Quote:
Originally Posted by TimMason
Orwell said he was a socialist. It is a claim that he reaffirms throughout his writing. On the other hand, he dismisses anarchism, which he saw, like pacifism as aiming at the impossible and therefore in effect demanding very little (Collected Essays, Vol2). (In fact, Orwell saw a strong role for government in any realizable political formation).
You may be misled by the fact that Orwell very often criticized socialists, particularly of the Hampstead variety. In this he was participating in a sport which remains popular today. Socialism is not a monolithic doctrine, and Orwell's variety, while sometimes idiosyncratic, is a recognizable contribution to an ongoing conversation. His most trenchant contribution was his wartime essay 'The Lion and the Unicorn'.
|
I've had this argument lots of times before
But I'll restate now, because I find our Mr. Blair a fascinating writer. Orwell to me was never exactly what he claimed to be, and I find his essays and writings while pointing in one direction always make room for another direction altogether. This confusion goes throughout his life, his writings, and his politics, whichever stage you encounter him. I still argue that his politics were closer to anarcho syndicalism than traditional socialism (as it stood then, not how he perceived it could stand or might stand in the future), and that whatever political side he claimed to take, he was mostly (in his work and in his life) concerned with challenging the status quo rather than a political ideologue for any side. What I have argued before, and why I get annoyed with the socialist tag, is that Orwell's politics were a product of Orwell and his middle-class background, they never quite fit anywhere enough to be labelled outright one thing or another (not socialism nor anarchism).
We definitely need an Orwell thread now.