[jaakko]

Oh, and just one more thing to note. Orwell's close collaboration with British secret services was officially revealed in 1996. It was mentioned also in the leading bourgeois news paper in Finland. I assume his connection to British imperialism isn't anymore a secret elsewhere, either. I mean, if this doesn't come clear from his books...

"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU"...

[Tam]

Jaako, I cannot disagree with you enough on this issue.

"Here's the full article about this "democratic socialist" who only opposed "totalitarianism". It was originally published in the journal 'Lalkar'. It was then published again in 'Revolutionary Democracy' (India)."

This 'full article' provide but a tiny and blurred fraction of the picture.

Frankly that article is one of the most trashiest pieces of propaganda I've read for a while. For instance,

"Anyone who knows of the actual course of development of the Soviet Revolution - of the miraculous achievements of socialist construction in the USSR, in industry as well as in agriculture and of her cultural achievements, of the might and world historic contribution of the USSR to the defeat of Nazi Germany - could not be misled by Orwell's scurrilous lies"

And Orwells Animal farm didnt depict this huge 'achievement'? Sure but it also showed the vast cost for it, which was the removal of democracy. The author appears to be little more than A Stalinist apologist, for which granted, Orwell had little respect. The kind of people who pre WW2 had no problem with Nazi Germany because of the Nazi-Soviet pact and the appearence of closeness between the two.

"What attracted the bourgeoisie to this third-rate writer was not his pretended support for the ideals of the October Revolution, but his real driving hatred for the ideals of communism."

Absolute NONSENSE. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was all FOR the 'ideals' of communism, just not the piss poor replica that was being orchestrated in the USSR at the cost of essentially all liberties and many lives.

"He wrote his Animal Farm in 1943. Publisher after publisher rejected the book. Even bourgeois publishers, at least during those days when the dark forces of Nazism hovered ominously threatening to devour mankind, had more regard than Orwell. Faber rejected the book as did Victor Gollancz. The latter's reaction was: 'We couldn't have published it then. Those people [the Soviets]... had just saved our necks at Stalingrad.'"

And thats a poor excuse. As if the soviets had fought and won the battle of Stalingrad to save the west??? The notion is laughable.

"In other words, Orwell pursued the aim of destroying the proletariat's faith in building a bright socialist future for itself by denigrating and portraying in negative terms the epoch-making achievements of the Soviet proletariat."

In other words he smashed the falsity that all was brilliant in
Soviet Russia.

"Documents released by the Public Record Office on Wednesday 10 July 1996 reveal that Orwell offered to provide a secret Foreign Office Propaganda Unit linked to the intelligence services with the names of writers and journalists he regarded as 'crypto-communist' and 'fellow travellers' who could not be trusted. Orwell made this offer in 1949, shortly before his death, to the covert anti-communist propaganda unit set up in 1948 by the Attlee government - that darling of the Trotskyite, revisionist and labour 'left' - allegedly in response to the 'developing communist threat to the whole fabric of Western civilization [i.e. imperialism].'"

Be very aware of the time period here. 1949 after the Soviet blockade of Berlin. The group set up was the 'IRD'. The 'Information Research Department'. And it was THEY who approached him, not the other way round. Ordinarily he would never have been in favour of this but as he writes he was strongly opposed to the suppression of the communist party "at any time when it did not unmistakenly endanger national survival (From Orwells complete works volume XIX page 103.

To the letter published at the end of the article...

"'Dear Celia,

'I haven't written earlier because I have really been rather poorly, and I can't use the typewriter even now, so I hope you will be able to cope with my handwriting.

'I couldn't think of any more names to add to your possible list of writers except FRANZ BORKENAU (the Observer would know his address) whose name I think I gave you, and GLEB STRUVE (he's at Pasadena in California at present), the Russian translator and critic."

These names were people who he thought could HELP!! He was writing to Celia with names here of likeminded people could perhaps also write for the government. Note Franz Borkenau WAS A COMMUNIST ( a party member). In fact Orwell wrote a very favourable review on a book of his entitled "Revciew of the communist International"

Regarding the overall topic, two issues are being confused. Orwell had TWO lists, the first was a PRIVATE notebook, which was NEVER shown to the government and was only published long after this had all happened. The second was 35 names in a letter to Celia Kirwan which said "wasnt likely to tell your friends anything they didnt already know" and the PURPOSE of this list was to do no more than indicate who Orwell did not believe should be invited to write on behalf of the british government.

". I assume his connection to British imperialism isn't anymore a secret elsewhere, either. I mean, if this doesn't come clear from his books... "

What have you read?! I've read every piece of published fiction and non fiction, along with books complied of his essays and reviews, and con honestly say the absolute opposite is apparent in his writing. He ABHORED British imperialism. Read Burmese Days, a damning (partly autobiographical) look at how the British failed Burma!

Read his essay "How a nation is exploited" for Le Progres civique, 4th may 1929!!

Read The Lion and the Unicorn where he writes

"IV Immediate dominion status for India, with power to secde when the war is over"

Read Do our colonies pay?" published in Tribune 8 March 1946,

Think he was anti communist? Read Marx and Russia published in the Observer 15 Feb 1948

Jaako I have spent 20mins giving you a handful of relevant bits of information. I could sit here for the next WEEK writing quote after quote, line after line, giving article name after article name of pieces which denounce imperialism, denounce totalitarianism but are supportive of the ideals of communism, and downright in favour of Democratic socialism.

[jaakko]

You have failed in answering me what then, if not the anti-communist content of books like 'Animal Farm', attracted the world bourgeoisie to Orwell. Orwell definitely is one of their all-time favourites.

And Orwells Animal farm didnt depict this huge 'achievement'? Sure but it also showed the vast cost for it, which was the removal of democracy. The author appears to be little more than A Stalinist apologist, for which granted, Orwell had little respect. The kind of people who pre WW2 had no problem with Nazi Germany because of the Nazi-Soviet pact and the appearence of closeness between the two.

Who "pre WW2 had no problem with Nazi Germany"? Apparently you don't know the course of events preceeding WW2. You forgot the context in which the pact was made and that it was made in the very last moment, after the attempts to form an anti-fascist alliance (with countries willing to preserve status quo). To oppose the danger of fascist expansion, the Soviet Union proposed, as early as 1935, a collective system of security for Europe. The pact was made as late as 23rd of August 1939, in case you forgot.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131 ... 0000000000

Who had "no problem" with Nazi Germany? Who wrote the book in 1943, in middle of the war?

Absolute NONSENSE. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was all FOR the 'ideals' of communism, just not the piss poor replica that was being orchestrated in the USSR at the cost of essentially all liberties and many lives.

But of course! Of course Orwell was FOR communism and AGAINST imperialism. He just co-operated with the British state against the evil Stalinists. But doesn't that equal to fighting against the first socialist state under a red flag? No, because USSR was not socialist NOR capitalist, but STALINIST, TOTALITARIAN!
First time I've heard a "communist" to express such bourgeois historical idealism, as to advocate the theory of 'totalitarianism'!

And thats a poor excuse. As if the soviets had fought and won the battle of Stalingrad to save the west??? The notion is laughable.

You laugh at your own idiocy. How can you not understand it wasn't published untill the end of war, not because the publishers thought the Soviet Union was fighting to defend the interests of British imperialism, but because the sensible British bourgeois saw their survival depended on the success of RKKA? Even some Trotskyites were able to recognise the main enemy at that time.

In other words he smashed the falsity that all was brilliant in Soviet Russia.

Oh well... How does that make 'Animal Farm' differ from bourgeois propaganda? If the reality of USSR really reflected to the propaganda of the imperialist bourgeoisie and Trots, and if the book really wasn't anti-communist in content but some communistic critique, could it have ended in the anti-communist arsenal of the capitalist class? Hardly.

Be very aware of the time period here. 1949 after the Soviet blockade of Berlin. The group set up was the 'IRD'. The 'Information Research Department'. And it was THEY who approached him, not the other way round. Ordinarily he would never have been in favour of this but as he writes he was strongly opposed to the suppression of the communist party "at any time when it did not unmistakenly endanger national survival (From Orwells complete works volume XIX page 103.

Well, that about proves it. Furthermore, in his own words.

You refer to the time period in 1949. Hard times... Now I must note there were REAL communists in Finland during the period of 1918-44 organising and working in quasi-fascist conditions that REALLY were dangerous. They didn't surrender to the offerings of the bourgeoisie.

But "comrade" Orwell... He chose his side. You can't be on the side of communism and imperialism simultaneously. You can't oppose imperialism and at the same time aid it. Orwell was fully conscious of what he was doing. Altough he obscured his stance on imperialism, there's no mystery about capitalists's attitude on Orwell's books nor a mystery about the origins of this attitude.

Lastly, about Orwell's list that included names of communists. Why do you think it didn't end up in the hands of the state? The news I've read from 1996 implicate the names really ended in the hands of British secret services. Where else? Anyway, this really doesn't matter. What matters is that he accepted the offer of British imperialism, and became its official stooge (as opposed to his earlier career as an unofficial, independent stooge). He now belongs to the same category of "revolutionaries" as Trotsky etc...

[jaakko]

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/gallery.htm

Scroll down past the poems and read the article from 'The London Guardian', July 11 1996.

[Tam]

"You have failed in answering me what then, if not the anti-communist content of books like 'Animal Farm', attracted the world bourgeoisie to Orwell. Orwell definitely is one of their all-time favourites."

Its NOT anti-communist. Its anti-totalitarian. You dont think building a windmill was set in a good light? You dont think establishing equal rights in the book was a good thing? You dont think the increase in productivity encaptured the better aspects? These are communist 'ideals', these things Orwell was in favour of. What he was not in favour of was what DID happen in the USSR. Suddenly people were NOT equal to eachother, suddenly the leadership was a dictatorship of one, these things are the negative side portrayed in Animal farm, and these things are not necessarily communistic, they are shared by all forms of totalitarian governments, they applied to NAZI Germany, and to the wider British Empire. Yes the bourgeoise liked much or Orwells work, because it was GOOD, and I believe it to be pretty darn accurate.

"Who "pre WW2 had no problem with Nazi Germany"? "

The British communist party.

"Apparently you don't know the course of events preceeding WW2. You forgot the context in which the pact was made and that it was made in the very last moment, after the attempts to form an anti-fascist alliance (with countries willing to preserve status quo). To oppose the danger of fascist expansion, the Soviet Union proposed, as early as 1935, a collective system of security for Europe. The pact was made as late as 23rd of August 1939, in case you forgot."

No not to oppose fascist expansion, but to ensure if it were to take place it would not be at the USSRs lost. That Poland could be split, that if Germany were to be engaged in a war with France, Russia would not intercede.

"Who had "no problem" with Nazi Germany? Who wrote the book in 1943, in middle of the war?"

Again the British communist party. I fail to see what Orwell writing the book in the middle of the war has to do with anything? Why not? Why subvert the fact that the USSR was a regime where millions were being sent to labour camps for the sake of not wishing to hurt soviet feelings because they were our allies? You think at 1943 had the book been immediately published the USSR would not march on into Germany?

"But of course! Of course Orwell was FOR communism and AGAINST imperialism."

Your nieve approach to this situation is worse than Bush's to the world. Everything must be so black and white to you. You're either with something or against it. Orwell was either for communism or for imperialism, there was no possible way that he didnt like the brand of communism in Russia AND didnt like British imperialism?

"But doesn't that equal to fighting against the first socialist state under a red flag? No, because USSR was not socialist NOR capitalist, but STALINIST, TOTALITARIAN!"

Yeah pretty much. He was opposed to the totalitarian nature of the USSR.

"First time I've heard a "communist" to express such bourgeois historical idealism, as to advocate the theory of 'totalitarianism'!"

Historical idealism? Nae, historical realism! Perhaps you do not see a distinction between totalitarianism and genuine communism, but I certainly do, and I believe Orwell certainly did also.

"You laugh at your own idiocy. How can you not understand it wasn't published untill the end of war, not because the publishers thought the Soviet Union was fighting to defend the interests of British imperialism, but because the sensible British bourgeois saw their survival depended on the success of RKKA? Even some Trotskyites were able to recognise the main enemy at that time."

Oh, I certainly do think thats why it wasnt published, I also think that it was a stupid reason for not publishing it, because there was no way in hell a novel published in the UK was going to suddenly mean that the USSR would sign a peace treaty with Germany and allow her to divert her military resources to the western front.

"Oh well... How does that make 'Animal Farm' differ from bourgeois propaganda?"

Because Animal Farm had a large degree of truth about it.

"If the reality of USSR really reflected to the propaganda of the imperialist bourgeoisie and Trots, and if the book really wasn't anti-communist in content but some communistic critique, could it have ended in the anti-communist arsenal of the capitalist class? Hardly. "

What are you babbling about? Tell me what about the book was unfair or so untruthful? Which aspects did not portray in one way or other part of the USSR? If people are anti-communist today or even at the time BECAUSE of Animal Farm, then those people are stupid and have totally misrepresented the book to the same degree you have.

"Well, that about proves it. Furthermore, in his own words."

Proves what? That he was in THIS specific set of circumstances willing to give 35 names of people he believed would not make good writers for the British government. Yes it proves it. Does it prove he cant have liked the USSR much, yes it proves this also. Does it in any way shape or form make him an 'anti-communist' or pro 'british-imperialism'. Not a chance. Again let me remind you he PROMOTED Franz Borkenau as a good author, and he was a communist.

"Now I must note there were REAL communists in Finland during the period of 1918-44 organising and working in quasi-fascist conditions that REALLY were dangerous. They didn't surrender to the offerings of the bourgeoisie."

WHAT offerings, and what does this have to do with Orwell?

"But "comrade" Orwell... He chose his side. You can't be on the side of communism and imperialism simultaneously. You can't oppose imperialism and at the same time aid it. Orwell was fully conscious of what he was doing. ."

He did not aid Imperialism, he just wanted to help ensure Britain didnt surcomb to the USSR. In the same place I would have done the same.

"Altough he obscured his stance on imperialism, there's no mystery about capitalists's attitude on Orwell's books nor a mystery about the origins of this attitude"

I absolutely DEMAND you back this up with evidence and quotes. As I said, I have read all of Orwells books and I have not found a single trace that suggets Orwell likes imperialism or capitalism at all. On the contrary.

Just answer me these questions with a simple yes or no, please Jaako.

Have you read 'The Road to Wigan peer'?
Have you read 'A Down and out in Paris and London'?
Have you read 'Keep the Aspidistra flying'?

If you have, I would very much like to discuss with you just how socialist they are. If you have not, I suggest you do read them.

[Proctor]

Well, if you think that the USSR was a happy land, then you're right, Orwell was a liar. For those who choose not to believe this, I think he is justified in saying that it was pretty shitty.

I don't know the facts about referring communists to the Foreign Office. It may be true, but it seems pretty...dodgy. I fail to understand why a respected author would put his reputation on the line like that.

And to say that Orwell was a Trotskyite is kind of unusual. For one simple reason. He wasn't.


Sorry this reply is so insubstantial. I thought out what I was going to say, but by the time I wrote it (the next day) I'd forgotten it all. Sorry if I've missed the main points again (which I've a feeling I have. Tell me what points you want me to try to refute and I'll give it a go.

[jaakko]

He did not aid Imperialism, he just wanted to help ensure Britain didnt surcomb to the USSR. In the same place I would have done the same.

Now this is enough. You don't even try denying Orwell's collaboration with British imperialism. And then you say you would even do the same, ie. aid your "own" imperialists if they needed you to counter the communist threat. The difference is too great between us on principle, that is, the principle of uncompromising anti-imperialism. Case closed.

[Tam]

"Now this is enough. You don't even try denying Orwell's collaboration with British imperialism."

Where do you get he was 'collaborating' with British 'imperialism'? He wasnt advancing the British Empire. He wasnt putting down communism, nor promoting capitalism. He made some suggestions of people he did not think would make good authors for the government. I hardly think that meets the criteria for 'collaborating with British imperialism'.

"The difference is too great between us on principle, that is, the principle of uncompromising anti-imperialism. Case closed."

Orwell did NOT aide 'imperialism', I dunno where you are getting this from. What imperial gains were made by his singular letter. But you are right if you think the USSR was ANY better than Imperialism overall, you have a screw lose. It was just another form of imperialism.

And the case isnt closed. Provide me with evidence from Orwells own writing that he was in favour of imperialism. You said it was apparent on reading his books, I have read all his books, and it isnt apparent.

[jaakko]

It's clear that Orwell aided IRD. Even before that, it was clear to anyone that the bourgeoise, especially in the imperialist countries, have always liked such Orwell's books as 'Animal Farm'. That is evident to almost any school student. 'Animal Farm' isn't adopted to the anti-communist arsenal as an example of a communist book, quite the opposite. It's the favourite of imperialist bourgeoisie exactly because of it's political content.

Some other articles on Orwell & IRD:

George Orwell -- The socialist fallacy
"Praise, if you will, Orwell's fighting spirit, praise his generous anger, praise his free intelligence. Just remember that, no matter how smelly the orthodoxies, 19th-century liberalism and 20th-century anti-communism did not, and still do not, constitute socialism."
http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blacktown/ ... ltnsuk.htm

Even Orwell-fans admit his dealings with British secret service:
Orwell is revealed in role of state informer
http://pages.citenet.net/users/charles/ ... ormer.html

Alexander Cockburn, "Beat the Devil"
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ ... g00058.htm

There are many other sources that deal with the issue of 'Orwell & IRD'. Anyone can make his own conclusions. I think that while Orwell might have thought of himself as some kind of 'democratic socialist', he still wrote books with content suitable for the aims of bourgeois anti-communism, he still was in contact with the imperialist British state. And I didn't say he was a Trotskyite. But he falls in the same category with Trotsky, as also Trotsky thought of himself as being a revolutionary (while Orwell thought of himself as a "democratic socialist") and has been favoured by the imperialist bourgeoisie (even Hitler). If I think of myself as a socialist and at the same time act in a way that objectively helps the efforts of the bourgeoisie, and if even collaborate with their state, I would objectively belong to the camp of the imperialist bourgeoisie, whether I deemed myself as "socialist" or whatever.

[Proctor]

Even before that, it was clear to anyone that the bourgeoise, especially in the imperialist countries, have always liked such Orwell's books as 'Animal Farm'.

I have to ask....So? A lot of things are regarded as 'proving the evils of communism' that didn't do anything of the sort. So what if the bourgeois critics liked it? So what if they thought it illustrated the evils of communism? That doesn't mean it does, or that it was intended to.

[AnotherDeadHero]

Just a short note. I just finished reading Animal farm again a few minutes ago. The book is definitely not a criticism of communism but rather, and more specifically, of Stalin's actions and the hypocrisy inherent in them. The copy of the book came complete with a preface written by Orwell about the situation that had pre-empted Animal Farms release. The essay pretty much documents that the books was refused by publishers because of the sensitive political climate of the time and once again specifically its harsh denouncement of Stalin.

[Anarchocommunist]

the capitalist elite only embrace animal farm because they are stupid and widely illeterate to any thing that is implied. i've done many reports on orwell, and these have all shown to me that orwell is not anti communist. 1984 is strictly anti-authoritarian, and animal farm a criticism of sovietism. the fact that orwell died as a result fighting on the side of spanish anarchists in the spanish civil war should be enough. as for the symbols of the dif characters, i used to have them all as i did this as a report in high school. i'll have to reread it to figure it out again. but boxer, if i'm correct in assuming he is the hard working horse sent to the glue factory, represents the diligent socialists who were taken advantage of by the party heads.

[DC26]

Orwell was not a communist,peaple who have read all(or at least most)of his work can see that clearly.
Despite his education he was a socialist,he fought for the republicans in spain and it is there he first trully saw and understood the perversion of Socialism that existed in the Soviet union.
To suggest he was in some way a lacky for imperialism is laughable.

I first read Animal farm at school,but i bought my own copy last year and theres an interesting appendix,he finished his book in 1943 and had all sorts of trouble finding a publisher because it was viewed as anti-soviet,he also came in for critisism from the press for the same reason.Its only a few pages long(the appendix) so next time your browsing in a bookshop have a look,quite interesting.

My opologies to AnotherDeadHero for not reading his post properly,didn't mean to repeat you comments about the Appendix.