Orwell was a leftist who wrote from a leftist perspective. 1984 is about Stalinism specifically and totalitarianism generally. It is not about communism, unless your definition of “communism” only includes the Soviet variety.
Here’s where you point out credible alternatives at national scale, where the powerful machinery of state which even Lenin requires doesn’t get taken over by dictatorial narcissist psychos
Isn’t it possible that all of the options we’ve thought of are incompatible with the basic nature of a few sociopaths seizing everything and grinding decent folk under their boot?
I’m not saying Orwell is only about communism, I’m actually agreeing that Orwell’s book was something rather specific that doesn’t apply 100% to today.
Today’s situation is shaping to be more like the Wild West where anything goes as long as your rich enough instead of a single omnipresent entity having full control.
Except that the oligarchs are now using the legal system to create an oppressive regime for the working class. In the meantime they’ll get to stabbing at each other. In the end, monarchy will remain.
Monarchism is the only end for capitalism (according to Marx’ Das Kapital …and the steady march of history has been consistent so far with this). So for those who disparage capitalism, they’re choosing the despotic totalitarian situation that Washington fought against during the origin of the US.
Oh I 100% agree that feudalism is the end goal of capitalism, I actually think the US is getting too unstable for that. Imo civil war is closer than full on dictatorship, or at least I hope so.
That’s not what I said, nor is it something I ever would say. We have, in fact, seen “real communism,” and we see it still today. The largest-scale example in history is the Ukrainian Free Territory, which functioned through a decentralized system of direct democracy at the community level. It lasted about four years during the Russian Civil War and was ultimately destroyed by Soviet invasion. For centuries, examples of communities functioning through mutual aid and other left anarchist principles have existed and continue to exist. I have personally visited several such communities and cooperatives, briefly living with one of them. Just because there is no “communist country” (which is an oxymoronic phrase) does not mean “real communism” has never existed.
Sure, Communism can work at small scales where there is a culturally homogeneous population. Which is why cities and municipalities have the freedom to adopt communist ideals.
The USA in total is far too large and diverse to make it work country wide. We are, by design, neither culturally, politically, or geographically homogeneous.
It would take an all powerful small ruling class forcing compliance in order to make it work on such a large scale. Now we are back to Totalitarianism operating under the guise of “the good of the people!!”
Even at the small scale, we have examples of this not working. CHAZ/CHOP were taken over by opportunists that wanted to benefit themselves at the expense of all others in the community. There is simply too much diversity of thought in the USA to make it work.
He was a liberal who operated as an agent of an oppressive fascist government and developed pangs of remorse, which he then translated into his writings.
Orwell was a leftist who wrote from a leftist perspective. 1984 is about Stalinism specifically and totalitarianism generally. It is not about communism, unless your definition of “communism” only includes the Soviet variety.
Here’s where you point out credible alternatives at national scale, where the powerful machinery of state which even Lenin requires doesn’t get taken over by dictatorial narcissist psychos
Isn’t it possible that all of the options we’ve thought of are incompatible with the basic nature of a few sociopaths seizing everything and grinding decent folk under their boot?
I’m not saying Orwell is only about communism, I’m actually agreeing that Orwell’s book was something rather specific that doesn’t apply 100% to today.
Today’s situation is shaping to be more like the Wild West where anything goes as long as your rich enough instead of a single omnipresent entity having full control.
Fair enough, I agree with you. Orwell lacked imagination and was waaay too focused on Stalinism to see what horror was already shaping in the West.
Except that the oligarchs are now using the legal system to create an oppressive regime for the working class. In the meantime they’ll get to stabbing at each other. In the end, monarchy will remain.
Monarchism is the only end for capitalism (according to Marx’ Das Kapital …and the steady march of history has been consistent so far with this). So for those who disparage capitalism, they’re choosing the despotic totalitarian situation that Washington fought against during the origin of the US.
Oh I 100% agree that feudalism is the end goal of capitalism, I actually think the US is getting too unstable for that. Imo civil war is closer than full on dictatorship, or at least I hope so.
“We’ve never seen REAL Communism!!”
That line is older and more tired than my 92 year old uncle.
It’s also true though. We’ve seen people try. We’ve seen how authoritarians coop it and do horrible shit. But we’ve never actually seen communism.
That’s not what I said, nor is it something I ever would say. We have, in fact, seen “real communism,” and we see it still today. The largest-scale example in history is the Ukrainian Free Territory, which functioned through a decentralized system of direct democracy at the community level. It lasted about four years during the Russian Civil War and was ultimately destroyed by Soviet invasion. For centuries, examples of communities functioning through mutual aid and other left anarchist principles have existed and continue to exist. I have personally visited several such communities and cooperatives, briefly living with one of them. Just because there is no “communist country” (which is an oxymoronic phrase) does not mean “real communism” has never existed.
Ok, I misspoke.
Sure, Communism can work at small scales where there is a culturally homogeneous population. Which is why cities and municipalities have the freedom to adopt communist ideals.
The USA in total is far too large and diverse to make it work country wide. We are, by design, neither culturally, politically, or geographically homogeneous.
It would take an all powerful small ruling class forcing compliance in order to make it work on such a large scale. Now we are back to Totalitarianism operating under the guise of “the good of the people!!”
Even at the small scale, we have examples of this not working. CHAZ/CHOP were taken over by opportunists that wanted to benefit themselves at the expense of all others in the community. There is simply too much diversity of thought in the USA to make it work.
The truth often gets repeated.
Orwell spent five years from 1922 to 1927 as a police officer in the Indian Imperial Police force in Burma (now Myanmar). The British had gradually annexed Burma in stages, and it was not until 1885, when they captured the royal capital of Mandalay, that Burma as a whole could be declared part of the British Empire. Migrant workers from India and China supplemented the native Burmese population. Although Burma was the wealthiest country in Southeast Asia under British rule, much of the wealth was in the hands of Europeans. As colony it was seen very much as a backwater. Under the British administration, the people of Burma were at the bottom of social hierarchy, with Europeans at the top, Indians, Chinese, and Christianised minorities in the middle, and Buddhist Burmese at the bottom
He was a liberal who operated as an agent of an oppressive fascist government and developed pangs of remorse, which he then translated into his writings.
Also, not to be totally essentialist, but…
Come on. The dude even looks like Hitler.