Yeah i know, what he really described was the actually existing fascism of his time superimposed on UK, so no wonder that kind of vision became pretty accurate once the anglosphere slides fully into fascism.
Oh sorry, I forget that everyone here already knows plenty about George “Don’t ask me my opinions about the Burmese” Orwell, so I am probably just repeating stuff everyone has already heard.
It is interesting how he did actually predict the way the anglosphere would shift, just completely accidentally.
It is interesting how he did actually predict the way the anglosphere would shift, just completely accidentally.
This makes him the shittiest writer ever, he basically got result opposite to intended. When i read that book for the first time i didn’t even know nothing about Orwell nor the book background and my first thought was “pretty accurate prediction of west sliding into fascism”, hell i was a succdem back then and i still had no doubt it is scalding critique of capitalism, and i’m far from alone in that conclusion. Then i learned it was supposed to be about USSR and was like “no wonder they spend so much time explaining it”. Finally i learned how a trash human being Oh’well was and that it really was intended as an anticommunist piece. Wild ride.
Have you read Aldous Huxley’s review of 1984? It’s fantastic, so much snark coming from an actually talented writer, and he wasn’t even a communist (as far as I know) he just hated the shitty writing.
Though yeah, Orwell is probably the best example of “just because they say they are a socialist, doesn’t mean they are one” I can think of. If you had never heard of 1984 and read it in a vacuum, you’d probably think it is a critique of the west and fascism, not socialism. Probably why every single high school in the west has to spend an entire term “studying” the damn book, as the only way it makes any sense is with dozens of supplementary material stating “this is what he actually meant.”
What Huxley described was existing for millenia already (infant conditioning) as religion and general socialisation, and it is not even always milder than what we seen in BNW. Propaganda machine ubiquity and the information bubbles to to point of targeted selective control are existing right now (for example in Poland, public space is completely, entirely devoid of anything prosocialist). But it is not enough as the material conditions are starting to pierce those bubbles, so that not only information control is needed, but also invigilation and direct repression. Note that both books premise is lack of any organised opposition, especiallly in the BNW, not unlike to the end of history and cultural offensive of the USA hegemony in the last three decades.
Therefore, i think he got it backwards, BNW which is logical effect of liberal extremism is precursor to 1984 fascism - excluding the technology, but things in both BNW and 1984 are not really qualititave changes, just the logical conclusion of what we have now - commodification of family is prerequisite to mass cloning, media bubbles are like the programming, liberalism is (looking at reddit) already having better effects than foetal alcohol poisoning, social mobility is getting smaller and smaller, invigilation is done by algorithms and programs.
I meant specifically his review of 1984, not BNW, which I agree with your assessment of there, it’s more that his review of 1984 is cathartic as even other liberals of the time pointed out the bullshit Orwell slopped onto the page.
Yeah i know, what he really described was the actually existing fascism of his time superimposed on UK, so no wonder that kind of vision became pretty accurate once the anglosphere slides fully into fascism.
Oh sorry, I forget that everyone here already knows plenty about George “Don’t ask me my opinions about the Burmese” Orwell, so I am probably just repeating stuff everyone has already heard.
It is interesting how he did actually predict the way the anglosphere would shift, just completely accidentally.
This makes him the shittiest writer ever, he basically got result opposite to intended. When i read that book for the first time i didn’t even know nothing about Orwell nor the book background and my first thought was “pretty accurate prediction of west sliding into fascism”, hell i was a succdem back then and i still had no doubt it is scalding critique of capitalism, and i’m far from alone in that conclusion. Then i learned it was supposed to be about USSR and was like “no wonder they spend so much time explaining it”. Finally i learned how a trash human being Oh’well was and that it really was intended as an anticommunist piece. Wild ride.
Have you read Aldous Huxley’s review of 1984? It’s fantastic, so much snark coming from an actually talented writer, and he wasn’t even a communist (as far as I know) he just hated the shitty writing.
Though yeah, Orwell is probably the best example of “just because they say they are a socialist, doesn’t mean they are one” I can think of. If you had never heard of 1984 and read it in a vacuum, you’d probably think it is a critique of the west and fascism, not socialism. Probably why every single high school in the west has to spend an entire term “studying” the damn book, as the only way it makes any sense is with dozens of supplementary material stating “this is what he actually meant.”
Isaac Asimov also wrote a pretty snarky review, which is quite telling considering his personal history of having left the USSR go go to the USA.
What Huxley described was existing for millenia already (infant conditioning) as religion and general socialisation, and it is not even always milder than what we seen in BNW. Propaganda machine ubiquity and the information bubbles to to point of targeted selective control are existing right now (for example in Poland, public space is completely, entirely devoid of anything prosocialist). But it is not enough as the material conditions are starting to pierce those bubbles, so that not only information control is needed, but also invigilation and direct repression. Note that both books premise is lack of any organised opposition, especiallly in the BNW, not unlike to the end of history and cultural offensive of the USA hegemony in the last three decades.
Therefore, i think he got it backwards, BNW which is logical effect of liberal extremism is precursor to 1984 fascism - excluding the technology, but things in both BNW and 1984 are not really qualititave changes, just the logical conclusion of what we have now - commodification of family is prerequisite to mass cloning, media bubbles are like the programming, liberalism is (looking at reddit) already having better effects than foetal alcohol poisoning, social mobility is getting smaller and smaller, invigilation is done by algorithms and programs.
I meant specifically his review of 1984, not BNW, which I agree with your assessment of there, it’s more that his review of 1984 is cathartic as even other liberals of the time pointed out the bullshit Orwell slopped onto the page.
This one?
Huh, I must’ve gotten his mixed up with the Isaac Asimov one. I thought Huxley had a pretty negative opinion of the book as well, but apparently not.
Yeah, Asimov correctly dunked on him pretty hard (though not hard enough), both as futurist and as writer.