Anybody read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell? If so what do you think of...

Jason Smith
Jason Smith

Anybody read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell? If so what do you think of it in general?

I think its the best book honestly for anyone who wants to learn about an ancom society. I love how its framed as a story of Orwell's experiences and what he saw there rather than a long, boring essay about ancom economics or whatever. Makes it 1000x more interesting for non lefties to get to know the subject.

Attached: homagetocatalonia.jpg (23.08 KB, 335x500)

Other urls found in this thread:

newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm

Luis Lopez
Luis Lopez

I've read it but I'm not really sure this book is for "learn[ing] about an ancom society." First of all Revolutionary Calalonia was an anarcho-syndicalist, not anarcho-communist experiment. Second of all most of the book is about Orwell's experiences not Catalonian society, and his positive reflections on it all concern his excitement about seeing the working class in power not the anarchist form that exercise of power took.

Luis Cook
Luis Cook

I was under the impression that Orwell was a cunt and leftypol has never claimed him as /our guy/. Not strictly on topic but should give Asimov's review on 1984 a gander. It changed my old man's opinion on him being a top bloke to a shit cunt in one read through.

newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm

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

Matthew Collins
Matthew Collins

based

Jacob Wood
Jacob Wood

A lot of this is wank. Asimov is just being autistic when he says such-and-such is implausible; obviously Orwell never meant a lot of things in the book literally as predictions. Asimov seems to be judging 1984 as if it were a nerdy sci-fi novel which tries to make a serious guess at what life would be like in the future. Obviously it is going to come up short by those standards since Orwell was never attempting that.

He is plain wrong when he says that Orwell 'seems to suppose, in fact, that the British Empire is the dominant member of the British-American combination'. Britain is described as 'Airstrip One' implying a subordinate status within Oceania. The use by the government of Britain-centric terms like Ingsoc must be confined to Britain and meant to appeal to British patriotism.

'in one of the more laughable parts of the book, he goes on and on concerning the necessity of permanent war as a means of consuming the world's production of resources and thus keeping the social stratification of upper, middle, and lower classes in being' Again, wasn't meant literally. Incessant world war was obviously never going to happen but governments absolutely do use war to stimulate the economy and promote domestic unity (as Asimov admits soon after).

The only interesting thing here is the observation that Newspeak is not a good take on what oppressive governments do with language. Weird that Orwell would get this wrong since he railed against the 'exuberant inebriation of loquacity' (as Asimov puts it) and promoted concise, direct English. Newspeak is still a thought-provoking idea though.

Hunter Hughes
Hunter Hughes

Orwell
Brilliant essayist, shit-tier novelist.
Asimov
Shit-tier novelist, and apparently a shit-tier book reviewer. Completely autistic, like says.

Attached: 257eb60ab42e3bdd60113e08f6ce1517e78183ab7588176cf3fcf4eb5f8d0856.jpg (49.73 KB, 600x985)

John Lee
John Lee

It's an interesting book since Orwell is telling events he participed directly, but reading just Homage to Catalonia and basing your views on the Spanish Civil War on it gives a very one-sided and biased account of events.
Asimov
Shit-tier novelist
pic related

Attached: laugh-at-you.jpg (27.41 KB, 600x337)

Daniel Edwards
Daniel Edwards

There are a lot of things to criticize Orwell for, but many leftists go way overboard. There’s a difference between being a demsucc and a trot who buys Western lies about the USSR but still wants socialism, and an actual reactionary who is racist and likes imperialism. He was the former, not the latter.

Parker Parker
Parker Parker

'in one of the more laughable parts of the book, he goes on and on concerning the necessity of permanent war as a means of consuming the world's production of resources and thus keeping the social stratification of upper, middle, and lower classes in being'
And yet, the USA has been at war for 95% of its existence. Germany and France are talking about creating an EU army. Since 1914 the world has been in a permanent state of war. 1914-1918 WWI, 1918 onwards colonial expansion, 1939-1945 WWII, 1945-1989 Cold War, 1990 onwards UN/NATO has been in Yugoslavia, Africa. 2000s wars in Middle East. 2019 we're again in a new Cold War, China/USA/Russia are all working on new AI weapons, US and Russia left that mid-range nuclear treaty.

We're absolutely in a state of permanent war that keeps consuming resources, destroying the planet, killing off the working class and keeping everyone in fear. As Žižek said, "The state of always being moments away from tragedy is the tragedy."

Carter James
Carter James

Homage to Catalonia is a good story I know it's autobiographical but not very useful as an actual historical examination of the Spanish Civil War.
Good read for babey leftists or people interested in the Spanish Civil War, not much more though.
Also Orwell's a liberal bitch fuck that guy, his use of the term "Stalinists" detracts from the book pretty hard

Leo Turner
Leo Turner

This basically

Joshua Ramirez
Joshua Ramirez

I know fam, I was quoting Asimov's criticism there. Should have greentexted it.

Sebastian Thompson
Sebastian Thompson

I know. I was just commenting on the text. I have read Asimov's critique.

Andrew Lee
Andrew Lee

Boring romanticism of Catalonians, cherry-picked to ignore many of the more problematic episodes they had, including George Orwell's OWN fuck ups.

Liam Miller
Liam Miller

<A prototypic Red-basher who pretended to be on the Left was George Orwell. In the middle of World War II, as the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against the Nazi invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that a “willingness to criticize Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty. It is the only thing that from a literary intellectual’s point of view is really dangerous” (Monthly Review, 5/83). Safely ensconced within a virulently anticommunist society, Orwell (with Orwellian doublethink) characterized the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance. Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid left critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against imaginary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes.

Attached: parenti.png (183.22 KB, 448x326)

Elijah Torres
Elijah Torres

getting triggered over Orwell not respecting MLtards preferred pronouns
but he's the liberal
lol

Isaac Lopez
Isaac Lopez

the only good that has come out of orwell is the word "Orwellian".

John Morgan
John Morgan

Nobody said anything about animal farm…

Jeremiah Peterson
Jeremiah Peterson

Shevchenko wrote to Orwell in London, and, working with him via mail, published Animal Farm in Ukrainian. In March 1947, Shevchenko printed around 5, 000 copies to distribute among the Ukrainian refugees in the displaced persons camps of postwar Germany and Austria. But only 2000 books were given out; U. S. Soldiers, suspecting the books of being anti-Stalin propaganda, confiscated the rest and handed them over to Soviet authorities to be destroyed.
tfw your shitty screed gets dabbed on by based boomers

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (8.63 MB, 1441x2000)

Daniel Bell
Daniel Bell

GIs weren't Boomers, they were silent generation.

Blake Collins
Blake Collins

Ah yes, the reason american soldiers confiscated a book that claims Stalin has become no different to Churchill and Truman and as bad as them because they were based stalin fans and suspected it of being anti-stalin propaganda rather than because it was communist propaganda.
Enormous ML brains on display everyday on /nuleftypol/

Jayden Carter
Jayden Carter

That is why the American soldiers gave them to the Soviets, right? This may surprise a liberal like you, but the Soviet Union and even Stalin were quite popular among the worldwide public back then.

Attached: propaganda.jpg (68.18 KB, 1023x688)

Cameron Rodriguez
Cameron Rodriguez

handing over communist propaganda to the communists
???
Either way this shit is documented in multiple places.
After spending years writing Animal Farm, George Orwell could not find a publisher brave enough to publish it during World War II since it was viewed as anti-Soviet satire. The book was not welcome in the literary world because the West needed Stalin to fight Hitler. As well, many leading intellectuals still believed in the Russian Revolution. Orwell finally managed to publish his book in 1945 at the small British press Secker & Warburg. Six months later, Ihor Ševčenko, a Ukrainian refugee and linguistics scholar, read Animal Farm and recognized its profound meaning.

Ševčenko wrote to Orwell in London asking permission to publish the book in Ukrainian. Orwell agreed and even wrote an introduction to this edition. In March 1947, Ševčenko printed 5,000 copies for Ukrainian refugees in the displaced persons camps of postwar Germany and Austria. Initially, 2,000 of these books were distributed before American soldiers confiscated them as anti-Soviet propaganda. They were then given to Soviet authorities to be destroyed.

Dylan Evans
Dylan Evans

handing over communist propaganda to the communists
there is no conceivable reason why the soviets would want to destroy communist propaganda that claimed stalin wasn't a good communist
astonishing brainpower both of you

Andrew Gonzalez
Andrew Gonzalez

You guys really don't realise that the answer is just that the allies at that point still wanted to have better relations with the soviets and tried to avoid things that would piss them off?

Ryan Hall
Ryan Hall

Animal Farm is pretty clearly a pro-socialist book. The revolution itself is portrayed as a good thing that was betrayed by ambitious and treacherous leadership, until it was no better than capitalism. You can say that this is unfair to the USSR, that it’s an example of Trotskyist/left communist/anarchist criticisms that don’t take into account the real situation the Soviets were in, and I would agree. But you can’t tell that the point of the book is that socialism is bad, or capitalism is superior, it’s very clearly the opposite.

Luis Rodriguez
Luis Rodriguez

Even from a ML perspective you can point at people like Gorbachev and such as representative of revisionists.

Oliver Bailey
Oliver Bailey

I have these books full of Orwell's essays and book reviews and read those at a young age – a lot of that is very interesting and would recommend it. There's one which is just about what it's like to write book reviews where he would get a bunch of titles sent by a publisher and they'd sit on his shelf for two weeks before he'd skim them right before the deadline, stay up for 30 hours and hack out a bunch of reviews while chain smoking cheap tobacco. Like "fuuuuck this sucks I hate this."

His writing was very clear and direct, though. I don't think he ever had consistent politics, and was very critical of anarchist politics in one essay (the one on Gulliver's Travels) and he seemed to believe he was a little bug who was going to get crushed at any moment. Can't say I blame him really.

Zachary Green
Zachary Green

Orwell is a romanticist. Asimov is a linearly realist. Obviously they don’t see eye to eye.

Jaxson Torres
Jaxson Torres

Imagine liking a Trot who supported Anarkiddies against the Soviet backed Government.

Imagine that.

Gabriel Powell
Gabriel Powell

It was ok.

tl;dr of the book: The war was is pretty lame if youre not send to the active front, its sucky, my weapon was trash, you wait a lot, you take some potshots at the fascists from time to time, spaniards are shit at logistics, my wifes in a hotel nearby for some reason, its cold, fuck I ran out of smokes

Isaac Martinez
Isaac Martinez

What Asimov is saying is that Orwell busied himself with sectarian shitposting instead of attacking actual reactionaries even during the height of WW2. Asimov's view, as far as I knew, was not a controversial opinion at all on Zig Forums but somehow it seems to be one now.

Jonathan Gray
Jonathan Gray

I read it. It was fucking gay.

Attached: suck.jpeg (281.53 KB, 1280x850)