Orwell was "undeluded" when he actually experienced socialism. He lived a nearly fully socialist life when he joined the communist/anarchist militia in the Spanish Civil War.
He lived through, for a very short time, the Stalin/KGB actual socialism. He saw his friends and colleagues swept off the streets and disappear into "Big Brother's" …
Orwell was "undeluded" when he actually experienced socialism. He lived a nearly fully socialist life when he joined the communist/anarchist militia in the Spanish Civil War.
He lived through, for a very short time, the Stalin/KGB actual socialism. He saw his friends and colleagues swept off the streets and disappear into "Big Brother's" maw, where they were tortured, interrogated, forced to confess, mutilated, and slaughtered.
That experience birthed "1984."
He got out from under Big Brother as quickly as possible, fleeing the socialist utopia of "Republican" Spain, back to the UK.
But he still maintained that he was a socialist--he was just an "anti-Stalinist" socialist. You'd think that seeing the end result of a socialist system, as he did in Spain, would open his eyes to reality. Instead, he continued to support socialism. This is delusional.
He wasn't alone--many other Brits of his time and class were also socialists, and a good number worked for Big Brother--the KGB--against their own country and system.
None of the Scandinavian countries are good examples of socialism. They are outliers and unique. Their (previously) monolithic ethnic/culture populations, sharing values, traditions, attitudes are impossible to replicate. In addition, their systems are actually crony capitalism with communitarian/nationalistic flavors. They also have hereditary monarchies, which are anathema in actual socialist systems.
Orwell was against "authoritarian socialism" and for "democratic socialism." That's not delusional.
His friends who were disappeared were socialists who were fighting fascists and also anti-Stalin. (see Andres Nin).
Orwell always supported the Spanish Republic even though he was critical of its factionalism. Orwell always was against Franco and the fascist movement. I think he was correct. Do you disagree?
The mixed economies of Western Europe are good examples of socialist policies being implemented to blunt the harsher aspects of capitalism.
Oh, you mean like the Russian Social Democratic Party?
That was Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin's political party.
The Bolsheviks were Democratic Socialists. So, too is North Korea. So, too was Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc, etc, etc.
"Orwell always supported the Spanish Republic even though he was critical of its factionalism.Orwell always was against Franco and the fascist movement. I think he was correct. Do you disagree?"
Hmmm...let's let reality season theory: The Spanish Republic was a perfect petrie dish for Democratic Socialism/Communism/Bolshevism. The Republic oppressed, arrested, and killed its political opponents, traditional Spaniards. They slaughtered priests and nuns, destroyed churches, among other atrocities. They partnered with the murderous Bolsheviks, and were lackies of the Russian communists for the entire life of the Republic. They lured in foolish foreigners, including many Americans, to fight their communist master's war. These foreigners faced the Socialist Party discipline of their Bolshevik masters, with many of them executed, and most of their passports confiscated for use in Bolshevik espionage.
Franco beat the communists, and took control of his country. His country grew and prospered in neutrality, unlike those European countries which continued under the yoke of the precious Socialist Democrats--it was called the Iron Curtain for a reason. They lived Orwell's 1984 nightmare. Orwell himself escaped socialist dystopia.
Not much of a choice. Orwell was wrong in his deluded dream of socialism.
And regarding Franco's Spain -- I appreciate your honesty in advocating for it.
A quick ai search states "Franco’s Spain was a fascist dictatorship, not a democracy, with no genuine political freedoms or competitive elections. The regime engaged in severe political repression, including mass executions, imprisonments, and disappearances, especially during the post-war White Terror, with ongoing suppression until Franco’s death in 1975."
&
"The “disappearances” Orwell feared during the Spanish Civil War, such as the murder of POUM leader Andrés Nin by Soviet agents, prefigured Franco’s tactics. Under Franco, many opponents were “disappeared” through secret arrests or executions, with records obscured, mirroring the totalitarian erasure Orwell later depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four."
There's no need to ascribe beliefs to me, or try to put words in my mouth.
I'm a historian of intelligence, focused on the Bolsheviks' massive operations in the period 1917 to 1940.
I'm telling you how despicable the totalitarian communist dictators were, and how egregious their security/intelligence operations were. Had the "Republicans" won the Spanish Civil War, they would have turned the entire country into a clone of the Soviet Union--which at the time of that war had already slaughtered 10s of millions of people caught in its web, and was working to death millions more in the Gulag Archipelago.
"The “disappearances” Orwell feared during the Spanish Civil War, such as the murder of POUM leader Andrés Nin by Soviet agents, prefigured Franco’s tactics."
It is a historical fact that the KGB (then known as the NKVD) ran the "Republicans'" security services. Their chief in Spain, Orlov, later defected and wrote a book about what he did there--of course, massaging the truth, but telling enough that it's clear what they did. Also, another KGB officer who operated in Spain defected, Walter Krivitsky, and wrote a book that included info about their operations in Spain. And many others have shared the truth of the Democratic Socialist nightmare that the Spanish Republic was. There were untold thousands of victims. Nin was just the most well-known of the victims of Democratic Socialism in Spain. Nothing to do with what "Orwell feared." He saw the terror. He lived the terror of a Democratic Socialist regime.
Neither the European Democratic Socialists (communists) nor Nationalists (some fascists) were great champions of civil rights. However, Franco's Spain during the post-Civil War period during the Cold War was a much better place for its citizens than was the Democratic Socialist dystopia of the USSR--which Orwell described in "1984."
Orwell did a great service to the world in laying out the truth of Socialist dictatorship in 1984. It's sort of pitiful that he continued to believe in "Democratic Socialism" as a viable system of government.
It's very likely that, had he lived past 46--he died in 1950 of tuberculosis, the year after publication of 1984--he would have joined the parade of reformed socialists, and have been a conservative. Unfortunately, dying so young, without the chance to see the Cold War and the collapse of communism, deprived him of the reality that would have led to his awakening. As it is, though, he happily lived the high life on his earnings from his books, and his estate has earned millions more. A good bit of capitalism there.
That's great - you're pro Franco. I'm not casting any aspersions on that other than to say I disagree and also disagree with your analysis of the Spanish Civil War.
Regarding Orwell, you must not know much about his life. He never lived "the high life on his earnings" (as you put it) but rather died from tuberculosis at a rather young age. He was never rich.
Again, don't try to put words in my mouth. Very passive aggressive.
I laid out the historical truth--the Republicans were communist stooges of the Comintern and the KGB. Where they were in charge (and behind Nationalist lines, too) they ruled just as their Democratic Socialist dictator, Stalin did--with terror, mass killings, torture--just as Orwell described in 1984.
Turning that into "you're pro-Franco...would have fought on the side of the fascists" is mendacious nonsense.
The truth about Orwell's finances is an interesting story. 1984 was hitting the big time just before he died, and he took the capitalist lucre (like a good Socialist Democrat, I guess!), funding his trophy wife's gallivanting around the Cote d'Azur, and his own high-priced medical care. According to his authorized biographer:
"Of the various arguments used to make Sonia saintly, the one that plays down Orwell’s income is the silliest. Yes, by modern standards, he was not fabulously wealthy. But the success of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four brought him thousands of pounds in a short period and pushed him far above the modest salary he expected as a writer. In 1946, he wrote that £1,000 a year was more than adequate for him; yet the American book club sales for Nineteen Eighty-Four brought him more than £40,000 in the last six months of his life.
Spurling makes much of the fact that Orwell’s estate was valued at only £10,000 when he died. First of all, for a man who never held a job that paid more than £700 a year, this was a small fortune. But, in any case, much of the royalty income for the American edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four came after his death, since the novel was published only four months before Sonia married him.
Taxes and royalty figures can be debated endlessly, but if Orwell was not a rich man in 1949, how could he afford to pay for four months of care in a private room of a London hospital? He was treated by the finest lung specialist in Britain, and had already spent a good deal of money earlier in the year staying at a clinic in Gloucestershire.
Where did he get the money to buy diamonds and rubies for Sonia? Or a private plane to fly him to Switzerland? Not to mention the cash to pay for what might have been a long stay in a Swiss sanatorium.
And, when travel abroad was severely restricted for most people in Britain, how did Sonia suddenly end up chasing her lover on the Riviera six weeks after Orwell’s death?
Of course, the answer is that all these high-priced things were available in 1949 only to the rich, but in the strangely distorted calculations of Sonia’s apologists, the wads of cash being thrown around are ignored and Orwell’s income is reduced to that of a prosperous plumber."
"Franco beat the communists, and took control of his country. His country grew and prospered in neutrality, unlike those European countries which continued under the yoke of the precious Socialist Democrats--it was called the Iron Curtain for a reason."
Sure sounds like you think Franco did a great job (unlike those sordid socialist regimes in Scandinavia or the mixed economies of Western Europe that actually had elections and, you know, had some semblance of the rule of law).
And if you want to argue that Orwell died rich -- sure, it's a stupid thing to write but if that's the hill you want to die on go for it.
Orwell was "undeluded" when he actually experienced socialism. He lived a nearly fully socialist life when he joined the communist/anarchist militia in the Spanish Civil War.
He lived through, for a very short time, the Stalin/KGB actual socialism. He saw his friends and colleagues swept off the streets and disappear into "Big Brother's" maw, where they were tortured, interrogated, forced to confess, mutilated, and slaughtered.
That experience birthed "1984."
He got out from under Big Brother as quickly as possible, fleeing the socialist utopia of "Republican" Spain, back to the UK.
But he still maintained that he was a socialist--he was just an "anti-Stalinist" socialist. You'd think that seeing the end result of a socialist system, as he did in Spain, would open his eyes to reality. Instead, he continued to support socialism. This is delusional.
He wasn't alone--many other Brits of his time and class were also socialists, and a good number worked for Big Brother--the KGB--against their own country and system.
None of the Scandinavian countries are good examples of socialism. They are outliers and unique. Their (previously) monolithic ethnic/culture populations, sharing values, traditions, attitudes are impossible to replicate. In addition, their systems are actually crony capitalism with communitarian/nationalistic flavors. They also have hereditary monarchies, which are anathema in actual socialist systems.
Orwell was against "authoritarian socialism" and for "democratic socialism." That's not delusional.
His friends who were disappeared were socialists who were fighting fascists and also anti-Stalin. (see Andres Nin).
Orwell always supported the Spanish Republic even though he was critical of its factionalism. Orwell always was against Franco and the fascist movement. I think he was correct. Do you disagree?
The mixed economies of Western Europe are good examples of socialist policies being implemented to blunt the harsher aspects of capitalism.
"Democratic Socialism?"
Oh, you mean like the Russian Social Democratic Party?
That was Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin's political party.
The Bolsheviks were Democratic Socialists. So, too is North Korea. So, too was Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc, etc, etc.
"Orwell always supported the Spanish Republic even though he was critical of its factionalism.Orwell always was against Franco and the fascist movement. I think he was correct. Do you disagree?"
Hmmm...let's let reality season theory: The Spanish Republic was a perfect petrie dish for Democratic Socialism/Communism/Bolshevism. The Republic oppressed, arrested, and killed its political opponents, traditional Spaniards. They slaughtered priests and nuns, destroyed churches, among other atrocities. They partnered with the murderous Bolsheviks, and were lackies of the Russian communists for the entire life of the Republic. They lured in foolish foreigners, including many Americans, to fight their communist master's war. These foreigners faced the Socialist Party discipline of their Bolshevik masters, with many of them executed, and most of their passports confiscated for use in Bolshevik espionage.
Franco beat the communists, and took control of his country. His country grew and prospered in neutrality, unlike those European countries which continued under the yoke of the precious Socialist Democrats--it was called the Iron Curtain for a reason. They lived Orwell's 1984 nightmare. Orwell himself escaped socialist dystopia.
Not much of a choice. Orwell was wrong in his deluded dream of socialism.
And regarding Franco's Spain -- I appreciate your honesty in advocating for it.
A quick ai search states "Franco’s Spain was a fascist dictatorship, not a democracy, with no genuine political freedoms or competitive elections. The regime engaged in severe political repression, including mass executions, imprisonments, and disappearances, especially during the post-war White Terror, with ongoing suppression until Franco’s death in 1975."
&
"The “disappearances” Orwell feared during the Spanish Civil War, such as the murder of POUM leader Andrés Nin by Soviet agents, prefigured Franco’s tactics. Under Franco, many opponents were “disappeared” through secret arrests or executions, with records obscured, mirroring the totalitarian erasure Orwell later depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four."
There's no need to ascribe beliefs to me, or try to put words in my mouth.
I'm a historian of intelligence, focused on the Bolsheviks' massive operations in the period 1917 to 1940.
I'm telling you how despicable the totalitarian communist dictators were, and how egregious their security/intelligence operations were. Had the "Republicans" won the Spanish Civil War, they would have turned the entire country into a clone of the Soviet Union--which at the time of that war had already slaughtered 10s of millions of people caught in its web, and was working to death millions more in the Gulag Archipelago.
"The “disappearances” Orwell feared during the Spanish Civil War, such as the murder of POUM leader Andrés Nin by Soviet agents, prefigured Franco’s tactics."
It is a historical fact that the KGB (then known as the NKVD) ran the "Republicans'" security services. Their chief in Spain, Orlov, later defected and wrote a book about what he did there--of course, massaging the truth, but telling enough that it's clear what they did. Also, another KGB officer who operated in Spain defected, Walter Krivitsky, and wrote a book that included info about their operations in Spain. And many others have shared the truth of the Democratic Socialist nightmare that the Spanish Republic was. There were untold thousands of victims. Nin was just the most well-known of the victims of Democratic Socialism in Spain. Nothing to do with what "Orwell feared." He saw the terror. He lived the terror of a Democratic Socialist regime.
Neither the European Democratic Socialists (communists) nor Nationalists (some fascists) were great champions of civil rights. However, Franco's Spain during the post-Civil War period during the Cold War was a much better place for its citizens than was the Democratic Socialist dystopia of the USSR--which Orwell described in "1984."
Orwell did a great service to the world in laying out the truth of Socialist dictatorship in 1984. It's sort of pitiful that he continued to believe in "Democratic Socialism" as a viable system of government.
It's very likely that, had he lived past 46--he died in 1950 of tuberculosis, the year after publication of 1984--he would have joined the parade of reformed socialists, and have been a conservative. Unfortunately, dying so young, without the chance to see the Cold War and the collapse of communism, deprived him of the reality that would have led to his awakening. As it is, though, he happily lived the high life on his earnings from his books, and his estate has earned millions more. A good bit of capitalism there.
That's great - you're pro Franco. I'm not casting any aspersions on that other than to say I disagree and also disagree with your analysis of the Spanish Civil War.
Regarding Orwell, you must not know much about his life. He never lived "the high life on his earnings" (as you put it) but rather died from tuberculosis at a rather young age. He was never rich.
Again, don't try to put words in my mouth. Very passive aggressive.
I laid out the historical truth--the Republicans were communist stooges of the Comintern and the KGB. Where they were in charge (and behind Nationalist lines, too) they ruled just as their Democratic Socialist dictator, Stalin did--with terror, mass killings, torture--just as Orwell described in 1984.
Turning that into "you're pro-Franco...would have fought on the side of the fascists" is mendacious nonsense.
The truth about Orwell's finances is an interesting story. 1984 was hitting the big time just before he died, and he took the capitalist lucre (like a good Socialist Democrat, I guess!), funding his trophy wife's gallivanting around the Cote d'Azur, and his own high-priced medical care. According to his authorized biographer:
"Of the various arguments used to make Sonia saintly, the one that plays down Orwell’s income is the silliest. Yes, by modern standards, he was not fabulously wealthy. But the success of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four brought him thousands of pounds in a short period and pushed him far above the modest salary he expected as a writer. In 1946, he wrote that £1,000 a year was more than adequate for him; yet the American book club sales for Nineteen Eighty-Four brought him more than £40,000 in the last six months of his life.
Spurling makes much of the fact that Orwell’s estate was valued at only £10,000 when he died. First of all, for a man who never held a job that paid more than £700 a year, this was a small fortune. But, in any case, much of the royalty income for the American edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four came after his death, since the novel was published only four months before Sonia married him.
Taxes and royalty figures can be debated endlessly, but if Orwell was not a rich man in 1949, how could he afford to pay for four months of care in a private room of a London hospital? He was treated by the finest lung specialist in Britain, and had already spent a good deal of money earlier in the year staying at a clinic in Gloucestershire.
Where did he get the money to buy diamonds and rubies for Sonia? Or a private plane to fly him to Switzerland? Not to mention the cash to pay for what might have been a long stay in a Swiss sanatorium.
And, when travel abroad was severely restricted for most people in Britain, how did Sonia suddenly end up chasing her lover on the Riviera six weeks after Orwell’s death?
Of course, the answer is that all these high-priced things were available in 1949 only to the rich, but in the strangely distorted calculations of Sonia’s apologists, the wads of cash being thrown around are ignored and Orwell’s income is reduced to that of a prosperous plumber."
https://www.orwell.ru/a_life/shelden/english/e_tmw
I didn't put words in your mouth. You wrote:
"Franco beat the communists, and took control of his country. His country grew and prospered in neutrality, unlike those European countries which continued under the yoke of the precious Socialist Democrats--it was called the Iron Curtain for a reason."
Sure sounds like you think Franco did a great job (unlike those sordid socialist regimes in Scandinavia or the mixed economies of Western Europe that actually had elections and, you know, had some semblance of the rule of law).
And if you want to argue that Orwell died rich -- sure, it's a stupid thing to write but if that's the hill you want to die on go for it.
Thanks for the exchange! Sort of like every attempt to discuss anything with everyone's ex-wife ever! It's why divorce lawyers are so rich!
Ok got it - you would have fought on the side of the fascists and you disagree with Orwell's analysis.