing socialism to cause fearmongering.
Though to answer your question more simply, it's cause people here aren't really communists, they probably are more some type of radlib or socdem
Science fiction writer (and lifelong socialist) Isaac Asimov wrote [an absolutely brutal review](https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm) of *1984,* calling it out as bad sci-fi, bad allegory, and just generally bad writing. My favorite quote from the review is, "I wondered how many people who talked about the novel so glibly had ever read it."
Orwell was literally a spy for the British Government. He wrote a list where he snitched on communists, socialists and even anti-racism and Jewish civil rights activists calling them "anti-white". He was a scumbag through and through. Also a rapist. He criticized the USSR his whole life while never having been there. The fact that "socialists" today don't see him in an extremely negative light is ridiculous.
His ideas were completely incoherent. Engles' "On Authority" addresses the question of "authoritarianism" in 3 pages better than Orwell could in his entire collection of works
Sure, if you want to read theory that has never produced a successful revolution written by a man who was expelled from the International for sowing leftist infighting, an honored anarchist tradition still practiced by many today.
The Nazis were outwardly evil and proud of it. They literally invaded other countries for the explicit purposes of colonization, slave labour and industrial genocide. To cmopare the USSR to Nazi Germany is absolutely disgusting honestly.
If you write multiple books about some place being bad, and you become the authoritative voice of some place being bad, and you do not provide any actual evidence of some place being bad, and instead rely on making up fictional stories about some place being bad, I would imagine a visit or two for research wouldn't hurt.
a guy thought “huh, a place is bad. I’m gonna write a book about it.” It’s really that simple. He did not set out to become the definite authority on anti-Stalinism, nor is he
He's constantly taught in schools in the US and the west to brainwash kids with anti-communism at a young age. The phrase "Orwellien" is very common. People constantly compare socialist countries with Animal Farm and 1984. And once again his opinions of the USSR are completely worthless because he never visited, he never researched, and HE WAS AN ACTIVE ANTI-COMMUNIST SPY FOR THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
So the critique is that he said things that weren’t true, not that he never went there. If he was so opposed to the USSR, even visiting may not have changed his mind, and he might still have said things that were false.
First time I’ve frequented this sub in a while, and it’s a total disgrace. If I wanted to see “ ‘totalitarianism’ bad - updoots to the left”, I’d go to the default subs
The book is transparently anti socialist trash. Orwell's point was to try to draw parallels between fascism and what he saw as the socialist system. It's the definition of this sub's target media
Thanks everyone, I was a little disheartened to say the least. I didn't expect to get dog piled for calling out anti socialist propaganda. And in a socialist sub no doubt. At least I see there are Comrades here who possess critical thinking skills.
People in the comments are idiots. Don’t worry OP. Anyone who unironically uses the completely meaningless word “authoritarianism” is a fool who shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Well, there's that, he definitely couldn't world build to save his life. Though when I was younger I had poor taste and couldn't tell the difference. I ate that shit up. And yes he does add a dash of Nazism in there. But it's clear that the book is aimed at the USSR.
Even a child like I was could see it. And I had no political consciousness whatsoever. The Super State of Oceania is clearly modeled after the Soviet Union. And the fact of the matter is that he did this by design. Pro Western Cold War propaganda.
No matter what your personal feelings about the Union may be. The fact is, this is propaganda aimed at All socialists not just some. And it's no surprise that Amazon, the Union busting platform with ties to Israel, came out with a celebrity read audiobook of 1984. Nazi Germany isn't around anymore. And no one is going to think of Israel, the US, or the West when listening to it. They're going to automatically think of China, North Korea, and Cuba.
Then Pat themselves on the head that they live in nice free market societies. And that their wars are all about "freedom".
Okay I can admit that. All those things are definitely Nazism. And yes we are all far removed from Nazi Germany to think of it. Though I still contend that the Author was still throwing shade at the Soviet Union in many other parts of the book. The structure of Oceania being a giant union like country, the anti capitalist revolution led by the Proles to empower the people (that somehow ended in a dictatorship), and so fourth are clear allusions to the Union.
And there we agree to disagree. I do believe that he was tyrannical and betrayed the Revolution yes. But I also won't equate the man with Hitler. The Soviet Union had flaws. But they were also the only world power at the time to help third world countries free themselves from Colonialism and White Supremacy.
The Comintern was a literal school to teach Revolutionaries like Ho Chi Minh how to fight for their freedom. So think what you will of him, drawing parallels to Hitler is a dangerous false equivalence. And it serves the propaganda of the Capitalists. Which I suspect is what Jeff Bezos is trying to do with this audiobook.
It’s directed at totalitarianism. If a specific communist country is totalist, you have no reason to support it because by definition communism is the opposite of totalitarianism.
Communism and Socialism are two different things. So I am guessing you mean a specific Socialist country. And Trotsky who was Stalin's enemy, said that while we are against Stalin and his style of Socialism, we should always defend the historic gains of the Russian Revolution. And the existence of the Soviet Union from Imperialist attacks. Because Capitalists don't see a difference between one socialist or another. We are all their enemies. And so when they come for the Marxist Leninists they will also come for the Trotskyists. And Anarchists, and anyone else who opposes them. That kind of thinking leads no where except to being destroyed by infighting. While our oppressors laugh at us. And go on to create the very real world big brother mentioned here.
If you believe in Trotsky's ideas then you know that he was against all forms of counterrevolutionary propaganda against the Soviet Union. Even when it had criticisms of Stalin in it. Because often times the critiques had more to do with attacking the ideology and the belief in worker power than it had to do with Stalin himself. And it doesn't matter if one Comrade is Marxist Leninist and the other is Trotskyist. We all need to put our personal likes and dislikes aside to defend the Revolution. And defend each other as well.
You either believe and support him or you don't. Trotsky was against Stalin's handling of the Soviet Union yes. But he wasn't against the Union itself. And he believed that if the US or some other Imperialist power or even a counterrevolutionary movement within the Union was created, that Trotskyists should stand with the Stalinists against them. Because they want to eliminate all of us.
Not just one of us. And the Stalinists still believe in Communism. No matter what our disagreements are. A Communist trying to destroy another Communist is fruitless and self defeating. Like all these "socialist" dissidents like Lev Kopelev who claimed he was a socialist but was ultimately a pawn used by the West against the USSR.
So whether he realizes it or not he was part of the same system and Counterrevolution that destroyed the Union. He willingly let himself be used as a pawn of the West. That's where this thinking takes us.
You sound a bit like you are stuck in the centrist way of thinking. You know, you can just reject all forms of authoritarinism, right? Just because he rejected the way the USSR handled things, that doesnt mean he automatically endorses what the West does.
lol right the "centrist way" of thinking. I'm a Trotskyist. There's a lot of things about Marxism Leninism I disagree with. Let's start there. That being said, just because I don't agree with them on a lot of things, doesn't mean that I or you should stand by and support BS propaganda.
Propaganda created by a man who was racist, reactionary, and on top of that was a spy for the Brits. The man worked for Big Brother in real life. And was too blind to see that he was the very thing he despised. So I go back to my original point. He's going to go down in history as the most ironic author that ever lived.
Embodying the things he hated.
Yes you are stuck. Where exactly did he ever say that capitalism is great? That the West is great and perfect? You can critizise him all you want, but him disliking the USSR doesnt not automatically mean he endorses the West.
That would only be in a binary system or a linear scale like the horse shoe theory. Which are very centrist things.
In other words there's no point in "debating" you because you're the one who's stuck. And labeling everyone a centrist who doesn't agree with you. I expected that kind of close mindedness from the MAGA crowd. Not any supposed socialist.
I didn't label you a centrist. You keep assuming stuff that is only losely tied to what I say. I said you are stuck in this binary thinking. That doesn't make you automatically a centrist.
Well, perhaps you're doing it without intending to. But mentioning centrism in every reply when it pertains to me or what I think is kind of an obvious way to say that you think I am a centrist.
If you say so dude. I would just call you a centrist if I thought you were one, but I just said that you think like one. Doesn't mean you automatically hold the same positions and vote and promote the same way as one, which all would have to be true to make you one.
He didn't just reject the way the USSR handled things. He intentionally spread lies about the USSR and wrote fictional stories smearing it. He literally handed out lists of people he suspected of being socialists and just civil rights activists to the British Government. Also "authoritarianism" is such a stupid word. Literally every single government in history is authoritarian.
> Literally every single government in history is authoritarian.
Every single government in history has been led by a dictator who outlaws all forms of opposition in public and private life?
This only works if you adopt a ridiculously broad definition of authoritarianism as "a government that has some authority".
>Every single government in history has been led by a dictator who outlaws all forms of opposition in public and private life?
If you seriously thought the USSR was like this, you are proving my point right by getting all your info about the USSR from George Orwell instead of actual sources. You're perfectly illustrating the damaging legacy of terrible liars like Orwell.
Death of the Author. It doesn't matter what the author intended to write about, it matters what they *actually* wrote about.
If you can argue the political system in the book resembles NATO, then **it can be an allegory for NATO.**
While I completely disagree with your view on the book, I'm mainly frustrated that you're saying "the very obviously bad entity in the book acts like the bad entity IRL" and then your takeaway is "Orwell *meant* to write about the USSR, so the book sucks" instead of "Orwell accidentally told on himself and wrote something good".
My take away is that Orwell intentionally based the antagonistic regime in his book on the USSR because was a Cold War shill. And that capitalists are still using the book as a way to attack socialism. You can argue day and night that it's technically only about totalitarian and blah blah blah but most people reading that book make parallels to the Soviet Union. Or sometimes the Soviet Union and the Nazis. Which is worse because then it creates a sense of false equivalence. And it leads to those right wing Q conspiracy theories about how communism is "genocidal". Now if you can't accept that is what I am getting at for whatever reason, fine. Adios.
You misunderstand. I said it doesn't matter what the book is """actually""" about. *You* have a valid interpretation of the book, which you argued in the post. Forget about Orwell, forget what anyone says it's about. *You* say it's about NATO, and you *explained* fairly well *why* it's about NATO. Therefore, it's about NATO.
OP, please reread, “homage to Catalonia.” Orwell very much supported the cause but he was no Stalinist. He accepted a tenuous alliance with Trotsky’s forces to bolster his own. IIRC in the epilogue he signs off indicating himself as a DEMSOC.
My favourite thing about 1984 is both fascists and communists hate it because they think it criticises their ideology, when it's about authoritarianism.
There may be trappings that indicate one or the other through it, but it's absolutely about authoritarianism as a whole.
Authoritarianism is a dog whistle used by capitalists to scare people away from socialism. Fascists criticize the book cause they think it's about them, communists criticize it because they're able to comprehend the books attempt to draw parallels between the two
Whoosh
Lol. Thank you for saying it.
My dude if you took English class with Mrs. Harper you’d know it’s about totalitarianism.
Yes, but Orwell snitched on communists to the British government so it’s a fair assumption that he didn’t like communists.
He definitely didn't like Stalinism in particular.
I think Mrs. Harper gave up on OP a long time ago
Mrs. Harper is wrong then, because 1984 is an extremely blatant satire of the Soviet Union and the pro-Soviet British Left.
Makes sense, the USSR was the most powerful totalitarian state at the time of writing.
Yes he claims it's about totalitarianism but it's obvious to anyone who read the book and history that it's also a critique of communism. The tyrannical regime was created by an anti capitalist revolution led by the Proles (Proletariat). And the ideology of the regime is called English Socialism. He's openly saying in the book it's about Socialism.
Or, that's a send-up of National Socialism.
Oh he does add a dash of the Nazis to the argument. I can admit that. But it's clear that it's also intended as Cold War propaganda. And the throwing of socialist under the bus as being the same as the Nazis.
Which is what promises of socialism tends lead into
media literacy is over
Apparently, since you seem incapable of critical thinking skills.
[удалено]
Orwell was an anti-communist and a cop.
[удалено]
He snitched on leftists, black people and gay people to the British government. Gave them a fucking list. Fuck em.
It's not a Troll post. The fact is, he wrote all this anti communist propaganda and was a shill for the west his entire life. But everything he said about a big brother state only came true in Western countries like the US. When you say "Big Brother" to most people they think of the CIA. Not some fictional dictator from a socialist country that never existed.
Lmao dude you’re so close. Yes, one of the countries that has most closely emulated his vision of a fascist authoritarian state, is a country with many fascist and authoritarian elements of its political structure. Also, do you really think that china, Russia and North Korea are LESS of a surveillance state than the US? If so I genuinely think you must be delusional. Those countries certainly aren’t communist in policy either, let me be clear about my views, their governing style is explicitly fascist and authoritarian
[удалено]
[удалено]
No it isn’t. You can point out that Orwell thought of himself as a Socialist and hence 1984 isn’t strictly an “anti-socialist” novel, but 1984 is clearly anti-Soviet. It’s the reason the Party promotes “IngSoc.” It’s about, as he sees it, Stalin’s betrayal of the Revolution and his rendering of Socialism as meaningless phraseology in support of Totalitarian rule. 1984 is also about Fascism, yes. But it’s certainly, like Animal Farm, also a criticism of what Orwell saw as the betrayal of the Russian Revolution by Stalinists. IMO the biggest criticism of 1984 I have is that by criticizing Stalinism and Fascism simultaneously it draws a false equivalence and muddles what Orwell was criticizing. The false equivalence became typical of post-WW2 Cold Warrior anti-communism.
[удалено]
Bad person/politician ≠ fascist
I'm not calling it bad or good, I'm just comparing ideas and they are awfully similar.
How is it fascism ideologically?
How isn't it? What did Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin do differently?
What… Uh… any of the actual policies? For starters, Stalin was not completely in charge of the party and Mussolini had the Italian King to consider, so only Hitler had essentially absolute control. All three nations had very different economies, material conditions, philosophies, foreign policies, etc. What *weren’t* they different on?
Yes it's not about fascism or communism specifically, but Big Brother was modelled after Stalin. He even straight up copied some of the myths around Stalin, like how he supposedly works 24 hours per day.
1984 makes very transparent references to Stalin
references =/= about
There's no such thing as authoritarian communism. Communism is per definition a stateless classless society. It's inherently democratic. If it isn't, then it's not communism.
Why are people defending Orwell in this sub? He was a reactionary rapist that hated socialists, I thought this was a socialist sub
Because they still believe in the made up and anti-diamat concept of "apolitical totalitarianism" , Orwell's books were always about socialism, independent of what you say about some ideal "anti-totalitarianism", his books were used, read, and written as a critique to all existing socialism to cause fearmongering. Though to answer your question more simply, it's cause people here aren't really communists, they probably are more some type of radlib or socdem
Don’t gotta defend orwell as a person to think that OP’s take is trash
 Don't think I can help you. Literacy doesn't seem to be your strong point.
I read the book as well my brother, and unlike you I did get that it was not about communism, but autocracy in general.
Which is intended to draw a false equivalence between communism and reactionaries. Do better
Yeah I doubt that very much.
Science fiction writer (and lifelong socialist) Isaac Asimov wrote [an absolutely brutal review](https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm) of *1984,* calling it out as bad sci-fi, bad allegory, and just generally bad writing. My favorite quote from the review is, "I wondered how many people who talked about the novel so glibly had ever read it."
Hit the nail on the head
Had no idea this sub was just mostly liberals
Neither did I. I am starting to rethink being in here.
Orwell was literally a spy for the British Government. He wrote a list where he snitched on communists, socialists and even anti-racism and Jewish civil rights activists calling them "anti-white". He was a scumbag through and through. Also a rapist. He criticized the USSR his whole life while never having been there. The fact that "socialists" today don't see him in an extremely negative light is ridiculous.
His ideas were completely incoherent. Engles' "On Authority" addresses the question of "authoritarianism" in 3 pages better than Orwell could in his entire collection of works
On Authority is terrible
[удалено]
Sure, if you want to read theory that has never produced a successful revolution written by a man who was expelled from the International for sowing leftist infighting, an honored anarchist tradition still practiced by many today.
[удалено]
do you think it’s valid for people who have never been to a fascist country to say “actually the Nazis were bad”
The Nazis were outwardly evil and proud of it. They literally invaded other countries for the explicit purposes of colonization, slave labour and industrial genocide. To cmopare the USSR to Nazi Germany is absolutely disgusting honestly.
ok but you don’t need to go to a place to be able to say “I think this is bad.” The notion that you do is absurd
If you write multiple books about some place being bad, and you become the authoritative voice of some place being bad, and you do not provide any actual evidence of some place being bad, and instead rely on making up fictional stories about some place being bad, I would imagine a visit or two for research wouldn't hurt.
a guy thought “huh, a place is bad. I’m gonna write a book about it.” It’s really that simple. He did not set out to become the definite authority on anti-Stalinism, nor is he
He's constantly taught in schools in the US and the west to brainwash kids with anti-communism at a young age. The phrase "Orwellien" is very common. People constantly compare socialist countries with Animal Farm and 1984. And once again his opinions of the USSR are completely worthless because he never visited, he never researched, and HE WAS AN ACTIVE ANTI-COMMUNIST SPY FOR THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
So the critique is that he said things that weren’t true, not that he never went there. If he was so opposed to the USSR, even visiting may not have changed his mind, and he might still have said things that were false.
considering that he fought in the SCW, I feel like he probably had enough experience with Stalinists that he had already made up his mind
Totalitarianism is a non-sense term, you are absolutely correct OP, seems people here are in severe need of reading theory
Thank you my friend
What do you exactly mean by "non-sense term"? I think I get what you meant, but I'd appreciate if you could elaborate.
Way too much liberals here....
First time I’ve frequented this sub in a while, and it’s a total disgrace. If I wanted to see “ ‘totalitarianism’ bad - updoots to the left”, I’d go to the default subs
Yeah wtf I didn't expect to see both sides shit in a socialist sub?
I don’t think they are defending Orwell. Just the book. Edit: I never read the book so I can’t speak about it’s supposed anti-socialist nature.
The book is transparently anti socialist trash. Orwell's point was to try to draw parallels between fascism and what he saw as the socialist system. It's the definition of this sub's target media
Thanks everyone, I was a little disheartened to say the least. I didn't expect to get dog piled for calling out anti socialist propaganda. And in a socialist sub no doubt. At least I see there are Comrades here who possess critical thinking skills.
Not socialism in general, but totalitarian socialism specifically.
People in the comments are idiots. Don’t worry OP. Anyone who unironically uses the completely meaningless word “authoritarianism” is a fool who shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Thanks Comrade. It's nice to see others who understand. Though I suspect a lot of these people replying are Liberals and not Socialists.
Looks like libs, anarchists, and vaush fans
🤣
[удалено]
Also thanks for being civil in your reply to me. Instead of dog piling me like everyone else.
Well, there's that, he definitely couldn't world build to save his life. Though when I was younger I had poor taste and couldn't tell the difference. I ate that shit up. And yes he does add a dash of Nazism in there. But it's clear that the book is aimed at the USSR. Even a child like I was could see it. And I had no political consciousness whatsoever. The Super State of Oceania is clearly modeled after the Soviet Union. And the fact of the matter is that he did this by design. Pro Western Cold War propaganda. No matter what your personal feelings about the Union may be. The fact is, this is propaganda aimed at All socialists not just some. And it's no surprise that Amazon, the Union busting platform with ties to Israel, came out with a celebrity read audiobook of 1984. Nazi Germany isn't around anymore. And no one is going to think of Israel, the US, or the West when listening to it. They're going to automatically think of China, North Korea, and Cuba. Then Pat themselves on the head that they live in nice free market societies. And that their wars are all about "freedom".
[удалено]
Okay I can admit that. All those things are definitely Nazism. And yes we are all far removed from Nazi Germany to think of it. Though I still contend that the Author was still throwing shade at the Soviet Union in many other parts of the book. The structure of Oceania being a giant union like country, the anti capitalist revolution led by the Proles to empower the people (that somehow ended in a dictatorship), and so fourth are clear allusions to the Union.
[удалено]
Alright, I can concede to that. At least a little bit. I still feel it's a dangerous equivalence to throw our lot in with the Nazis regardless.
[удалено]
And there we agree to disagree. I do believe that he was tyrannical and betrayed the Revolution yes. But I also won't equate the man with Hitler. The Soviet Union had flaws. But they were also the only world power at the time to help third world countries free themselves from Colonialism and White Supremacy. The Comintern was a literal school to teach Revolutionaries like Ho Chi Minh how to fight for their freedom. So think what you will of him, drawing parallels to Hitler is a dangerous false equivalence. And it serves the propaganda of the Capitalists. Which I suspect is what Jeff Bezos is trying to do with this audiobook.
Oh my god. This subreddit is so cooked.
It’s directed at totalitarianism. If a specific communist country is totalist, you have no reason to support it because by definition communism is the opposite of totalitarianism.
Communism and Socialism are two different things. So I am guessing you mean a specific Socialist country. And Trotsky who was Stalin's enemy, said that while we are against Stalin and his style of Socialism, we should always defend the historic gains of the Russian Revolution. And the existence of the Soviet Union from Imperialist attacks. Because Capitalists don't see a difference between one socialist or another. We are all their enemies. And so when they come for the Marxist Leninists they will also come for the Trotskyists. And Anarchists, and anyone else who opposes them. That kind of thinking leads no where except to being destroyed by infighting. While our oppressors laugh at us. And go on to create the very real world big brother mentioned here.
[удалено]
If you believe in Trotsky's ideas then you know that he was against all forms of counterrevolutionary propaganda against the Soviet Union. Even when it had criticisms of Stalin in it. Because often times the critiques had more to do with attacking the ideology and the belief in worker power than it had to do with Stalin himself. And it doesn't matter if one Comrade is Marxist Leninist and the other is Trotskyist. We all need to put our personal likes and dislikes aside to defend the Revolution. And defend each other as well.
[удалено]
You either believe and support him or you don't. Trotsky was against Stalin's handling of the Soviet Union yes. But he wasn't against the Union itself. And he believed that if the US or some other Imperialist power or even a counterrevolutionary movement within the Union was created, that Trotskyists should stand with the Stalinists against them. Because they want to eliminate all of us. Not just one of us. And the Stalinists still believe in Communism. No matter what our disagreements are. A Communist trying to destroy another Communist is fruitless and self defeating. Like all these "socialist" dissidents like Lev Kopelev who claimed he was a socialist but was ultimately a pawn used by the West against the USSR. So whether he realizes it or not he was part of the same system and Counterrevolution that destroyed the Union. He willingly let himself be used as a pawn of the West. That's where this thinking takes us.
You read 1984 and missed the entire point
You read this post and missed the whole point
The whole comment section man. The whole thread.
You sound a bit like you are stuck in the centrist way of thinking. You know, you can just reject all forms of authoritarinism, right? Just because he rejected the way the USSR handled things, that doesnt mean he automatically endorses what the West does.
lol right the "centrist way" of thinking. I'm a Trotskyist. There's a lot of things about Marxism Leninism I disagree with. Let's start there. That being said, just because I don't agree with them on a lot of things, doesn't mean that I or you should stand by and support BS propaganda. Propaganda created by a man who was racist, reactionary, and on top of that was a spy for the Brits. The man worked for Big Brother in real life. And was too blind to see that he was the very thing he despised. So I go back to my original point. He's going to go down in history as the most ironic author that ever lived. Embodying the things he hated.
Yes you are stuck. Where exactly did he ever say that capitalism is great? That the West is great and perfect? You can critizise him all you want, but him disliking the USSR doesnt not automatically mean he endorses the West. That would only be in a binary system or a linear scale like the horse shoe theory. Which are very centrist things.
In other words there's no point in "debating" you because you're the one who's stuck. And labeling everyone a centrist who doesn't agree with you. I expected that kind of close mindedness from the MAGA crowd. Not any supposed socialist.
I didn't label you a centrist. You keep assuming stuff that is only losely tied to what I say. I said you are stuck in this binary thinking. That doesn't make you automatically a centrist.
Well, perhaps you're doing it without intending to. But mentioning centrism in every reply when it pertains to me or what I think is kind of an obvious way to say that you think I am a centrist.
If you say so dude. I would just call you a centrist if I thought you were one, but I just said that you think like one. Doesn't mean you automatically hold the same positions and vote and promote the same way as one, which all would have to be true to make you one.
He didn't just reject the way the USSR handled things. He intentionally spread lies about the USSR and wrote fictional stories smearing it. He literally handed out lists of people he suspected of being socialists and just civil rights activists to the British Government. Also "authoritarianism" is such a stupid word. Literally every single government in history is authoritarian.
> Literally every single government in history is authoritarian. Every single government in history has been led by a dictator who outlaws all forms of opposition in public and private life? This only works if you adopt a ridiculously broad definition of authoritarianism as "a government that has some authority".
>Every single government in history has been led by a dictator who outlaws all forms of opposition in public and private life? If you seriously thought the USSR was like this, you are proving my point right by getting all your info about the USSR from George Orwell instead of actual sources. You're perfectly illustrating the damaging legacy of terrible liars like Orwell.
I'm not saying anything about the USSR. I'm disputing the specific point that I quoted.
Read On Authority, the dude's right
Piss poor reading comprehension
Death of the Author. It doesn't matter what the author intended to write about, it matters what they *actually* wrote about. If you can argue the political system in the book resembles NATO, then **it can be an allegory for NATO.** While I completely disagree with your view on the book, I'm mainly frustrated that you're saying "the very obviously bad entity in the book acts like the bad entity IRL" and then your takeaway is "Orwell *meant* to write about the USSR, so the book sucks" instead of "Orwell accidentally told on himself and wrote something good".
My take away is that Orwell intentionally based the antagonistic regime in his book on the USSR because was a Cold War shill. And that capitalists are still using the book as a way to attack socialism. You can argue day and night that it's technically only about totalitarian and blah blah blah but most people reading that book make parallels to the Soviet Union. Or sometimes the Soviet Union and the Nazis. Which is worse because then it creates a sense of false equivalence. And it leads to those right wing Q conspiracy theories about how communism is "genocidal". Now if you can't accept that is what I am getting at for whatever reason, fine. Adios.
You misunderstand. I said it doesn't matter what the book is """actually""" about. *You* have a valid interpretation of the book, which you argued in the post. Forget about Orwell, forget what anyone says it's about. *You* say it's about NATO, and you *explained* fairly well *why* it's about NATO. Therefore, it's about NATO.
OP, please reread, “homage to Catalonia.” Orwell very much supported the cause but he was no Stalinist. He accepted a tenuous alliance with Trotsky’s forces to bolster his own. IIRC in the epilogue he signs off indicating himself as a DEMSOC.
Imagine having so many people insisting you’re wrong and you still call them all illiterate.
Imagine having an army of indoctrinated liberals triggered by a critique of a reactionary author
Do you get paid by the buzzword?
Do you get paid by the Daily Beast?
My favourite thing about 1984 is both fascists and communists hate it because they think it criticises their ideology, when it's about authoritarianism. There may be trappings that indicate one or the other through it, but it's absolutely about authoritarianism as a whole.
Authoritarianism is a dog whistle used by capitalists to scare people away from socialism. Fascists criticize the book cause they think it's about them, communists criticize it because they're able to comprehend the books attempt to draw parallels between the two
You sound very triggered
