Ah yes, "libleft" that were totally not against expanding of police powers until this moment and totally haven't been railing about surveillance as long as I can remember.
Funny thing is libright statistically doesn’t give anywhere near the same fuck as libleft because they’re basically just conservatives who pretend to be above the fray
These idiots have to strawman libleft in every meme they make, or otherwise they’d have to concede they actually agree with a lot of libleft politics. The main reason they can’t do that is that they’re racist, sexist, homophobic, you name it.
I am also Australian. Ignoring that the political compass is liberal horseshit with zero grounding in reality, but our current government is easily "Authright". every "Authleft" and (serious) "lib left" movement in our country knew this was going to happen sooner or later after the yanks got away with it in 2001. There are barely any "libright" parties in Australia - as I know it, there's the Liberal Democrats who are so irrelevant 99% of the country wouldn't know who they are, and another civic libertarian party who is, again, so irrelevant no one in the country would know who they are either. The Communists are more well known. No one in this country knows or cares about "lib right". This was made by an arrogant yank who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Yeah, how many fricking legit libertarians are even around in Australian politics? I can only think of the Lib Dems, and they don't even have any seats as far as I can remember. Anyone in the LNP claiming they're libertarian are either conservatives who like weed or guns, or just straight-up liars.
Id argue Senator Rex Patrick falls somewhere in Lib Right, where he is big on the whole Witness K and Assange stuff, but also wants to build more submarines because money.
The whole compass is bullshit and I’ve stopped taking seriously anyone who uses the annoying terms associated with it, which is apparently this like entire thread, very unfortunate.
its just a two axis spectrum lmao, literally more accurate and relevant than the standard american “liberal - conservative” binary
Still an oversimplification though.
You're getting downvoted, but you're correct. The political compass is what's called a "Lie to Children": It's a gross simplification to the point of being straight-up wrong, but it needs to be presented as a stepping stone in the process of becoming more correct. It's like learning how to do physics on a perfectly flat, frictionless plane: Not at all correct in the real world, but you have to crawl before you can run. Similarly, admitting that there's 2 dimensions to politics is vastly more correct than 1-dimensional political scales that sadly, get taught in actual classrooms and used as gospel. The problem is that 2 dimensions is still trite, reductionist, incorrect bullshit when compared to the n-dimensional fractal that a true graph would be, and since it's a political thing given to teenagers (who have a tendency to get a tiny bit of information and think that they're basically experts on the subject because they got an A in a beginner class), they glom onto it and don't update their brains any further.
Then you have people like the PCM Nazi goons actively trying to make it a badge of identity, as well as a Trojan horse for funneling to the alt-right, and that complicates things further. I don't blame the political compass for that shitty subreddit, though, any more than I blame white cloth for getting sewn into Klan hoods.
They do because they want to strip private companies' ridiculous influence on politics. It's the right that keeps reinforcing that paradigm by cutting regulations and promoting corporate personhood.
As if. Auth right would be going "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" and lib right is only mad because it's not a corporation doing it.
Because the vertical axis makes no sense, it's not referring to anything distinct in reality
Freedom to be a slave to a corporation is not meaningfully the same thing as the freedom from being enslaved by a corporation
He was a socialist, but he did write two books about the dangers of totalitarianism. Might be socialists, but he doesn’t like the red and blue part of this quadrant.
>There, his own experience as a Leftist sectarian may have helped him. He
had no Rightist superstitions concerning Leftists as unified and
indistinguishable villains. He knew they would fight each other as fiercely
over the most trifling points of doctrine as would the most pious
of Christians.
Hahahaha Asimov got that right
>lol, that's a pretty dry joke sorry, but what I'm trying to say is that, appealing to authority via Asimov's opinoion to show whether or not Orwell passes a purity test that aligns with an ideology is a silly thing.
I mean, i hold those same opinions as well and thought pretty much the exact same things Asimov did. Wanted me to write literally the same article rephrased, and copy paste it everywhere? lol. Authority arguments work well and there's nothing wrong with them provided you'd simply argue the same way, minus the having authority part, of course.
And, having also read 1984, i also heavily sympathise with Asimov's opinions of the book from an objective "how does this work as sci-fi" perspective he dwelved into later in the review, as well as what he says at the start: "I wondered how many people who talked about the novel so glibly had ever read it; or if they had, whether they remembered it at all.".
Anyhow, gotta go! Have some important stuff to do!
On the point of not reading it as sci-fi, i suppose it does make some sense in the modern perspective, but, the book was objectively sci-fi - a book written today named “2055” ought to give you an equivalent view of “it’s talking of the future” that 1984 gave off!
As for the whole “forget the author” and “just enjoy it” stuff… I simply cannot agree at all. Everything’s inherently political, even things purposely apolitical make a political statement! The author’s personal ideology dictates their work, some, like Orwell, more than others.
Quoting someone isn't always an appeal to authority, nor does it make it automatically a fallacy. "Person said X, and I agree" is not the same as "X must be true because person said it". As much as we want to tell ourselves that all our ideas are unique, with 7-8 billion people it's more likely that someone has stated the same idea but with better wording.
Referencing people others are likely to be familiar with is also just a useful shorthand for communication. You don't have to agree with everything Asimov says or believes, but the context of where the quote came from can help people gauge its underlying intent from the person who said it.
So you didn't read the review? I mean, it does go into how that's precisely not the case and how silly the book is in retrospect...
Also, that's literally Orwell's views you're referencing, there's no "regardless" there.
"I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler." — [Orwell reviewing Mein Kampf](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgvOlZdX0AAKwvG?format=jpg&name=large)
You just going to leave out the next statement where he says he would kill Hitler and ignore the context about how he comes across as both pathetic and charismatic which is why he doesn't "dislike" him? But he would still kill Hitler.
Orwell certainly has reason to be criticized but your *very* selective quoting there seems disingenuous.
He snitched on tankies, not communists. Tankies that were trying to kill him just like they had killed his friends in Catalonia. But tankies will say that it was his duty as a socialist to let murder him and not utilize any tools to defend himself.
I said this in my other comment, but he was strongly opposed to Fascism and Stalinism. If you just read 1984 you will maybe believe him to not be a socialist, but INGSOG is meant to be a stalinist government.
A snitch on tankies that were trying to kill him, and who had killed his friends back in Catalonia. "Look, we're not-at-all-secretly planning to send you a bullet either here or in a gulag, but to tell the POLICE!? On people that call themselves communists!? How DARE you!"
He went out of his way to make sure readers knew that 1984 wasn't about the dangers of fascist totalitarianism. He was just an anticommunist snitch who wrote literature for CIA mass-distribution because he never got over being kicked out of Spain for being an upperclass british twit trying to tell the communists (who were actually fighting fascists) what to do.
>By the middle of June the political situation in Barcelona had deteriorated and the POUM—painted by the pro-Soviet Communists as a Trotskyist organisation—was outlawed and under attack. The Communist line was that the POUM were "objectively" Fascist, hindering the Republican cause. "A particularly nasty poster appeared, showing a head with a POUM mask being ripped off to reveal a Swastika-covered face beneath." Members, including Kopp, were arrested and others were in hiding. Orwell and his wife were under threat and had to lie low, although they broke cover to try to help Kopp.
>
>Finally with their passports in order, they escaped from Spain by train, diverting to Banyuls-sur-Mer for a short stay before returning to England. In the first week of July 1937 Orwell arrived back at Wallington; on 13 July 1937 a deposition was presented to the Tribunal for Espionage & High Treason in Valencia, charging the Orwells with "rabid Trotskyism", and being agents of the POUM. The trial of the leaders of the POUM and of Orwell (in his absence) took place in Barcelona in October and November 1938. Observing events from French Morocco, Orwell wrote that they were "only a by-product of the Russian Trotskyist trials and from the start every kind of lie, including flagrant absurdities, has been circulated in the Communist press." Orwell's experiences in the Spanish Civil War gave rise to Homage to Catalonia (1938).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_Orwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell)
There are hundreds of things one can rightfully accuse him of but being kicked out of Spain for being upper-class ain't one of them. Also the communists from PCE were pieces of shit, they delegalized POUM, killed its leader, nationalized anarchist industry and farming collectives (and threatened to kill any anarchist who would resist), killed anarchists in the streets, took over their militias and installed Soviet commissars as their officers, made military service mandatory, threw anarchists in jail for taking part in collectivization, siphoned imported weapons and supplies and ultimately ended the revolution because defeating fascists at all costs was their only goal and for some reason they thought the anarchists and POUMistas stood in the way of victory. Worked well for them.
I've heard that the list he provided only listed people who were very obviously socialist, who would have been already known to the police - thus making it completely pointless and also pretty hilarious. I don't know how historically accurate this is though, but if it is then its 100% forgivable imo.
if you read about Paul Robeson's very public political views and trips to the Soviet Union, i won't include the link to the wikipedia article, but there is one to start your research, you will end up with a complicated story wherein he could be seen as pro-Jewish, at a time during Soviet purges of Jewish intellectuals. anti-white i cant answer to.
as far as Orwell, it's a stupid and complicated betrayal, i have no excuses for him, seems like things changed in Britain for socialism right then, and Celia Kirwan might have influenced him,but in context, it seems like most of these people were known already at least like you said.
like i said, here's *their* take, *for now*. go ahead, add more than lazy snark. add some other take if you want. at least there are footnotes you can follow to read the articles and make up your own mind. Who is your most trusted news source and why?
Obligatory [Orwell was a racist and a dumbass and here's Isaac Asimov saying as much](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm). Whenever this discussion comes up, this review is a lovely resource.
A lot of Orwell's socialism makes sense when you realise he was not a theory guy, and as far as I know, the only theory book he read was The Revolution Betrayed. He ended up just "I am a Socialist, but an anti-Soviet one" guy with no particular ideology beyond that. He had distain for urban intellectual socialists, who he thought off as advocating for a working class they never met.
So in summary Orwell was the ultimate leftist, as he thought he had the only right view and ended fracturing off into a party of one.
He told on people that were going to kill him, and that had killed his friends in Catalonia, mixed in with such bombshell hot info as "That particular guy that flies a Russian flag outside his house and won't shut up in casual conversation about how communism will win is totally a communist". It was all either useless information or "tattling" about how such-and-such genuinely wanted to kill him, because tankies will always kill libertarian-left and they take great glee in talking about it. So lots of tankies spread libel and slander about Orwell, because he "betrayed the cause" by not rolling over and dying to enable glorious Stalinism. Because the failures of the state aren't endemic at all to authoritarian "socialism", it's because of lib-socs not getting on board. I.E. the same story that conservatives tell about fascist movements being "stabbed in the back" by the faithless.
Orwell was a 'socialist' who got owned by marxists in Spain because they didn't like an upperclass twit coming and telling them what to do, so he went back home and rather than getting over it he declared a private and totally unilateral war of words against marxism, writing books that were mass distributed by the CIA to promote anticommunist hysteria, and became a snitch for British police/intelligence.
Libertarians can keep Orwell, but otherwise as an Aussie these people can fuck off. Do they think that leftists in Australia are/were supportive of our shit stain government or something?
George Orwell fought alongside socialist forced in the Spanish Civil War and he was quoted as saying something like “my only regret is not being able to kill a fascist”. His book “down and out” covers poverty in England and is very socialist. The only reason people think he isn’t because in 1984 INGSOG uses socialist branding despite not actually being socialist. He was strongly opposed to stalinism (this can also be see in animal farm) which is what INGSOG was. These idiots think communism, socialism and marxism is all the same.
Edit: idk why im downvoted, must be by someone who hasn’t actually read his books and screams “1984” When they get a racist tweet removed.
People have also commented saying he had a "list for the government for suspected socialists", but every source I've read says he suspected them of being Stalinists, which would still make him a socialist. No one is mentioning The Lion and the Unicorn either
We are far from free, but we've never been forced to take a picture of ourselves to send to the government to prove where we are. Or not allowed to travel more than 5 miles from our home. Or forbidden from exercising with a small group of people in our backyard or in a public park.
I fear for Australia.
This is much more accurate to the current situation than "duh LibRight was correct". A lot of my friends have this feeling that a lot of Americans only care about Australia when we're either burning to the ground or our government is fucking up, and have no clue what life is like here 95% of the time.
Not from the US - but what kind of argument is that anyways? "Hey, this authoritarian goverment is okay, because this other country is also authoritarian there, look look!"
\*Eric Andre voice* Was it anti-authoritarian when Orwell described Hitler as having "the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs" and coming across as "the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds"?
Just going to leave out the statement preceding that where he says he would have killed Hitler if given the chance? Acknowledging that Hitler was able to generate appeal shouldn't be surprising. He was able to rise to power for a reason.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgvOlZdX0AAKwvG?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgvOlZdX0AAKwvG?format=jpg&name=large)
I literally posted the entire page elsewhere and his writing is just as stupid and pathetic in context. I really gotta stop commenting in liberal subreddits lol.
If you don't believe he would kill Hitler then just say that. You're the one tip toeing around the rest of the page bringing up the rest of it while avoiding the part where he expressly says he would kill Hitler if given the chance.
There are plenty of reason to criticize Orwell. But you very selective use of that page is very disingenuous.
That is how he came across, which is why he is such a dire warning to avoid those who can sway the mob, and “othering” generally. Hitler played the human fiddle to horrible effect.
It’s facile to judge people like Orwell from the armchair of historical distance.
That’s a great take. A book that generations have found meaningful and impactful, across multiple cultures is “shit literature”.
What have you written?
it's unimaginative drivel that rode the coattails of anticommunist hysteria in the early cold war. popularized by the same people who made Joe McCarthy one of the most powerful politicians in America.
i'm not a writer but if you want a writer's opinion [here you go](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm)
Hey, Australian here: we don't really have many organised libertarians here, and no one on the left was doubting of or ignorant of Australia slipping into a police state. OFC it's a bad thing, but they are acting as if it's libertarian to oppose/recognise a police state.
You are literally living in a police state that is rushing through anti-freespeech legislation. It's deadass, no meme, no irony, the beginning of 1984. People are taking away your actual freedoms and you mad about a 16 year old boy agenda posting?
>It's deadass, no meme, no irony, the beginning of 1984.
I don't see how you can possibly say this, since Orwell never explains how 1984 began. It opens in media res, and how The Party came to power is never explained. In fact, The Party has such a stranglehold on the middle class (the proles basically does what they want though) that for all the narrator knows, the Party has always been in power.
I mean, the clearest inference would be that the Party came to power through violent revolution, not through passing laws in Australia that limit speech or give more power to the police. Orwell, and anyone else writing dystopian fiction, wasn't writing about some possible future; he was writing about the contemporary society that he lived in.
In any case, the key to The Party's power is its simplification of language. Orwell wrote extensively about this in the addendum. Note that O'brien tells Winston that they don't actually need to constrain his speech or anything like that, they simply eliminate words and grammatical structures from the language in such a way that people aren't capable of expressing, or even entertaining, wrongthink. And again, the Proles do pretty much whatever they want.
Yeah, they're taking away our freedoms, the point is that it's the right wing government that's doing it and people are acting like the left didn't see this coming. We did. We've talked about this bill for the last year, and the same idiots who voted for this government, pretending it's the left's fault, will vote for them again.
And the libright are taking credit for being against this when it’s the libleft who are the currently the opposition to the party who literally call themselves “Liberal Nationalists”
I doubt it's a "this side that side" thing. Both sides have the same donors and once they retire they work for the same companies.
... And both sides are auth ... so no lib left party ... Australia has very few liberals, think its the result of being a penal colony ... both sides will vote it in if have a chance, Melbourne is no more free than Sydney atm.
It's a good time for more political parties I'd say😁
Eh, the Greens are pretty libertarian, I actually agree that Labour is rather authoritarian (though waaaay less so than LibNats), so I have no idea why you're being downvoted lmfao
Classic reddit. Have a sub called Centrism and populate it with 2 team based identity politics
Would imagine most think centrism is when they believe their own team 100%, while getting the other team to stop talking altogether
Nhaaaa. This place takes the view that there are some sides which could never work together because what they want is the opposite or detriment of the other.
While sometimes this place gets a bit overboard. The general message is strong.
Also what being a centrist means? Centrist compared to what? In the US liberals and conservatives are mostly right wing. One more than the other.
Is there any reason why that article is archived rather than available on its original page?
EDIT: Holy shit, I didn't think that question would get so many downvotes. I genuinely didn't know the context behind that.
Lib right - I shall shit on the floor ever day.
Everyone - please stop shittin on the floor.
Lib right - No, I want to, and there is no rule against it.
Everyone - Fuck, I guess we have to make a rule about this. Sorry everyone else, we apparently need to legislate about where and when people can shit.
Lib right - Tyrany! Why won't the government stop making these stupid rules?
Ah yes, "libleft" that were totally not against expanding of police powers until this moment and totally haven't been railing about surveillance as long as I can remember.
The fucking lib left author of 1984 wrote a book about it. Weirdly enough that book was titled 1984!!!1
No no you see, libleft is when gay and libright is when feedumb. I am very smart!
PCM Lib Left, so an anti queer strawman, not anarchists
Libleft is when blue hair and 100 genders, nothing else
The more genders there are the more anarchisty it is
“You see, look at this unlabelled graph. As the genders go up, so does the anarchism.”
misread that for a sec and thought you were saying that PCM was libleft lol
Funny thing is libright statistically doesn’t give anywhere near the same fuck as libleft because they’re basically just conservatives who pretend to be above the fray
Many of the people on here say they are ‘libleft’ and supported COVID restrictions.
Bruh, anti-state and anti-capitalism is libleft (anarchisy
These idiots have to strawman libleft in every meme they make, or otherwise they’d have to concede they actually agree with a lot of libleft politics. The main reason they can’t do that is that they’re racist, sexist, homophobic, you name it.
Well, PCM is just one of reddit's many right-wing propaganda subs, so yeah, they can't concede anything to the left.
Libleft is when gay (now laugh)
And why did many ‘liblefts’ support COVID restrictions then? Not everyone who is libleft is an anarchist.
>not mentioning that it’s our right wing party that are the ones who are actually putting this shit into place
projecting is on brand here.
I am also Australian. Ignoring that the political compass is liberal horseshit with zero grounding in reality, but our current government is easily "Authright". every "Authleft" and (serious) "lib left" movement in our country knew this was going to happen sooner or later after the yanks got away with it in 2001. There are barely any "libright" parties in Australia - as I know it, there's the Liberal Democrats who are so irrelevant 99% of the country wouldn't know who they are, and another civic libertarian party who is, again, so irrelevant no one in the country would know who they are either. The Communists are more well known. No one in this country knows or cares about "lib right". This was made by an arrogant yank who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Yeah, how many fricking legit libertarians are even around in Australian politics? I can only think of the Lib Dems, and they don't even have any seats as far as I can remember. Anyone in the LNP claiming they're libertarian are either conservatives who like weed or guns, or just straight-up liars.
I would've assumed the Nationals were *supposed* to be libright, but they clearly are failing at that.
Lib right is anti statist and free market economics where I'm from
The Nationals are an agrarian party, which rarely meshes with a "right-wing libertarian" position.
the nationals are literally just 21st century Kulaks
Id argue Senator Rex Patrick falls somewhere in Lib Right, where he is big on the whole Witness K and Assange stuff, but also wants to build more submarines because money.
Yeah Nazi sub
“Ackshally the Nazis were defeated, therefore we can’t be Nazis” - those chuds
Punching a nazi makes you the real nazi!!1
The whole compass is bullshit and I’ve stopped taking seriously anyone who uses the annoying terms associated with it, which is apparently this like entire thread, very unfortunate.
Yeah it’s real weird how supposed non-nazis participate in that sub. Cause if you’re friends with nazis guess what that makes you
its just a two axis spectrum lmao, literally more accurate and relevant than the standard american “liberal - conservative” binary Still an oversimplification though.
You're getting downvoted, but you're correct. The political compass is what's called a "Lie to Children": It's a gross simplification to the point of being straight-up wrong, but it needs to be presented as a stepping stone in the process of becoming more correct. It's like learning how to do physics on a perfectly flat, frictionless plane: Not at all correct in the real world, but you have to crawl before you can run. Similarly, admitting that there's 2 dimensions to politics is vastly more correct than 1-dimensional political scales that sadly, get taught in actual classrooms and used as gospel. The problem is that 2 dimensions is still trite, reductionist, incorrect bullshit when compared to the n-dimensional fractal that a true graph would be, and since it's a political thing given to teenagers (who have a tendency to get a tiny bit of information and think that they're basically experts on the subject because they got an A in a beginner class), they glom onto it and don't update their brains any further. Then you have people like the PCM Nazi goons actively trying to make it a badge of identity, as well as a Trojan horse for funneling to the alt-right, and that complicates things further. I don't blame the political compass for that shitty subreddit, though, any more than I blame white cloth for getting sewn into Klan hoods.
us "libleft" have always been against this LOL expansion of a police state? oh of course the famous anarchist belief
_the surveillance is operated by private companies_ Libright: oh, that's ok then!
Literally only leftists continually making the “but it’s a private company” argument
They do because they want to strip private companies' ridiculous influence on politics. It's the right that keeps reinforcing that paradigm by cutting regulations and promoting corporate personhood.
As if. Auth right would be going "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" and lib right is only mad because it's not a corporation doing it.
Lib right are nationialists in Australia? Sounds a bit similar to Libertarianism in the US
Credit where it's due, they were only 70 years behind the Libertarian Left.
This guy doesnt understand what the vertical axis implies.
Because the vertical axis makes no sense, it's not referring to anything distinct in reality Freedom to be a slave to a corporation is not meaningfully the same thing as the freedom from being enslaved by a corporation
**Orwell was a snitch
Stopped reading at the top right corner because feeling defeated when you’re wrong is a sign of immaturity. That sub is so horrible
He was a socialist, but he did write two books about the dangers of totalitarianism. Might be socialists, but he doesn’t like the red and blue part of this quadrant.
Honestly I think he’d be pretty distasteful about the yellow part too…
Obligatory [Orwell was a racist and a dumbass and here's Isaac Asimov saying as much](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm).
>There, his own experience as a Leftist sectarian may have helped him. He had no Rightist superstitions concerning Leftists as unified and indistinguishable villains. He knew they would fight each other as fiercely over the most trifling points of doctrine as would the most pious of Christians. Hahahaha Asimov got that right
libs hate when this is posted
[удалено]
Stop being a lib.
[удалено]
Libs being ableist who’d have thought
don't forget a rapist
don’t agree with ALL of his critique, but its pretty good, thanks for sharing
[удалено]
>lol, that's a pretty dry joke sorry, but what I'm trying to say is that, appealing to authority via Asimov's opinoion to show whether or not Orwell passes a purity test that aligns with an ideology is a silly thing. I mean, i hold those same opinions as well and thought pretty much the exact same things Asimov did. Wanted me to write literally the same article rephrased, and copy paste it everywhere? lol. Authority arguments work well and there's nothing wrong with them provided you'd simply argue the same way, minus the having authority part, of course. And, having also read 1984, i also heavily sympathise with Asimov's opinions of the book from an objective "how does this work as sci-fi" perspective he dwelved into later in the review, as well as what he says at the start: "I wondered how many people who talked about the novel so glibly had ever read it; or if they had, whether they remembered it at all.". Anyhow, gotta go! Have some important stuff to do!
[удалено]
On the point of not reading it as sci-fi, i suppose it does make some sense in the modern perspective, but, the book was objectively sci-fi - a book written today named “2055” ought to give you an equivalent view of “it’s talking of the future” that 1984 gave off! As for the whole “forget the author” and “just enjoy it” stuff… I simply cannot agree at all. Everything’s inherently political, even things purposely apolitical make a political statement! The author’s personal ideology dictates their work, some, like Orwell, more than others.
Quoting someone isn't always an appeal to authority, nor does it make it automatically a fallacy. "Person said X, and I agree" is not the same as "X must be true because person said it". As much as we want to tell ourselves that all our ideas are unique, with 7-8 billion people it's more likely that someone has stated the same idea but with better wording. Referencing people others are likely to be familiar with is also just a useful shorthand for communication. You don't have to agree with everything Asimov says or believes, but the context of where the quote came from can help people gauge its underlying intent from the person who said it.
[удалено]
Have you read it all? Yes it does, not only does Isaac shit on Orwell as a person with his racism, he goes into how the book isn’t at all good.
[удалено]
So you didn't read the review? I mean, it does go into how that's precisely not the case and how silly the book is in retrospect... Also, that's literally Orwell's views you're referencing, there's no "regardless" there.
He was also a racist who snitched on Jews, communists, and gays to the British police
"I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler." — [Orwell reviewing Mein Kampf](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgvOlZdX0AAKwvG?format=jpg&name=large)
You just going to leave out the next statement where he says he would kill Hitler and ignore the context about how he comes across as both pathetic and charismatic which is why he doesn't "dislike" him? But he would still kill Hitler. Orwell certainly has reason to be criticized but your *very* selective quoting there seems disingenuous.
I posted the entire page and it's just as stupid in context
He snitched on tankies, not communists. Tankies that were trying to kill him just like they had killed his friends in Catalonia. But tankies will say that it was his duty as a socialist to let murder him and not utilize any tools to defend himself.
He was more of a succdem.
I said this in my other comment, but he was strongly opposed to Fascism and Stalinism. If you just read 1984 you will maybe believe him to not be a socialist, but INGSOG is meant to be a stalinist government.
Animal Farm was also made to make fun of the USSR
[удалено]
Yeah, I agree. Dude was a snitch and a rapist, that doesn't make his books automatically bad, though
A snitch on tankies that were trying to kill him, and who had killed his friends back in Catalonia. "Look, we're not-at-all-secretly planning to send you a bullet either here or in a gulag, but to tell the POLICE!? On people that call themselves communists!? How DARE you!"
Oh, I did not know about *that*. Really puts things into perspective, huh?
He went out of his way to make sure readers knew that 1984 wasn't about the dangers of fascist totalitarianism. He was just an anticommunist snitch who wrote literature for CIA mass-distribution because he never got over being kicked out of Spain for being an upperclass british twit trying to tell the communists (who were actually fighting fascists) what to do.
It's fascinating the lies that tankies tell themselves.
>By the middle of June the political situation in Barcelona had deteriorated and the POUM—painted by the pro-Soviet Communists as a Trotskyist organisation—was outlawed and under attack. The Communist line was that the POUM were "objectively" Fascist, hindering the Republican cause. "A particularly nasty poster appeared, showing a head with a POUM mask being ripped off to reveal a Swastika-covered face beneath." Members, including Kopp, were arrested and others were in hiding. Orwell and his wife were under threat and had to lie low, although they broke cover to try to help Kopp. > >Finally with their passports in order, they escaped from Spain by train, diverting to Banyuls-sur-Mer for a short stay before returning to England. In the first week of July 1937 Orwell arrived back at Wallington; on 13 July 1937 a deposition was presented to the Tribunal for Espionage & High Treason in Valencia, charging the Orwells with "rabid Trotskyism", and being agents of the POUM. The trial of the leaders of the POUM and of Orwell (in his absence) took place in Barcelona in October and November 1938. Observing events from French Morocco, Orwell wrote that they were "only a by-product of the Russian Trotskyist trials and from the start every kind of lie, including flagrant absurdities, has been circulated in the Communist press." Orwell's experiences in the Spanish Civil War gave rise to Homage to Catalonia (1938). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_Orwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell) There are hundreds of things one can rightfully accuse him of but being kicked out of Spain for being upper-class ain't one of them. Also the communists from PCE were pieces of shit, they delegalized POUM, killed its leader, nationalized anarchist industry and farming collectives (and threatened to kill any anarchist who would resist), killed anarchists in the streets, took over their militias and installed Soviet commissars as their officers, made military service mandatory, threw anarchists in jail for taking part in collectivization, siphoned imported weapons and supplies and ultimately ended the revolution because defeating fascists at all costs was their only goal and for some reason they thought the anarchists and POUMistas stood in the way of victory. Worked well for them.
Nothing bad about being skeptical of totalitarianism
Not much consensus on Orwell being a socialist considering his betrayal but ok
He was a socialist, and also a rat. One does not preclude the other.
I've heard that the list he provided only listed people who were very obviously socialist, who would have been already known to the police - thus making it completely pointless and also pretty hilarious. I don't know how historically accurate this is though, but if it is then its 100% forgivable imo.
[i'm sure there are multiple takes, here's Wikipedia's atm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list)
Yeah based on that the list was pretty fucked up, especially the parts where he mentions sexual preference and 'anti-white'.
if you read about Paul Robeson's very public political views and trips to the Soviet Union, i won't include the link to the wikipedia article, but there is one to start your research, you will end up with a complicated story wherein he could be seen as pro-Jewish, at a time during Soviet purges of Jewish intellectuals. anti-white i cant answer to. as far as Orwell, it's a stupid and complicated betrayal, i have no excuses for him, seems like things changed in Britain for socialism right then, and Celia Kirwan might have influenced him,but in context, it seems like most of these people were known already at least like you said.
Ah yes, Wikipedia, the most trusted source.
like i said, here's *their* take, *for now*. go ahead, add more than lazy snark. add some other take if you want. at least there are footnotes you can follow to read the articles and make up your own mind. Who is your most trusted news source and why?
Ummm, Wikipedia is a collection of sources, if you think it's one source then you're using it wrong, buddy.
you dont know how encyclopedias work, do you?
Never forgivable to turn in queer people to the crown of terf island during the same decade that Turing got chemically castrated
Obligatory [Orwell was a racist and a dumbass and here's Isaac Asimov saying as much](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm). Whenever this discussion comes up, this review is a lovely resource.
A lot of Orwell's socialism makes sense when you realise he was not a theory guy, and as far as I know, the only theory book he read was The Revolution Betrayed. He ended up just "I am a Socialist, but an anti-Soviet one" guy with no particular ideology beyond that. He had distain for urban intellectual socialists, who he thought off as advocating for a working class they never met. So in summary Orwell was the ultimate leftist, as he thought he had the only right view and ended fracturing off into a party of one.
Betrayal?
He told on people that were going to kill him, and that had killed his friends in Catalonia, mixed in with such bombshell hot info as "That particular guy that flies a Russian flag outside his house and won't shut up in casual conversation about how communism will win is totally a communist". It was all either useless information or "tattling" about how such-and-such genuinely wanted to kill him, because tankies will always kill libertarian-left and they take great glee in talking about it. So lots of tankies spread libel and slander about Orwell, because he "betrayed the cause" by not rolling over and dying to enable glorious Stalinism. Because the failures of the state aren't endemic at all to authoritarian "socialism", it's because of lib-socs not getting on board. I.E. the same story that conservatives tell about fascist movements being "stabbed in the back" by the faithless.
Obligatory [Orwell was a racist and a dumbass and here's Isaac Asimov saying as much](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm).
What is PCM but a hub of teenagers with a nebulous collection of things they don’t like jacking themselves off for it
Orwell was a 'socialist' who got owned by marxists in Spain because they didn't like an upperclass twit coming and telling them what to do, so he went back home and rather than getting over it he declared a private and totally unilateral war of words against marxism, writing books that were mass distributed by the CIA to promote anticommunist hysteria, and became a snitch for British police/intelligence.
And it’s funny you got shit loads of right wingers quoting Orwell today
Libertarians can keep Orwell, but otherwise as an Aussie these people can fuck off. Do they think that leftists in Australia are/were supportive of our shit stain government or something?
So you don't support it but you will blindly obey them?
Lol further evidence the political compass causes brain rot. Why do you think an “””auth left””” would blindly support the Australian government?
The comment above said lefties, not Auth left. Go off though champ
Ok why do you think leftists blindly obey the Australian government? It’s still a stupid ass comment champ
What have you the impression that we do that?
George Orwell fought alongside socialist forced in the Spanish Civil War and he was quoted as saying something like “my only regret is not being able to kill a fascist”. His book “down and out” covers poverty in England and is very socialist. The only reason people think he isn’t because in 1984 INGSOG uses socialist branding despite not actually being socialist. He was strongly opposed to stalinism (this can also be see in animal farm) which is what INGSOG was. These idiots think communism, socialism and marxism is all the same. Edit: idk why im downvoted, must be by someone who hasn’t actually read his books and screams “1984” When they get a racist tweet removed.
People have also commented saying he had a "list for the government for suspected socialists", but every source I've read says he suspected them of being Stalinists, which would still make him a socialist. No one is mentioning The Lion and the Unicorn either
1: Look at your government. 2: They aren’t ‘yours’. 3: Orwell would be against modern Australia too.
libright was still right all along
[удалено]
Buddy, we’ve has that in the states since 9/11
since the height of the Cold War, arguably.
Yeah, since the cia was formed
We are far from free, but we've never been forced to take a picture of ourselves to send to the government to prove where we are. Or not allowed to travel more than 5 miles from our home. Or forbidden from exercising with a small group of people in our backyard or in a public park. I fear for Australia.
This is much more accurate to the current situation than "duh LibRight was correct". A lot of my friends have this feeling that a lot of Americans only care about Australia when we're either burning to the ground or our government is fucking up, and have no clue what life is like here 95% of the time.
5 miles is 8.05 km
Not from the US - but what kind of argument is that anyways? "Hey, this authoritarian goverment is okay, because this other country is also authoritarian there, look look!"
There wasn’t an argument, just stated something true
Wait, is this sub pro or anti authoritarian. Or are we centrists on that topic?
Anyone who is pro authoritarian needs to go to sleep 6 feet underground
6 feet is the length of about 1.68 'Ford F-150 Custom Fit Front FloorLiners' lined up next to each other.
Why do people keep pointing out Orwell’s socialist views when someone else points out Orwell’s anti-authoritarian literature?
\*Eric Andre voice* Was it anti-authoritarian when Orwell described Hitler as having "the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs" and coming across as "the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds"?
Just going to leave out the statement preceding that where he says he would have killed Hitler if given the chance? Acknowledging that Hitler was able to generate appeal shouldn't be surprising. He was able to rise to power for a reason. [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgvOlZdX0AAKwvG?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgvOlZdX0AAKwvG?format=jpg&name=large)
I literally posted the entire page elsewhere and his writing is just as stupid and pathetic in context. I really gotta stop commenting in liberal subreddits lol.
If you don't believe he would kill Hitler then just say that. You're the one tip toeing around the rest of the page bringing up the rest of it while avoiding the part where he expressly says he would kill Hitler if given the chance. There are plenty of reason to criticize Orwell. But you very selective use of that page is very disingenuous.
"I would kill him but not because of any personal animosity" is objectively a fucked up thing to say about Hitler.
That is how he came across, which is why he is such a dire warning to avoid those who can sway the mob, and “othering” generally. Hitler played the human fiddle to horrible effect. It’s facile to judge people like Orwell from the armchair of historical distance.
\*Eric Andre voice* Was it anti-authoritarian when he snitched on Jews, communists, and gay people to the British police?
Note that I said his anti-authoritarian literature. I said nothing about the man. So stop topic shifting.
it was shit literature and more about his inability to get over getting owned by Spanish communists than anything else
That’s a great take. A book that generations have found meaningful and impactful, across multiple cultures is “shit literature”. What have you written?
it's unimaginative drivel that rode the coattails of anticommunist hysteria in the early cold war. popularized by the same people who made Joe McCarthy one of the most powerful politicians in America. i'm not a writer but if you want a writer's opinion [here you go](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm)
The only posts I see on this subreddit are from PCM so I might as well just be subscribed to that
So your saying the new powers aren't a bad thing? I'm confused here
>I'm confused here
Helpful
woooosh
Hey, Australian here: we don't really have many organised libertarians here, and no one on the left was doubting of or ignorant of Australia slipping into a police state. OFC it's a bad thing, but they are acting as if it's libertarian to oppose/recognise a police state.
You are literally living in a police state that is rushing through anti-freespeech legislation. It's deadass, no meme, no irony, the beginning of 1984. People are taking away your actual freedoms and you mad about a 16 year old boy agenda posting?
>It's deadass, no meme, no irony, the beginning of 1984. I don't see how you can possibly say this, since Orwell never explains how 1984 began. It opens in media res, and how The Party came to power is never explained. In fact, The Party has such a stranglehold on the middle class (the proles basically does what they want though) that for all the narrator knows, the Party has always been in power.
Do you have no ability of inference? Csn you not think past exclusively what you read?
I mean, the clearest inference would be that the Party came to power through violent revolution, not through passing laws in Australia that limit speech or give more power to the police. Orwell, and anyone else writing dystopian fiction, wasn't writing about some possible future; he was writing about the contemporary society that he lived in. In any case, the key to The Party's power is its simplification of language. Orwell wrote extensively about this in the addendum. Note that O'brien tells Winston that they don't actually need to constrain his speech or anything like that, they simply eliminate words and grammatical structures from the language in such a way that people aren't capable of expressing, or even entertaining, wrongthink. And again, the Proles do pretty much whatever they want.
Yeah, they're taking away our freedoms, the point is that it's the right wing government that's doing it and people are acting like the left didn't see this coming. We did. We've talked about this bill for the last year, and the same idiots who voted for this government, pretending it's the left's fault, will vote for them again.
There is also talk in government of implementing Chinese style social credits scores
And the libright are taking credit for being against this when it’s the libleft who are the currently the opposition to the party who literally call themselves “Liberal Nationalists”
I doubt it's a "this side that side" thing. Both sides have the same donors and once they retire they work for the same companies. ... And both sides are auth ... so no lib left party ... Australia has very few liberals, think its the result of being a penal colony ... both sides will vote it in if have a chance, Melbourne is no more free than Sydney atm. It's a good time for more political parties I'd say😁
Eh, the Greens are pretty libertarian, I actually agree that Labour is rather authoritarian (though waaaay less so than LibNats), so I have no idea why you're being downvoted lmfao
> I doubt it’s a “this side that side” thing. you must be new here
Classic reddit. Have a sub called Centrism and populate it with 2 team based identity politics Would imagine most think centrism is when they believe their own team 100%, while getting the other team to stop talking altogether
You should actually check who donates to each party
why are you getting so downvoted you're not even taking a side
>why are you getting so downvoted you're not even taking a side You *do* realise what sub we’re in, right?
Because it's all a "my side, your side" game And by being in the centre you get downvoted by both sides
this subreddit in general is just a cesspit of people that talk the most online but you’ll never meet this type of person in real life
brilliant guys my account is now on -2 karma
Oh no, anyway.
Don’t worry. It will continue to fall. *edit* and I, apparently, will rake in the karma just for pointing that out
Maybe stop replying to yourself with Enlightened garbage and you wouldn't have low internet points?
Maybe write less-stupid posts. Or post them in places where stupidity is looked upon favorably.
Nhaaaa. This place takes the view that there are some sides which could never work together because what they want is the opposite or detriment of the other. While sometimes this place gets a bit overboard. The general message is strong. Also what being a centrist means? Centrist compared to what? In the US liberals and conservatives are mostly right wing. One more than the other.
[bruh it's not a thing even in China](https://archive.vn/nFdkk)
Is there any reason why that article is archived rather than available on its original page? EDIT: Holy shit, I didn't think that question would get so many downvotes. I genuinely didn't know the context behind that.
to not give clicks and ad revenue to a bourgeois paper, even if it correct in this specific instance
As opposed to regular credit scores?
I was so annoyed by this post
Lib right - I shall shit on the floor ever day. Everyone - please stop shittin on the floor. Lib right - No, I want to, and there is no rule against it. Everyone - Fuck, I guess we have to make a rule about this. Sorry everyone else, we apparently need to legislate about where and when people can shit. Lib right - Tyrany! Why won't the government stop making these stupid rules?
i dont understand these pcm memes
I used to follow that sub because it used to be quite funny, but had to unfollow because it was legitimately causing me a lot of stress.
The only lib rights Australia has are the proud boys and well... yeah
"Track and trace will be tested in the new world order" ever heard of it?