Yes, Orwell was a grass.
Are we "advanced communists" then?
And also because he supported "revolutionary patriotism", supported the 2nd World War, and campaigned for a Labour victory in 1945.
His list included Charlie Chaplin and Kingsley Martin. Both were certainly left-leaning, but hardly Stalinists.
But the point is, this was grassing to the bourgeois state on the basis of someone's political views.
1984 is a real shit book. It's so shit that some of us rewrote the whole thing, using characters from post-anarchist/primitivist/"intelectual" scene here, and big brother being, obviouslly, ASI. At the end of the book, they all loved the union. The sad thing was that, apart from names and several other specifics, majority of the work was just adequat as a moronic critique of syndicalism. I mean, things like opening the bar of chocolate, they got on the black market, that reminded him of some beautifull time in the past (obviousllty refering to the pre-revolution time). Just shit. And yes, he was a snitch.
rata wrote:
1984 is a real shit book. It's so shit that some of us rewrote the whole thing, using characters from post-anarchist/primitivist/"intelectual" scene here, and big brother being, obviouslly, ASI. At the end of the book, they all loved the union. The sad thing was that, apart from names and several other specifics, majority of the work was just adequat as a moronic critique of syndicalism. I mean, things like opening the bar of chocolate, they got on the black market, that reminded him of some beautifull time in the past (obviousllty refering to the pre-revolution time). Just shit. And yes, he was a snitch.
It has been done before. Antony Burgess wrote a parody called 1985:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_%28novel%29
Wiki wrote:
The main trend to which he is referring is the expanding power of trade unions. In the hypothetical 1985 envisioned in the book, the trade unions have become so powerful that they exert full control over society; unions exist for every imaginable occupation. Unions start strikes with little reason and a strike by one union usually turns into a general strike.
Orwell's book is not well written, but as a parody of the UK after the Second World War is quite interesting.
Devrim
Heya
iirc I started a thread on 1985 or mentioned it anyways prolly in my Clockwork Orange thread. It is very much a product of its times whereas 1984 is actually even more relevant now than ever. Like Huxley, Wells etc this dude was seriously prescient.
I don't know about the grassing thing. But i do know how influential and helpful that book has been in encouraging peeps in their political and psyc. ideas development.
Love
LW XX
Devrim wrote:
Orwell's book is not well written, but as a parody of the UK after the Second World War is quite interesting.
Yeah the tendencies Orwell identified are safely in the past. And confined to the UK.
What is the evidence that Orwell was an informer, out of interest?
I like Orwell and I'd like to think its a smear.
Is it letters or what? When did it emerge, and how?
rata wrote:
The sad thing was that, apart from names and several other specifics, majority of the work was just adequat as a moronic critique of syndicalism. I mean, things like opening the bar of chocolate, they got on the black market, that reminded him of some beautifull time in the past (obviousllty refering to the pre-revolution time). Just shit.
Congratulations, you suceeded in missing the point altogether.
Cardinal Tourettes wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Orwell's book is not well written, but as a parody of the UK after the Second World War is quite interesting.
Yeah the tendencies Orwell identified are safely in the past. And confined to the UK.
I will take that as sarcasm. The fact remains though that Orwell wrote it as a parody of England after the Second World War. In fact, he originally wanted to call it 1948, but was overruled by the publisher.
Certain things are specific to the UK, victory cigarettes for example, and many were specific to the period, rationing, the cold war. Whether we will see them again is another question.
Orwell's ability as a writer is of course a personal opinion, but in mine his journalism is much superior to his novels, which I think are quite week.
Devrim
Quote:
What is the evidence that Orwell was an informer, out of interest?
I like Orwell and I'd like to think its a smear.
Is it letters or what? When did it emerge, and how?
After the War, the Foreign Office set up a department to specialise in "anti-communist" propaganda. One of Orwell's friends worked for this unit and asked Orwell to provide a list of authors, etc. that were "unsuitable" to work for the agency because of "communist" leanings. Orwell supplied a list of 37 people, some of whom certainly were Stalinists (one, Peter Smollet, was actually a Stalinist agent) and others who were just left-leaning. The list was published in 2003 (under the Government release scheme I expect).
His dedication to bourgeois democracy and nationalism is clear from the work he did in the 40s, writing in Tribune that during WWII you had to be a "patriot" to be a revolutionary. After the War, he campaigned for the Labour Party and did the aforementioned work for the Foreign Office. There are some claims that he might have done other work for the British intelligence, but how credible these are I don't know.
Quote:
His dedication to bourgeois democracy and nationalism is clear
A bit simplistic, isn't it? 
In fact, Orwell was not a nationalist and he explicitly stated so. See his Notes on Nationalism:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
Look at his patriotism in the context of the second world war (as far as I know he didn't really consider patriotism until Nazi bombs forced him to). Basically, it was this: "There is no real alternative between resisting Hitler and surrendering to him, and from a Socialist point of view I should say that it is better to resist ... Patriotism has nothing to do with conservatism."
Wasn't the same argument used to defend the Spanish republic against Franco?
In fact, Orwell relates patriotism to something above and beyond mere political symbols of flag and national anthem - it is about culture and values.
I can't say I agree with Orwell on this point. For instance he wrote "The gentleness of the English civilization is perhaps its most marked characteristic" (England, Your England), which is hard to square with his writings several years searlier about the britality of British imperialism. But if we are going to talk about his views, we should at least get them straight.
And as for his commitment to bourgeois democracy: "Only revolution can save England, that has been obvious for years," he wrote in 1944.
Orwell said he wasn't a nationalist. Stalin said he was an internationalist. Saying something doesn't necessarily make it so.
Orwell may have added a radical verbiage to his nationalism, but that's no different to the myriads of Trotskyists, leftists and others who talk "revolution" while calling on workers to fall down and die for the national flag. Does WWII provide a get-out clause? Does this mean the Stalin was on the side of the proletariat during this period? He called on workers to fight against the fascist menace too.
Yes, the same argument was used to defend the Republic against Franco but unless you think there was something working class about the Republic (that slaughtered workers on the streets in the Barcelona May Day uprisings), I'm not sure I see how this fits in.
Orwell was, at best, a left-wing liberal. I'm not sure I'd even call him an anarchist to be honest, and I certainly wouldn't rank him as anything to do with the proletariat.
And Orwell talked about revolution but supported the Labour Party in elections, like every good social democrat should. I'm sure, the SWP would be proud. They do exactly the same thing today.
As for his books, his cultural comments, etc. we can make of these as we will. You might even admire him as an individual. I suppose we can admire all sorts of people on a personal level, but it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day they're part of the bourgeoisie and the class enemy.
Orwell was ''part of the bourgeoisie'' now? Last tiem i checked he was a low level official then a journalist and wrote a few books Anyways i think him grassng up a couple of stalinists may have been wrong and sure he's hardly the cleares poltical thinker in the world, but after the very same people had written lies about the people he'd fought and died with on the front in the spanish civil war accusing them of being fascists and so on, i can kinda understand where his hatred of them came from innit. I mean to pretend his grassing them up was motivated by his love of ''bourgeois democracy'' is just absurd, it was obviously just motivated by past grudges.
Left Communists snipes at Orwell are two a penny, if only they’d give us their appraisal of the work of Keith Harris and Orville. That’s what we’re really crying out for at this historic juncture.
Quote:
they're part of the bourgeoisie and the class enemy.
Oh poo. By that logic so were Marx and Engels. “The German Ideology” reeks of patriotism for a start.
cantdo, the whole stalinist list thing was only one episode of Orwell's activities and in any case, I said it was his activities supporting Labour in the '45 election that revealed his love of bourgeois democracy. Or perhaps it was more a "vote without illusions" thing?
As for Keith and Orville, I shall leave this heroic undertaking to Lazy who is clearly far ahead of me in that theoretical domain 
The way Cuddles hijacked Orville’s success serves as a poignant allegory of how communism neutralised the authentic working class revolutionary project with all this fancy nationalism talk. Unity across nations and races is super, but eliminating institutions such as the World Cup and the Eurovision Song Contest is not an option. The Physical Force Chartists wouldn’t put up with it, and we shouldn’t either. So, all you unpatriotic pinkos can do one.
Quote:
Secret Report of a police spy who attended a Chartist meeting in Birmingham on 5th November, 1839.Fussell said they should petition the Queen to give them universal suffrage or they would take it by force. Many said we will have it or die for it. Smallwood then addressed the meeting. He said if the Queen would not give them universal suffrage they would join the insurrection and declare themselves a republic. Parks then addressed the meeting. He said he would rather die fighting for his country than live a slave. He asked how many there was in the room armed and prepared. About 12 to 20 said they was.
rata i have to say thank you for the pints and book but I also have to say that reading 'For Marx' has been a potent reminder of just what a shite writer Althusser was. That wife murdering cunt couldn't write in a fluid manner if his stalinist revisionist party relied on it, really it's like someone took lem serious.
lem wrote:
oh and i think you're missing the point rata at least the left can attack his politics it's like you can't really criticise a book from the outside and you obviously are outside the book. or a hypocrite.
yes i am a hypocrite, here i am sat comfortably at my computer when really is should be inside a book....
btw a number of people with experiance with schizophrenics think you are playing up, I'm prone to agreeing with them, I think you are a bit of a cunt.
i've seen like let's say a dozen doctors seeing as i'm prone to exageration... i mean it's just a pseudo science isn't it.
if you must know comrade an elder brother of mine was sectioned when i was what early teens so i was very aware of the concept before it was possible for me to come down with it.
i would be offended but you give an actor such a medium he's bound to "act up" 
eta i mea i'm not in the mood and i have had alot more experience with schizophrenia than them granted...
lem wrote:
i've seen like let's say a dozen doctors seeing as i'm prone to exageration... i mean it's just a pseudo science isn't it.if you must know comrade an elder brother of mine was sectioned when i was what early teens so i was very aware of the concept before it was possible for me to come down with it.
i would be offended but you give an actor such a medium he's bound to "act up"
eta i mea i'm not in the mood and i have had alot more experience with schizophrenia than them granted...
nah i think youi definately act up, most people with schizophrenia don't point out they have it every other post or use it as an excuse for being a cunt or even being a thcik prick who doesn't understand the books they've read and hasn't managed a BA in 6 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6976576.stm
in his case, the state saw 'advanced communism' as less of a threat than the CP, though i guess that's because he was seen as an individual bohemian rather than a militant worker... (and he provided them with lists of stalinists iirc)