Why was he such a fucking faggot?

Why was he such a fucking faggot?
"Anti-Communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer"
“What attracted the bourgeoisie to this third-rate writer was not his pretended support for the ideals of the October Revolution, but his real driving hated for the ideals of communism”
stalinsocietygb.wordpress.com/2016/07/12/george-orwell/

Attached: jG3WVoV.jpg (480x410 1.91 MB, 15.7K)

Other urls found in this thread:

newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm
exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Tbf some well reasoned and logical arguments put forth here this is the kind of leftypol discussion I miss.

Some Trots are ok, and are really only different from MLs, due to them just wanting optics, and agree that Stalin had personal flaws.
That being said, Orwell, and his autistic Fabian beliefs

Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him third rate; his essays and writings like 'shooting an elephant' are pretty good imo

Now I'm a Stalin defender but that is not a fucking source, all they do is regurgitate Grover Furr uncritically and somehow make it even more moronic. They're unironic 'stalin did nothing wrong ever' types.

Why do we have these threads every week, we have been through and about Orwell countless times

kek.

Attached: beep-beep-mother-fucker-snt-east-c-n-t-f-a-i-iman-anarchist-21554679.png (500x483, 137.26K)

This. He literally wrote that when he sided with armed workers in Barcelona against the civil guards during the May Days. Orwell may have been a trot and a demsucc, but he was not an anti communist.

his books are bad though.

shooting an elephant is a classic "shoot and cry" narrative, Orwell was really cutting edge in writing imperialist propaganda

t. buttblasted ☭TANKIE☭

In Road to Wigan Pier he writes that only socialism can save the workers after seeing their conditions. Then he criticises British socialists for not doing enough.

Holy shit you're denser than a neutron star.

Yeah I believe that. I think HE believed he was a proper socialist, and he was certainly a leftisit, just he was much more on the socdem/demsoc side. His own wiki says he was a demsoc.

Orwell discourse is stale as fuck but I think the only valid take is that he soured from sitting on his ass for 5 years during the war and turned into a reactionary. I don't care how many times you say that 1984 and Animal Farm are some "democratic/libertarian socialist masterpiece against stalinism", they are really shitty.
His writings from the 20s and 30s are actually good though and I wish people would stop dismissing it cause of his shit from the 40s or try and defend all his writings.

M8 the entire point of Shooting an Elephant was that imperialism forces rank and file white proles into unnatural and unnecessary conflict with colonized people, and that they should be natural allies instead. It’s widely regarded as an anti-imperialist work.

He took a bullet in the fight against fascism in Spain.

Animal Farm isn’t anti communist, it’s more of a Trotskyist shitpost. The revolution is portrayed as a fundamentally good thing destroyed by Stalin, who is seen as a crypto-porky.

newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm

I know but being anti-soviet union in the 40s is pretty much analogous to being anti-communist, geopolitically at he very least

1984 isn't even about Stalin, it's about the conditions he saw in England at the time. Ever since Catalonia he was obsessed with the way lies and propaganda manipulate populations, and he saw that happening in the UK, in the USSR and the fascist countries.

The worker. He is on the side of the worker. Dude was in the frontlines of catalonian revolution shooting nazies and francoists, literally bashing the fash the way ☭TANKIE☭kids could only dream of.
Also the revolutionary Catalonia seemed pretty cool. Why did Stalin have to order his men to ruin it? Was it his gutteral hatred against the working class, or was it just his usual megalomaniac mental 3-year-old fit of rage because he wasnt asked to be the king communist of their sand castle?

Attached: b6rbkyqdaaky.jpg (950x606, 90.71K)

Even though he was a daddy, he suffered from eternal 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧anglo🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 syndrome.

No it isn’t. That’s just a retarded thing people say to shut down criticism of the USSR. The fact is that it was woefully deficient in many areas, and deserved criticism which is something Lenin himself said. Orwell went too far in saying it was no better than a capitalist state, but to suggest that this makes him and anti-communist is to ignore the fact that he was active in the socialist movement, actively attempting to build socialism in Britain. Even the worst of his liberal tier offenses, the list, is blown out of proportion by his detractors. Yes it was a betrayal, yes it was snitching. But Stalin betrayed the entire country of Greece to British imperialism and Nazi collaborators. Which one of these betrayals do you think killed more communists? Where is the ☭TANKIE☭ outrage about this betrayal? There is little consistency or intellectual honesty in many criticisms of Orwell.

Some good criticism here and there, but the conclusions it takes are stretching the truth in a manner that is to be expected from a page literally called "Stalinist Society".

The author's inability to understand Orwell's allegory is one thing. The point of the animals' existence and their humanization is to showcase that, while in socialist society everyone provides according to their abilities, in capitalist society, due to the division of labor, you are often reduced to arduous, meaningless work. It's not, as the author implies, saying that "in politics people are no better than animals". Animal Farm reads and is constucted like a fable, be assured that it is a fucking fable. It's not meant to be some nuanced critique of communism. Stop treating it as such.

You can't say that Orwell worked in the interest of capitalism. Orwell's works function in the interest of capitalists specifically because they are taken out of context, which the author admits. What the author doesn't admit though, is how it requires superhuman foresight to know in what way your books will be interpreted several generations after you've written them. It's like saying Hegel was bad because there were Right-Hegelians. It's a stupid argument.

I didn't bother to read much of the article because it's obviously smear and attacking strawmen. It plays very much into the ☭TANKIE☭ lore of "man who criticized me bad". Orwell did a lot of bad shit too, yeah, and you could either decide to criticize him for the bad shit he did, or say "Orwell bad because his books bad".

If he was pro-worker why did he make anti-communist propaganda?

He didn’t. Animal Farm portrays the Russian revolution and socialism as a good thing and 1984 is about propaganda and political control in general.

exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/

You have to love how so many of the criticisms of Orwell centre around crazy conspiracy theories that claim that his works all meant the opposite of what he literally said they meant.

considering he literally shilled and snitched for imperialists, maybe, JUST MAYBE he was a lying piece of shit.

Stalin abandoned entire countries to imperialists and Nazi collaborators, resulting in thousands of dead communists. He then excommunicated communists like Tito who refused to let this happen. Was he a lying piece of shit? What Orwell did was deplorable, but ultimately it was just a list of people he told the BBC not to hire. It didn’t even lead to any arrests.

Goodbye shill scum, hopefully you're gone for good this time (who am I kidding, your filth always comes back).

Time to watch this shill cry on Zig Forums.

why do you keep saying "he only told the BBC who not to employ" like that somehow makes it better? it's still ratting on communists.

Don’t get me wrong, it was still a betrayal, but don’t pretend it’s equivalent to ratting out communists and them getting imprisoned or killed as a result. My point here isn’t to dismiss legitimate criticisms of Orwell, there are plenty of them. He was a snitch who sold out revolutionaries, and a demsucc who bought into anti-Soviet propaganda. But it’s a big leap to go from that to saying that he was an out and out reactionary who secretly liked capitalism and imperialism despite him denouncing and actively working against them throughout his life. He was a sectarian who screwed over tendencies he didn’t like, but that doesn’t make him an anticommunist any more than Stalin was an anticommunist for purging Trots.

Eat my ass cunts, ban is already lifted.

During World War II, in which he was rejected for military service, he
was associated with the left wing of the British Labour party, but didn't
much sympathise with their views, for even their reckless version of
socialism seemed too well organised for him.

totalitarianism, for there was no room within him except for his private war
with Stalinist communism. Consequently, when Great Britain was fighting for
its life against Nazism, and the Soviet Union fought as an ally in the
struggle and contributed rather more than its share in lives lost and in
resolute courage, Orwell wrote Animal Farm which was a satire of the Russian
Revolution and what followed, picturing it in terms of a revolt of barnyard
animals against human masters.

Russia in the 1930s, pictured with the venom of a rival left-wing sectarian.
Other forms of totalitarianism play a small role. There are one or two
mentions of the Nazis and of the Inquisition. At the very start, there is a
reference or two to Jews, almost as though they were going to prove the
objects of persecution, but that vanishes almost at once, as though Orwell
didn't want readers to mistake the villains for Nazis.
The picture is of Stalinism, and Stalinism only.
By the time the book came out in 1949, the Cold War was at its height.
The book therefore proved popular. It was almost a matter of patriotism in
the West to buy it and talk about it, and perhaps even to read parts of it,
although it is my opinion that more people bought it and talked about it
than read it, for it is a dreadfully dull book - didactic, repetitious, and
all but motionless.

conservative side of the political spectrum, for it was clearly an
anti-Soviet polemic, and the picture of life it projected in the London of
1984 was very much as conservatives imagined life in the Moscow of 1949 to
be.

Based Asimov

Attached: issac-asimov-predictions.jpg (1500x1000, 126.47K)

Wish we weren't in the fucking "civilization destroyed" timeline.

Phone poster with no regard for reformating direct quotes to green text. Not sorry.

Attached: bebe5b1e89d31b4c42b69db3f0161c2bb6b1195ee061dcd8389ec6dd02b89540.png (219x255, 16.5K)