I legit think 1984 is a good book for the wrong reasons. It's not a scathing critique of the communist party of Russia but rather the panopticon police state late stage neoliberal USA became.
If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within.
I think that Orwell set out to make a critique of Stalinism, but because he literally never set foot in the Soviet Union he ended up making a critique of Britain, or Anglo society generally. It's similar to how criticism of China today is always some kind of projection.
I read a fact recently that 1984 is the book people most often lie about having read (edit: it apparently was a br*tish survey so may not reflect every Anglo). That lead me to actually pick up the book, and I was struck by how easily the comparisons could be made to contemporary American society. The problem is that, as evident by the original fact, any discussion of the book is dominated by a group of people who never read it and instead evoke it like a magical spell to prove that communism is bad.
I try not to be an Orwell defender, because fuck that guy, but his books are better/more radical than a lot of people give him credit for. In 1984 and Animal Farm the revolution was explicitly good and improved the quality of life for everyone, but thats usually shadowed by his critiques against "Stalinism" and cults of personality and police states.
Also Homage to Catelonia was one of my radicalizing texts, there was a fantastic awakening of leftist zeal in me when as he described the new revolutionary societies that were forming, its all very cool even if some of it is supposedly made up.
I legit think 1984 is a good book for the wrong reasons. It's not a scathing critique of the communist party of Russia but rather the panopticon police state late stage neoliberal USA became.
I like this passage.
I think that Orwell set out to make a critique of Stalinism, but because he literally never set foot in the Soviet Union he ended up making a critique of Britain, or Anglo society generally. It's similar to how criticism of China today is always some kind of projection.
That makes a lot of sense.
I read a fact recently that 1984 is the book people most often lie about having read (edit: it apparently was a br*tish survey so may not reflect every Anglo). That lead me to actually pick up the book, and I was struck by how easily the comparisons could be made to contemporary American society. The problem is that, as evident by the original fact, any discussion of the book is dominated by a group of people who never read it and instead evoke it like a magical spell to prove that communism is bad.
Shit that's so spot on.
I try not to be an Orwell defender, because fuck that guy, but his books are better/more radical than a lot of people give him credit for. In 1984 and Animal Farm the revolution was explicitly good and improved the quality of life for everyone, but thats usually shadowed by his critiques against "Stalinism" and cults of personality and police states.
Also Homage to Catelonia was one of my radicalizing texts, there was a fantastic awakening of leftist zeal in me when as he described the new revolutionary societies that were forming, its all very cool even if some of it is supposedly made up.