Orwell vs. Rand
Mercy
I'd like to throw a topic out for debate.
Seeing as Orwell's two most famous books, Animal Farm and 1984 were well
received by the right wing because of their message, it would be interesting
to compare and contrast the two authors. Here we have Ayn Rand ( The
Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged), someone who hated Socialism and all things
collective, and Orwell, a Socialist, but also critic of the left wing. What
do you all think?
--Mercy
Thomas Mikkelsen
> to compare and contrast the two authors. Here we have Ayn Rand ( The
> Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged), someone who hated Socialism and all things
> collective, and Orwell, a Socialist, but also critic of the left wing. What
> do you all think?
Ayn Rand. Isn't she the one that ended up as a cult leader and a loonie. As for
Orwell, I think that the way his two last books were recieved only demonstrates
books are not always recieved the way they are intended.
Pease to you, and a penguin for your computer.
John Pond
Thomas Mikkelsen wrote in message <35672F1C...@image.dk>...
>Ayn Rand. Isn't she the one that ended up as a cult leader and a loonie. As
for
>Orwell, I think that the way his two last books were recieved only
demonstrates
>books are not always recieved the way they are intended.
I'd have to agree. If the Right had really understood what "Animal Farm"
and "1984" were all about, they wouldn't have praised them. On a careful
reading, "1984" has a pro-socialist subtext: IngSoc is condemned as a regime
that is socialist in name only, and subverts "every socialist principle".
The most logical interpretation of this, and the correct one as it happens,
is to say that IngSoc represented the opposite of socialism, a profoundly
anti-socialist regime that merely used the word socialism to glorify itself,
whereas the real answer to society's problems would be true socialism, which
would be liberating rather than oppressive. Moreover, it has to be noted
that in condemned Stalinism, Orwell was by no means unusual on the left.
The vast majority of socialists in the west opposed Stalinism, although
certainly some retained a lingering reverence for "the first socialist
society" for longer than Orwell did.
Given how broad the left is, it is surely almost impossible to be a
socialist without
being critical of other factions of the leftwing. For example, democratic
socialists condemn communism (as totalitarian); communists usually condemn
democratic socialism (as mere reformism); anarchists sometimes condemn both.
This was just
unusually obvious in Orwell's case for the vehemence with which he attacked
his enemies, and because he had idiosyncratic views.
Orwell seems to have had lifelong sympathies with anarchism, which in such
socialist years translated into sympathies for libertarian socialism,
although "The Lion and the Unicorn" certainly shows he wasn't irredeemably
anti-statist. His libertarianism presumably leads to his sharing some views
in common with rightwing libertarians, just as communists have something in
common with fascists, or just as moderate socialists have something in
common with moderate conservatives. But I am sure there are
big differences as well. Orwell was obviously deeply committed to values of
equality and to the struggle against poverty and deprivation. These simply
are not traits that one sees on the "libertarian right". (The "libertarian
right" is a relatively new development incidentally. Historically
libertarianism was always associated with the left, and authoritarianism was
always associated with the right - the authoritarianism of the Soviets
turned these traditional assumptions on their head.)
Another thing is that Orwell was dead against propaganda, and so would have
hated the way in which his books have been abused.
Richard
Alan Allport
John Pond wrote:
<an excellent debunking of Orwell's supposed 'right-wing' beliefs>
I would simply add the following, from the Press Release Orwell
authorized in June 1949 to counter the use of his newly published novel
by anti-socialist factions:
"The name suggested in 'Nineteen Eighty Four' is of course IngSoc, but
in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the USA the phrase
"Americanism" or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable and the
qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish".
--Crick, "George Orwell - A Life" Chap. 17.
--
***********************************
Alan Allport
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~allport/
***********************************
Joseph C Fineman
"John Pond" <j.c....@btinternet.com> writes:
>The most logical interpretation of this, and the correct one as it
>happens, is to say that IngSoc represented the opposite of socialism,
>a profoundly anti-socialist regime that merely used the word
>socialism to glorify itself,
A then recent precedent being the National _Socialist_ German Workers'
Party.
>(The "libertarian right" is a relatively new development
>incidentally. Historically libertarianism was always associated with
>the left, and authoritarianism was always associated with the right -
>the authoritarianism of the Soviets turned these traditional
>assumptions on their head.)
IMO, the left-right axis has always been an oversimplification, for
political convenience, of a multidimensional mess of disagreements,
and as the world has changed that axis has gotten warped in surprising
ways. John Stuart Mill no doubt counted as "left" in his day, but if
he were brought back to life now he would be considered a right-wing
libertarian (like Milton Friedman), because in the meantime the left
(including especially G.O.) has been traumatized by the business cycle
into largely abandoning its faith in the free market. On the whole I
am in sympathy with that shift, but in all fairness one should
recognize that Hayek & Friedman are entitled to their claim to be the
true heirs of 19th-century liberalism.
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: Living too long is more to be dreaded than dying too soon. :||
Faheem Mitha
On Sun, 24 May 1998, Joseph C Fineman wrote:
> IMO, the left-right axis has always been an oversimplification, for
> political convenience, of a multidimensional mess of disagreements,
> and as the world has changed that axis has gotten warped in surprising
> ways. John Stuart Mill no doubt counted as "left" in his day, but if
> he were brought back to life now he would be considered a right-wing
> libertarian (like Milton Friedman), because in the meantime the left
> (including especially G.O.) has been traumatized by the business cycle
> into largely abandoning its faith in the free market.
JS Mill and his father James Mill supported the rule of the British in
India. In fact they both worked for the East India Company. On the other
hand, JS Mill among other things did important work behind the scenes in
the struggle to give women the right to vote. I suppose they were
socialist, but in a rather narrow kind of way. If it didn't affect England
it didn't matter to them.
Faheem.
John Pond
Joseph C Fineman wrote in message ...
>
>A then recent precedent being the National _Socialist_ German Workers'
>Party.
Yes. The other very obvious precedent is the claim of the Stalinists to be
socialists. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
>IMO, the left-right axis has always been an oversimplification, for
>political convenience, of a multidimensional mess of disagreements,
I agree absolutely. (I mean, I could find good arguments for putting
Stalinism on the far-right, but I accept that is far-left for the sake of
argument, because it annoys me very much when rightwingers argue that Hitler
was far-left, when he was so obviously far-right.)
>and as the world has changed that axis has gotten warped in surprising
>ways. John Stuart Mill no doubt counted as "left" in his day, but if
>he were brought back to life now he would be considered a right-wing
>libertarian (like Milton Friedman), because in the meantime the left
>(including especially G.O.) has been traumatized by the business cycle
>into largely abandoning its faith in the free market. On the whole I
>am in sympathy with that shift, but in all fairness one should
>recognize that Hayek & Friedman are entitled to their claim to be the
>true heirs of 19th-century liberalism.
It's something you can argue either way. Mill certainly counted as Left in
his day - he was on the Radical wing of the Liberals, and he described
himself in his autobiography as a "socialist". It's true that he believed
in free markets, but it's also true that he believed in tempering them with
strong trade unions. Galbraith says that Mill was "open to a variety of
humane influences... including contemporary socialist thought". By this I
primarily mean that Mill expressed sympathy for workers' cooperatives and
unions; he was not a state socialist, although it is perfectly plausible to
argue that if he'd been around in the 20th century he would have supported a
regulated economy, since that is precisely what his successors in the
Liberal Party did - many of them tended towards "liberal socialism" or "the
New Liberalism" (what has since been called social-liberalism or
left-liberalism).
Richard
Danny
I first read 1984 last year. Perhaps it's because the cold war is over,
but the book never came across at all as left-wing bashing. I can
understand how it did, having lived through the latter stages of the cold
war myself , but it seems to me that the themes in 1984 fit more with
Western / right wing / NATO propaganda than actual reality. In other
words, the "right wing" would view the book as a favourable comparison to
Communist states, while not realising the comparisons with our own, Western
states.
I'll stop here - it's starting to sound like a high school essay!
Danny.
Mercy <m...@shadows.net> wrote in article
<mm-230598...@ppp-87.shadow.net>...
> I'd like to throw a topic out for debate.
>
>
> Seeing as Orwell's two most famous books, Animal Farm and 1984 were well
> received by the right wing because of their message, it would be
interesting
> to compare and contrast the two authors. Here we have Ayn Rand ( The
> Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged), someone who hated Socialism and all things
> collective, and Orwell, a Socialist, but also critic of the left wing.
What
> do you all think?
>
>
> --Mercy
>
Stranger in a Strange Land
"1984" and "Animal Farm" were Orwell's clarion call against the
subversion of the socialist ideal by Stalinism. In no way should they be
read as repudiations of socialism, as Orwell himself was a dedicated
socialist. He tended to view the movement pessimistically, as the
Stalinists came to dominate it (his initial alarm of this trend is most
evident in "Homage to Catalonia", where he notes the Soviet-supported
Spanish Communist Party's decimation of the non-authoritarian Marxist
POUM and the anarchosyndicalist CNT union and militias during the
Spanish Revolution). That the right picked up on these novels as
anti-socialist is typical; they never pass up an opportunity to diminish
the idea of social and economic equality.
Rand was a rabid capitalist propagandist, nothing more. Clothing
institutionalized greed in pretty, philosophical words doesn't hide the
horror of its reality. "Objectivism", indeed!
By the way, I recommend Jane Doe's "Anarchist Farm" as a positive and
profound left-libertarian take on Orwell's satiristic fable.