One thing which is worth mentioning is that he hates Communists and Marxists in general only slightly less than he hates fascists, partly because they’ve tainted socialism in the eyes of a great many otherwise well-meaning people. Orwell, George (1970 [1928) A farthing newspaper, Orwell, Sonia and Angus, Ian (eds) The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Vol. 1: An Age Like This, 1920-1940, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin pp 34-37; G. K.’s Weekly, 29 December Fascinating to read such amazing predictions of England's position in the world and its future while "highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me." 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.

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. This rhyme was played upon by Lewis Carroll, who incorporated the lion and the unicorn as characters in his 1871 novel Through the Looking-Glass. Here, the crown they are fighting for belongs to the White King which, given that they are on the White side as well, makes their rivalry all the more absurd. Carroll subverts the traditional view of a lion being alert and calculating by making this particular one slow and rather stupid, although clearly the better fighter. The role of the Unicorn is likewise reversed (or mirrored, as in a looking-glass) by the fact that he sees Alice as a "monster", though he promises to start believing in her if she will believe in him. Sir John Tenniel's illustrations for the section caricature Benjamin Disraeli as the Unicorn, and William Ewart Gladstone as the Lion, alluding to the pair's frequent parliamentary battles, although there is no evidence that this was Carroll's intention. [2] See also [ edit ] When the nautical screw was first invented, there was a controversy that lasted for years as to whether screw-steamers or paddle-steamers were better. The paddle-steamers, like all obsolete things, had their champions, who supported them by ingenious arguments. Finally, however, a distinguished admiral tied a screw-steamer and a paddle-steamer of equal horsepower stern to stern and set their engines running. That settled the question once and for all. And it was something similar that happened on the fields of Norway and of Flanders. Once and for all it was proved that a planned economy is stronger than a planless one. But it is necessary here to give some kind of definition to those much-abused words, Socialism and Fascism. Orwell’s contempt for the Daily Mirror is to persist. At the end of Animal Farm, the pigs take out subscriptions to John Bull, Tit-Bits and the Mirror – symbolically marking their ultimate betrayal of the revolution! (Orwell 1976 [1945]: 63). He believes in nationalism (as against a world government which he considers not viable) but concludes that a nation is beyond political or military cultures. He would rather drive his nationality in England's law, literature and commercial culture (a nation of shopkeepers).

The Lion And The Unicorn

Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English author and journalist. His work is marked by keen intelligence and wit, a profound awareness of social injustice, an intense opposition to totalitarianism, a passion for clarity in language, and a belief in democratic socialism.

As soon as one considers any problem of this war – and it does not matter whether it is the widest aspect of strategy or the tiniest detail of home organization – one sees that the necessary moves cannot be made while the social structure of England remains what it is. Inevitably, because of their position and upbringing, the ruling class are fighting for their own privileges, which cannot possibly be reconciled with the public interest. It is a mistake to imagine that war aims, strategy, propaganda and industrial organization exist in watertight compartments. All are interconnected. Every strategic plan, every tactical method, even every weapon will bear the stamp of the social system that produced it. The British ruling class are fighting against Hitler, whom they have always regarded and whom some of them still regard as their protector against Bolshevism. That does not mean that they will deliberately sell out; but it does mean that at every decisive moment they are likely to falter, pull their punches, do the wrong thing. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one. 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). The history of the past seven years has made it perfectly clear that Communism has no chance in western Europe. The appeal of Fascism is enormously greater. In one country after another the Communists have been rooted out by their more up-to-date enemies, the Nazis. In the English-speaking countries they never had a serious footing. The creed they were spreading could appeal only to a rather rare type of person, found chiefly in the middle-class intelligentsia, the type who has ceased to love his own country but still feels the need of patriotism, and therefore develops patriotic sentiments towards Russia. By 1940, after working for twenty years and spending a great deal a money, the British Communists had barely 20,000 members, actually a smaller number than they had started out with in 1920. The other Marxist parties were of even less importance. They had not the Russian money and prestige behind them, and even more than the Communists they were tied to the nineteenth-century doctrine of the class war. They continued year after year to preach this out-of-date gospel, and never drew any inference from the fact that it got them no followers. George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (London: Penguin Books, 1982 [1941]), p. 100.I have spoken earlier of the soundness and homogeneity of England, the patriotism that runs like a connecting thread through almost all classes. After Dunkirk anyone who had eyes in his head could see this. But it is absurd to pretend that the promise of that moment has been fulfilled. Almost certainly the mass of the people are now ready for the vast changes that are necessary; but those changes have not even begun to happen. 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. 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. In England all the boasting and flag-wagging, the ‘Rule Britannia’ stuff, is done by small minorities. The patriotism of the common people is not vocal or even conscious. They do not retain among their historical memories the name of a single military victory. English literature, like other literatures, is full of battle-poems, but it is worth noticing that the ones that have won for themselves a kind of popularity are always a tale of disasters and retreats. There is no popular poem about Trafalgar or Waterloo, for instance. Sir John Moore's army at Corunna, fighting a desperate rearguard action before escaping overseas (just like Dunkirk!) has more appeal than a brilliant victory. The most stirring battle-poem in English is about a brigade of cavalry which charged in the wrong direction. And of the last war, the four names which have really engraved themselves on the popular memory are Mons, Ypres, Gallipoli and Passchendaele, every time a disaster. The names of the great battles that finally broke the German armies are simply unknown to the general public.

The first part of the essay, " England Your England", is often considered an essay in itself. With the introductory sentence "As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.", [1] the content sheds some light on the process which eventually led Orwell to the writing of his famous dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four. The text is also influenced partly by his other experiences in the Spanish Civil War, which he published his memoirs of in " Homage to Catalonia". His beliefs molded there of the dangers of totalitarianism and his conviction for democratic socialism to defeat fascism and Soviet communism are evident in all of his future novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm but are expressed here without allegory. 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. lı yıllarda İngiltere'de yaşamış biri olarak Orwell'in Britanyalı/İngiliz toplumunu çok iyi analiz ettiğini ve toplumsal yapı ile ilgili öngörülerinin tutarlı olduğunu düşünüyorum. Arzuladığı; büyük stratejik sanayi kuruluşlarının ve arazilerin ulusallaştırıldığı, minimum ile maksimum gelir farkının 10 katı aşmadığı, eğitim sisteminin devletleştirildiği demokratik sosyalist sistem gerçekleşmese bile savaş sonrası iktidar olan İşçi Partisinin sosyal güvenlik ve sağlık sistemini güçlendirdiğini ve eğitim sistemini bir nebze iyileştirdiğini 1950'deki ölümünden önce kendisi de görmüş oldu. Lakin, sömürgeleri olan Hindistan, Güney Doğu Asya ve Afrika ülkeleri bağımsızlıklarına kavuşmasına rağmen, ne yazık ki kapitalizm odaklı emperyalist muhafazakar yönetim aynı elitler tarafından hala devam ettirilmektedir. 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. The difference between Socialism and capitalism is not primarily a difference of technique. One cannot simply change from one system to the other as one might install a new piece of machinery in a factory, and then carry on as before, with the same people in positions of control. Obviously there is also needed a complete shift of power. New blood, new men, new ideas – in the true sense of the word, a revolution.Homage to Catalonia : the Spanish Civil War, 2pm, Friday 30 March: Helen Graham, Paul Preston, Francisco Romero Salvado, chaired by Jean Seaton The traditional legend of enmity between the two heraldic animals is recorded in a nursery rhyme which has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 20170. It is usually given with the lyrics: Orwell compares England to a Victorian family (p.30): everyone has a right to feel included, but the wrong ‘relatives’ hold sway, in a difficult, stiff, awkward environment. The ‘good’ people, in Orwell’s eyes (generally young, always working-class) have little to no power. I think this is a critical but mostly fair assessment of British culture: then and now, we were really ‘made’ by the Victorians and their mores, and as a naturally (small-‘c’) conservative country not much has changed. In fact, this sort of structure may have worked rather well in the 18th and 19th centuries, before (according to Orwell) the ruling class qualitatively deteriorated as they became less relevant. In Ancient Greece, aristocratic influence declined as democracy became popular; similarly, as the English middle class gained political influence through votes, the aristocracy’s importance declined, combined with the ‘social decay’ of businessmen entering the upper class and ruining their exclusivity. It doesn’t help that the older people who dominate the ‘Victorian family’ structure (p.54-5) tend to be rather clueless about change, and with the passing of time they don’t know what’s going on (and this has never become clearer than today, when so many MPs are clueless about how the Internet works, and the role it plays in people’s lives). It’s only natural that they become Conservatives who long for the ‘good old days’.