However, it has become clear in the last few years that ‘common ownership of the means of production’ is not in itself a sufficient definition of Socialism. One must also add the following: approximate equality of incomes (it need be no more than approximate), political democracy, and abolition of all hereditary privilege, especially in education. These are simply the necessary safeguards against the reappearance of a class-system. Centralized ownership has very little meaning unless the mass of the people are living roughly upon an equal level, and have some kind of control over the government. ‘The State’ may come to mean no more than a self-elected political party, and oligarchy and privilege can return, based on power rather than on money. The British ruling class were not altogether wrong in thinking that Fascism was on their side. It is a fact that any rich man, unless he is a Jew, has less to fear from Fascism than from either Communism or democratic Socialism. One ought never to forget this, for nearly the whole of German and Italian propaganda is designed to cover it up. The natural instinct of men like Simon, Hoare, Chamberlain etc. was to come to an agreement with Hitler. But – and here the peculiar feature of English life that I have spoken of, the deep sense of national solidarity, comes in – they could only do so by breaking up the Empire and selling their own people into semi-slavery. A truly corrupt class would have done this without hesitation, as in France. But things had not gone that distance in England. Politicians who would make cringing speeches about ‘the duty of loyalty to our conquerors’ are hardly to be found in English public life. Tossed to and fro between their incomes and their principles, it was impossible that men like Chamberlain should do anything but make the worst of both worlds. He is also critical of many political movements, among which, his statement on pacifism stands out even today.: They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are ‘only doing their duty’, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any the worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil.” His description of the inevitable and desirable socialist revolution in England was hopelessly utopian. Revolutions rarely go so well despite the best intentions of the instigators.

A Socialist Party which genuinely wished to achieve anything would have started by facing several facts which to this day are considered unmentionable in left-wing circles. It would have recognized that England is more united than most countries, that the British workers have a great deal to lose besides their chains, and that the differences in outlook and habits between class and class are rapidly diminishing. In general, it would have recognized that the old-fashioned ‘proletarian revolution’ is an impossibility. But all through the between-war years no Socialist programme that was both revolutionary and workable ever appeared; basically, no doubt, because no one genuinely wanted any major change to happen. The Labour leaders wanted to go on and on, drawing their salaries and periodically swapping jobs with the Conservatives. The Communists wanted to go on and on, suffering a comfortable martyrdom, meeting with endless defeats and afterwards putting the blame on other people. The left-wing intelligentsia wanted to go on and on, sniggering at the Blimps, sapping away at middle-class morale, but still keeping their favoured position as hangers-on of the dividend-drawers. Labour Party politics had become a variant of Conservatism, ‘revolutionary’ politics had become a game of make-believe. At the heart of Homage to Catalonia, his eye-witness account of fighting in a Republican militia during the Spanish Civil War, is Orwell’s anger at the coverage of the conflict by both mainstream and alternative/left newspapers – and his desire to put the record straight. As he writes: ‘One of the dreariest effects of this war has been to teach me that the Left-wing press is every bit as spurious and dishonest as that of the Right’ (though he excludes the Manchester Guardian from this criticism) (Orwell 1962 [1938]: 64). With typical wry humour, he tells of the ‘fat Russian agent’ at the Hotel Continental, in Barcelona: ‘I watched him with some interest, for it was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies – unless one counts journalists’ (ibid: 135). Do I mean by all this that England is a genuine democracy? No, not even a reader of the Daily Telegraph could quite swallow that.

Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), who used the pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of democratic socialism. Orwell's analysis of the state of India (and other colonies) and how we should leave colonialism was spot on. If only we had had the self-confidence to do this. Though he himself is a nationalist, he honestly talks about the paradox of otherwise meaningless fights that nationalism brings with it: The real danger is from above. One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler's recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc. etc. Hitler's real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him. He stands for a centralized economy which robs the capitalist of most of his power but leaves the structure of society much as before. The State controls industry, but there are still rich and poor, masters and men. Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the moneyed class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish Civil War, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler's puppet government are not working men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians.

This is where things become more difficult for reviewing purposes: I can see Orwell’s logic, and how the socialist system could have worked, but this doesn’t make it the only effective path (and we know with hindsight it proved not to be), or that, if it had been established, it would have provided a successful system after the war. His points about socialism in wartime are valid, but a capitalist government can achieve the same things by demanding production (or offering money in return for it) quite easily. We live in a capitalist state, but not an entirely free-market one – the government still has leverage, albeit through capitalistic means, and ultimately this is in large part the approach that they actually implemented. In addition to his literary career Orwell served as a police officer with the Indian Imperial Police in Burma from 1922-1927 and fought with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War from 1936-1937. Orwell was severely wounded when he was shot through his throat. Later the organization that he had joined when he joined the Republican cause, The Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), was painted by the pro-Soviet Communists as a Trotskyist organization (Trotsky was Joseph Stalin's enemy) and disbanded. Orwell and his wife were accused of "rabid Trotskyism" and tried in absentia in Barcelona, along with other leaders of the POUM, in 1938. However by then they had escaped from Spain and returned to England.

Orwell, 2. Dünya savaşında Hitler'in Londra'yı bombaladığı günlerde kaleme aldığı bu uzun makalesinde; İngiliz, İrlandalı, Galli ve İskoçlardan oluşan Birleşik Krallık halklarının, kısaca Britanyalıların analizini yaparken, 19. yüzyılın sonlarından beri kendini yenileyemeyen, dış politikada zayıf kalan, 1931-40 arası faşist ve ırkçı Hitler'in yükselişini ve savaş hazırlıklarını adeta seyreden, hatta onu tehdit olarak görmek yerine Komünist Rusya'ya karşı bir koruyucu addeden, Franco ve Mussolini'yi destekleyen Muhafazakar Tory yönetimini, ülkedeki kapitalist ekonomik sistemi, gelir eşitsizliği ve toplumsal refah dengesizliğini ateşli bir şekilde eleştiriyor, kapitalizm, faşizm, komünizm ve sosyalizmin açık ve net tanımını yaptıktan sonra savaşı kazanmanın ve geleceğe güvenle bakmanın sembolü Aslan ve Tekboynuzlu At olan "Demokratik Sosyalist bir İngiltere" ile mümkün olacağını savunuyor. In his lengthy essay, The English People (also written in 1944 but only published in 1947), Orwell’s critique again focuses on the press (1998 [1947]): ‘It is a fact that the much-boasted freedom of the British press is theoretical rather than actual. To begin with the centralised ownership of the press means in practice that unpopular opinions can only be printed in books or in newspapers with small circulations.’

And when he had beat him out, He beat him in again; He beat him three times over, His power to maintain. [1] John Tenniel's illustration for Through the Looking-Glass. El libro de Orwell que aquí comento fue uno de ellos. En sus páginas, supe encontrarme con un Orwell que no conocía: más reflexivo, menos adoctrinante, capaz más crítico (con todo y que Rebelión en la granja y 1984 son dos grandes textos críticos), preocupado por sus problemas tanto materiales como existenciales; en síntesis, alguien capaz de abrir su vida a sus lectores, no sin los titubeos propios del que reconoce que es susceptible a fallar. De sus ensayos, tres me resultaron especialmente iluminadores: 1) Raffles y Miss Blandish, un estudio en el que se aventuran un par de tesis sobre la literatura y su relación con los intereses de las personas inmiscuidas en la guerra; 2) El león y el unicornio, una reflexión profunda sobre las posibilidades del socialismo a partir de la Segunda Guerra a partir del análisis del carácter y cultura inglesa; 3) Por qué escribo, texto violento en el que se desgranan las ambiciones y precariedades de aquel que decide someter su vida a las palabras. Con esto, no quiero decir que el resto de ensayos que componen este compilado sean de menor calidad que los que he mencionado; por el contrario, están a la altura. El análisis sobre la obra de Henry Miller y la literatura inglesa de 1920 y 30 resulta ser interesante; sobre todo por la capacidad que tiene Orwell para valorar las cosas en su justa proporción. A pesar de los problemas que puede entrever en las obras de Miller o de Kipling, por citar dos ejemplos, Orwell es capaz de reconocer los aciertos y errores que, a su juicio, se encuentran presentes. His understanding of English patriotism matches mine exactly and reminds me of Billy Bragg's call for people on the left to love their country as much as people on the right seem to. I love the small observations on how the English character is distinctive and different from that of other nationalities. However, Orwell sees the classes as static, which I feel may be an oversimplification that favours his own view of the classes ‘at war’: the working class become middle-class over time, in habits and economically, so they don’t take political action as one might expect – they either work for the prospect of a better life, or don’t care enough to do so – but that isn’t in line with most socialist discourse. National characteristics are not easy to pin down, and when pinned down they often turn out to be trivialities or seem to have no connexion with one another. Spaniards are cruel to animals, Italians can do nothing without making a deafening noise, the Chinese are addicted to gambling. Obviously such things don't matter in themselves. Nevertheless, nothing is causeless, and even the fact that Englishmen have bad teeth can tell something about the realities of English life.

The Lion And The Unicorn

Orwell genel büyüleyici genel bakış açısı yerine bu kez sosyoloji ve siyaset içeren uzunca bir makale yazmış. Hakkındaki türlü dedikodulara karşın Sosyalizme ne kadar inandığını, katıksız bir anti-faşist olduğunu net olarak görebilirsiniz. Paul Mason, part of Newsnight’s Special Prize win and shortlisted for the Blog Prize in 2011 and 2009, chooses his top ten books on China… The effect of all this is a general softening of manners. It is enhanced by the fact that modern industrial methods tend always to demand less muscular effort and therefore to leave people with more energy when their day's work is done. Many workers in the light industries are less truly manual labourers than is a doctor or a grocer. In tastes, habits, manners and outlook the working class and the middle class are drawing together. The unjust distinctions remain, but the real differences diminish. The old-style ‘proletarian’– collarless, unshaven and with muscles warped by heavy labour – still exists, but he is constantly decreasing in numbers; he only predominates in the heavy-industry areas of the north of England.