Orwell's political outlook

[kev67]

I listened to a radio programme about George Orwell this afternoon. I was intrigued by a suggestion made by the host, Matthew Parris, that philosophically Orwell was all over the place. I wonder whether he had a point. Orwell seemed to know what he didn't like, but wasn't sure what he wanted in its place. The Road to Wigan Pier was his most overtly political work and that was an odd book.

[Volya]

I would've thought it obvious that he is a socialist...

[Emil Miller]

I listened to a radio programme about George Orwell this afternoon. I was intrigued by a suggestion made by the host, Matthew Parris, that philosophically Orwell was all over the place. I wonder whether he had a point. Orwell seemed to know what he didn't like, but wasn't sure what he wanted in its place. The Road to Wigan Pier was his most overtly political work and that was an odd book.

I listened to it also and Parris is right because I would class Orwell as an idealist looking for a political party that doesn't exist. One of the commentators said that he enlisted in a Marxist militia in the Spanish civil war but he in fact joined an anarchist military group called POUM (I don't recall the Spanish definition) but Orwell was definitely against the communist anti-nationalist forces and 1984 tells us why. He claimed to be a democratic socialist, with the implication that the socialist party of the UK wasn't democratic and that is why he joined a breakaway group calling itself the Independant Labour Party.
The Road to Wigan Pier is indeed a political book but is a form of reportage as much as anything else. Having read all of Orwell's published work I came to the conclusion that he was a Utopian idealist whose importance lay in his justifiable warning of the danger of communism at a time when the 'intelligentsia' were falling for its propaganda.

[kev67]

I would've thought it obvious that he is a socialist...

I agree he is a left winger, but what sort of left winger? For example, one tenet of socialism used to be to the public ownership of the means of production, i.e. nationalisation of privately owned industries. Was Orwell particularly bothered about that? Maybe he would be more a fan of the Scandanivian economic model, which entails a high level of social welfare, high taxes, but is not interested in nationalisation. Professional politicians have often studied various economic and political theories and have picked out from them a coherent set of guidelines for choosing policies that they want to see put in practice. It's not just a case of right or left. Orwell did not go to university, where he might have studied a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics like so many modern politicians (actually, PPE sounds interesting, but it's not something I really know much about). Instead he joined the Burmese colonial police. Much of Orwell's political outlook was shaped by his eye-witness experience, but maybe that never added up to a coherent political philosophy.

[kev67]

I listened to it also and Parris is right because I would class Orwell as an idealist looking for a political party that doesn't exist. One of the commentators said that he enlisted in a Marxist militia in the Spanish civil war but he in fact joined an anarchist military group called POUM (I don't recall the Spanish definition) but Orwell was definitely against the communist anti-nationalist forces and 1984 tells us why. He claimed to be a democratic socialist, with the implication that the socialist party of the UK wasn't democratic and that is why he joined a breakaway group calling itself the Independant Labour Party.
The Road to Wigan Pier is indeed a political book but is a form of reportage as much as anything else. Having read all of Orwell's published work I came to the conclusion that he was a Utopian idealist whose importance lay in his justifiable warning of the danger of communism at a time when the 'intelligentsia' were falling for its propaganda.

Good post.

I think Orwell was on the left but he recognised earlier than most that communism under Stalin had failed. I suspect he was far more disappointed by the way communism turned out than by the rise of facism. Communism was more underhand and cynical. I remember reading the Soviet backed communists in the Spanish Civil War executed many of their POUM allies, with whom they had been fighting against Franco's fascists. Mussolini and Franco may have been right wing reactionaries. Hitler may have had dreams of creating an empire of racially pure supermen and was not too delicate in going about it. However, Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were not so cynical and paranoid as Stalin. They did not mispresent themselves as much. They did not murder so many of their own supporters.

[Emil Miller]

Good post.

I think Orwell was on the left but he recognised earlier than most that communism under Stalin had failed. I suspect he was far more disappointed by the way communism turned out than by the rise of facism. Communism was more underhand and cynical. I remember reading the Soviet backed communists in the Spanish Civil War executed many of their POUM allies, with whom they had been fighting against Franco's fascists. Mussolini and Franco may have been right wing reactionaries. Hitler may have had dreams of creating an empire of racially pure supermen and was not too delicate in going about it. However, Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were not so cynical and paranoid as Stalin. They did not mispresent themselves as much. They did not murder so many of their own supporters.

In Homage to Catalonia Orwell refers to the fighting that broke out between the POUM and the communists in Barcelona and it is clear that he didn't trust them.
Stalin was paranoid but, given the circumstances surrounding his rise to power, it's hardly surprising that he saw enemies wherever he looked. Orwell recognised that such a mentality was dangerous and would have nothing to do with a political party controlled by Stalin but that left him out in the cold as far as his own aspirations were concerned. In the UK many in the traditional Labour party weren't able to see what Orwell had recognised as a danger even more problematical than fascism if only because of its ability to build up a potential fifth column in Britain. The Independant Labour Party was the natural home of those who were to the left of Labour and to the right of the Communist party but its authority was minimal and its members marginalised.

[kev67]

In his essay, Why I write, Orwell says he is a social democrat and is against totalitarianism. That was written in 1946. However, earlier he seemed to have been a revolutionary. In another essay, My Country Right or Left, written in 1940, he criticized other left wing intellectuals for sneering against patriotism, and regarding themselves as too enlightened to fight for anything. I was agreeing with all this when he wrote:

Only revolution can save England, that has been obvious for years, but now the revolution has started, and it may proceed quite quickly if only we can keep Hitler out. Within two years, maybe a year, if only we can hang on. we shall see changes that will surprise the idiots who have no foresight. I dare say the London gutters will have to run with blood. All right, let them, if necessary. But when the red militias are billeted in the Ritz I shall feel the England I was taught to love so long ago and for such different reasons is somehow persisting.

What did he mean by that? How was it obvious that only revolution could save England? What did he mean when he wrote 'now the revolution had started'? A revolution had not started, a war had started. How could he have thought that a violent revolution with blood flowing down the gutters would have resulted in anything good?

I assume Orwell must have had a change of heart between 1940 and 1946, or he could not have described himself as a social democrat. I suppose he may have got a lot of what he wanted by 1946 anyway. Labour had won the general election. The National Health Service was being introduced. Large scale industries were being nationalised, whether that turned out to be a good thing or not. Economic policy was directed towards full employment. A revolution was not necessary, as it turned out.