/hobby/ - Hobby

>>13091
You're don't know what you are talking about, you should investigate a little before calling other fags and idiots
>fought on the side of the Catalonians
First of all, saying that "Catalonians = CNT = anarchists" is wrong. Catalonia was not controlled by the CNT, it was controlled by the Comittee of Anti-Fascist Militias, a organization created by the bourgeois Catalan regional government which contained representatives from the CNT, yes, but also from UGT (socialist trade union), PSUC (marxist-leninist political party, and the largest Catalan party for most of the war), ERC (social-democratic nationalist party) and many others.
Also, the CNT and the FAI were not the same, saying that the CNT was a homogeneous and cohesive anarchist movement is wrong. The CNT was part of the III International for several years, for Christ sake.
And George Orwell fought as an International Brigadier (a movement organized by the III International aka the spooky stalinists) in a POUM-lead militia. The Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista wasn't a anarchist or catalan organization, it was a spanish marxist-leninist political party which internationally aligned itself with the Left Opposition, even if at 1936 it had broken off with Trotskyism.
>and vehemently opposed republican and socialist forces other than them.
Orwell himself says in Homage to Catalonia that he supported and defended the policies and political line of the PCE-PSUC during the war, and the slogan of "first the war, then the revolution". He also defines the situation and social feeling of the people of Madrid (controlled by the PCE and PSOE, marxist parties) as more revolutionary than Barcelona. It was only after the crisis of 1937 and after he abandoned Spain when he started attacking the communist movement.

So basically stop calling names to people who know what they are talking about, and be a little less full of yourself. Also read a bit, it won't kill you.

>>13107
>Catalonia was not controlled by the CNT
Its well known that Catalonia WAS controlled by the CNT-FAI, the anarcho-syndicalists.
>Orwell himself says in Homage to Catalonia
He later contradicts himself in the same book.
>stop calling names to people who know what they are talking about
&ltusing the word idiot is "calling names"
You sound childish considering that I wasn't the person who started the insults.
>George Orwell fought as an International Brigadier
And was thrown out of Spain for attacking its leadership because his idealism was offended by it and he didn't like listening to directions half the time.
Regardless why are you replying to a finished conversation?

Judging by the grammatical errors you just rushed a defense of Orwell because you want to defend him for some obscure reason, when the point was that he has always been, at best a lib-succ and at worst a rad-lib. He sided with the Anarchist faction because he didn't like 'authoriarian' tendencies of the socialists.

So basically put some cream on your hurt arse and stop defending a flip-flopping scumbag idealogue, you don't get anything from it.

>>13108
>Its well known that Catalonia WAS controlled by the CNT-FAI, the anarcho-syndicalists.
Dude, I'm a communist born and raised in Catalonia. I think I know what I'm talking about. The CNT-FAI refused to take direct control of the territories controlled by trade union militias in summer of 1936, instead putting themselves under the authority of the Generalitat de Catalunya. Lluís Companys, President de la Generalitat, broke a compromise between the different factions by creating the Comitè de Milícies Antifeixistes de Catalunya. The deputies in the Comitè were the following:
>El Comitè va aplegar representants de les organitzacions sindicals i els partits del Front Popular, encara que el predomini era netament anarcosindicalista sota les figures de Joan García i Oliver, Buenaventura Durruti i Diego Abad de Santillán. Figuraren en el primer comitè central tres dirigents de la CNT (Buenaventura Durruti, Josep Asens Giol i Joan García Oliver), dos de la FAI (Diego Abad de Santillán i Aurelio Fernández), tres de la UGT (José del Barrio, Salvador González i Antonio López Raimundo), un del PSUC (Josep Miret i Musté), dos del Partit Obrer d'Unificació Marxista (POUM) (Josep Rovira i Canals i Julián Gorkin), tres d'ERC (Artemi Aiguader i Miró, Jaume Miravitlles i Navarra i Joan Pons), un de la Unió de Rabassaires (Josep Torrents i Rossell), un d'Acció Catalana Republicana (Tomàs Fàbregas Valls) i Lluís Prunés i dos militars, assessors de la Generalitat (Vicenç Guarner i Josep Guarner).
This government body controlled the militias until they were fused into the Ejército Popular Republicano. After the dissolution of the Comitè, authority was returned to the government of the Generalitat de Catalunya. The Generalitat remained in charge until the aftermath of May 1937, after which the Generalitat was discredited and lost much of its authority, and leadership was centralized under the Spanish Government in València.
>Judging by the grammatical errors
Not everyone in /bunkerchan/ is American, anon. English is not my first language.
>you just rushed a defense of Orwell because you want to defend him for some obscure reason
kek, I don't actually like Orwell. I'm a pretty orthodox ml, the policies of the Partido Comunista de España were mostly correct, if anything my takeaway of the Spanish Civil War is that they didn't go far enough because they tried to compromise with Izquierda Republicana and the trade unions too much. But I'm trying to tell it as it actually happened, and what >>13091 says is just not true

>>13109
>is American, anon. English is not my first language.
My point was not that you wrote erroneously, but that you were rushing to defend an indefensible person.
>I don't actually like Orwell
Then why bother? Your information about Catalonians and the Generalitat is valuable, but you make yourself sound contrite by trying to say Orwell believed such things too, when he's a contradictory swine who said whatever he felt was necessary at the moment.

Orwell Repost
Pic 2 related as to the nature of Orwell's writings

Pic 1 related to posts
>>13109
>>13107

>>13032
>How did these clearly liberal books become a symbol for libertarians
FTFY

Orwell and his ilk are radlib LARPers who don't understand leftism but have contradictory "ideals" that sometimes coincide with them. Orwell was just a good writer, which is the only reason that he isn't as obvious.

>Mollie disappeared. For some weeks nothing was known of her whereabouts, then the pigeons reported that they had seen her on the other side of Willingdon. She was between the shafts of a smart dogcart painted red and black, which was standing outside a public-house. A fat red-faced man in check breeches and gaiters, who looked like a publican, was stroking her nose and feeding her with sugar. Her coat was newly clipped and she wore a scarlet ribbon round her forelock. She appeared to be enjoying herself, so the pigeons said. None of the animals ever mentioned Mollie again.
If any of you've read Animal Farm you'd be familiar with Mollie. She abandoned the Animal Farm to be taken care of by the humans. She says she loves being dressed up in pretty bows and looking pretty for humans. I find morbid amusement in the idea that she's fucking the fat red faced man for sugarcubes and pretty ribbons in her mane.

>>13114
>they left mollie out of the movie

I was mad when i read the book and found this out.

>>13063
>And how do you know that 1984 reflects the USSR…?
lol. just read the first chapter

>Behind Winston’s back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan

Guys we have arrived to Orwell's 2+2=5. It reminds me of when Terrence Howard thought it was weird that 1x1=1, so he ‘discovered’ a new system where 1x1=2. The irony is that modern numerals are Indo-Arabic in origin… so much for western imperialism.
It's like that parody "Jonah Ryan takes aim at Muslim Math"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embMAtagQiU&feature=youtu.be

>>13117
>sakoid
>on twittard no less
Their opinion is retarded and only worthy to be laugh at.

>>13118
Are you referring to The original image or the post because the screencap is sakaist, the post is not.

I really like Nineteen Eighty-Four. It introduced me to a lot of interesting concepts in high school: how language relates to "political correctness", differences between the "lower" and "middle" classes and how terror/war and hedonistic pleasures (both the lack and abundance of it) are used to control them, how the mind can distort reality and how emotions can distort the mind. I've always viewed the book as a critique of some sort of "pure authoritarianism" rather than any specific society but it's pretty obvious that Orwell's personal experiences and ideology regarding the 20th century left are a part of it. Part of me wonders that if Nineteen Eighty-Four wasn't written as a hyper-pessemistic dystopia, it would be a very prescient analysis of the modern world. Telescreens are a great example of this, we pretty much have them minus a lot of the dystopian pretext. Orwell wasn't the first to come up with this stuff of course but he was clearly an intelligent person, if not a contradictory and often illogical one.

>>13120
what was his personal experience and ideology

>>13121
Fighting in Catalonia helped him see (what he thought was) both the best and the worse of the 20th century left, without those experiences I'm not certain that he would have been so critical of the state socialism of his time. The tense relationship between the anarchists and the communists appeared to affect him greatly, and from his perspective it was the communists who fueled it (however he emphasizes a distinction between those on the ground who he respected, and the higher ups in the party). I don't think he really had a concrete ideology as such besides some vague "democratic socialism", he wasn't much of a theory guy as far as I know. He was at the very least anti-Fascist and anti-Stalinist - Animal Farm exemplifies the latter. It's my personal opinion that Nineteen Eighty-Four tries to combine the two into some weird proto-Nazbol nightmare.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-54105672
>Official snitches on people who don't follow government propaganda
>Groups of 6 or more are disallowed from gathering
Hello 1984, I wish you'd never come

>>13054
Damn, I didn't know Orwell was a snitch. Why'd he do this?

>>13124
Literally read the list
>Robeson and Padmore bad because he nigger
>anyone in a party is bad because muh communist infiltration
>Deutscher bad because he’s a kike
>Dover bad because muh asiatic hordes
Orwell pretty much is everything bad with British aristocrats trying leftist lifestylism. Which is ironic considering how much autistic screeching he did against proto-hipsters at the time for doing basically the same thing as him.

>>13124
Irrational fears, genuine contempt for commies, and being close dying from tuberculosis.

>>13125
Somewhere I've heard the phrase 'Weak people write the stories that Strong people live'
You see this with Kipling's life story. His literary works are phenomenal and thoughtful but his own life was fairly miserable and hypocritical. He was so dismayed by his own weakeness that despite not having to, he enlisted his son to fight in the Great War, where he was killed. His wife went a little insane and never forgave him for it.

>>13120
>>13064
On the topic of dystopias see >>1782 for more

>>13124
He was trying to get laid with the spook honeypot pretending to be his friend. Seriously, look it up, he literally sold out people because he wanted to have some sex before he died.

>>13130
Ok liberal, stay mad and keep strawmanning

>>13129
Wait seriously? LOL

>>13130
the numbers 2 and 4 and 5 are derived from Arabic numerals, which is NOT Western. The idea that 2+2 might not equal 4 because "muh culture" is absolute brainworms and resembles Orwellian propaganda. It's also something consistent with parodies and insane people. If you're getting mad over this being pointed out… you're probably one of them.

>>13129
Is there any evidence for this claim?

>>13111
>hmm today I will support state atheism without explaining it to the people, that'll help the war!
&ltNOOOOOOO THE CATHOLICS HATE ME
&ltNOOOOOOO THEY ALL SUPPROTED FRANCO
&ltNOOOOOOO WE'RE LOSING
&ltQUICK COUP THE GOVERNMENT AND FILL IT WITH ANARKIDDIES AND SURRENDER
Alienating a majority of the population and driving them to Franco, "surprisingly" tipped the balance in his favour.
>BUT MUH fascist aid
Of course that played a role, but without catholics being driven to Franco by anti-clericalism and anti-catholicism many of the fascist weapons would sit idle and Franco would be beheaded.

>>13136
Being a leftcom =/= understanding theory or knowing its actual meaning. There are leftcoms who do know what they're talking about. There is a thread made by one on this board with whom I agree with and who is based AF, but most of them who state that "muh Orwell was just self-critiquing communists" are fucking theorylets who don't know what they're talking about.

A lot of Orwells and other anti-soviet "leftists" writing always reminded me of an old joke about repressions from the USSR. Rough translation

>Grandson: Grandpa, tell me about those times under Stalin
&ltGrandpa: i was a young lad at the time and I had set my eyes on a pretty girl. And so one day I got her to roll in the hay with me. But the farm guard, her father, found us. So I killed him, ибо не хуй. I ran for it.
>Grandson: and then what?
&ltGrandpa: well the damned communists repressed me.
>Grandson: and what happened then
&ltGrandpa: And then they shot me

In English it loses much of its humor, however the point is obvious. He was no innocent and he obviously wasn't executed, but he portrays himself as that.

>leftcoms
>liking Orwell
This thread is fucking retarded.

>>13139
leftcom.org loves Orwell and leftcom flags loved to post his shit all the time on 8ch leftypol

>>13140
Unironically yikes.

MOVE THIS BACK TO /HOBBY/

>>13142
This thread should have been deleted.

>>13143
Why? does it offend you?

>>13146
It's low quality. The answer is obvious. Ancaps will use anything that is vaguely "anti-communist" even if it was intended as only anti-Stalinism.

>>13159
How is it low quality, what kind of bogus standards do you have?
I would say a good 1/4 of the thread is made up of decent posts and content , with other ccommnets being mostly on topic and up to usual chan standard

>Ancaps will use anything that is vaguely "anti-communist"
If that was true they'd use Quiet Flows the Don and Bulgakov's literature as anticommunist too.

>>13055
Lassalle

>>13167
Y E S

Some people see 1984 as an anti-communist screed and to a certain extent, it is. It was one of the first salvos of what would become the "totalitarianism" meme, a Cold War attempt to try and draw comparisons between the fascists and communists who, before that point, where seen as two inherently opposed and contrasting forces, basically night and day. And some of the communist influences on the book are undeniable. "Big Brother" is described as a mustache man with piercing blue eyes and handsome features that's clearly a reference to Stalin (and perhaps Hitler), Emmanuel Goldstein is clearly Trotsky, people call each other "comrades" and so on. But these things are mostly surface level.

Some boomers still believe 1984 is set in Russia and is a more or less accurate depiction of the Soviet Union, but it's actually set in London, within a larger superstate called "Oceania". "Oceania" is basically the British Empire merged with the United States which then conquered Latin America. And, importantly, it was ultimately supposed to be less a screed against fascism or communism, and more a prediction of where Britain was heading, at least in Orwell's eyes.

And that's why it's worth looking at. 1984 is a very Anglo dystopia and ultimately an exploration of Anglo culture and politics.

Maybe the most telling aspect of Oceanic society in that regard is the "Anti-Sex League". If nothing else does, this should tell you that this is about Anglos, it's not the Germans, Italians, Russians or Chinese who are notoriously weird and prudish about sex.

But there's other things. Even though the name for the "Ministry of Truth" was likely inspired by Pravda ("Pravda" means "Truth" in Russian), everything else about it was inspired by Orwell's time working for the BBC. The Party pushes "newspeak", a heavily abbreviated, terse form of language more or less engineered to be thought-terminating. "Stalinist" propaganda was nothing like this, it was notoriously verbose, often belaboring the point well past redundancy. On the flip side, "newspeak" had already been more or less an Anglo tradition by the time Orwell had written the book. The United States loves its acronyms so much, it's become a thing to just refer to federal agencies as "Alphabet Soup", and British tabloids are often have headlines like "BOJO'S BREXIT BOOM".

But the thing central to liberal society more generally, but Anglo states in particular is "doublethink" and the idea of having an evolving narrative where the past shifts.

With "doublethink", you have people being presented with two contradictory pieces of information, and accepting both as true. This might be most exemplified in their official slogan.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Which might as well be the official slogan of Anglo-style liberalism. The war office of the United States is still called "the Department of Defense" and it's normalized that invading and attacking other countries has something to do with defending the country and, somehow, preserving peace. All "Freedom" means in Anglo-Protestant countries is bourgeois authority, it's literally just a slogan meant to refer to the concept of the "right" of the bourgeoisie to exercise their class authority as they see fit. The freedom-mongers are often opposed to anything and everything which would give greater liberty to anyone else for, you see, that would infringe on bourgeois class authority, which is slavery. Because freedom is slavery. And, of course, these are countries where ignorance is actively praised, where simply being taught forbidden information is tantamount to corruption and true and loyal citizens simply do not know what the criticisms of their society are and do not care to know. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

And, as anyone who follows the native English speaking world knows, it is very much about controlling the past to control the present and getting people to accept an evolving narrative. Bush is actually a good guy. The Iraq War? Basically never happened at this point. Trump is bad now, but watch as his same exact policies are now progressive under Biden. And then join in the Two Minutes Hate against the Great Enemy of the week, ~Venezuela~ I mean Iran, eh I mean, Russia, excuse me, Eastasia, we were always at war with Eastasia.

And that's how I think we should view 1984. Not about fascism or communism or "totalitarianism", but a deconstruction of Anglo liberal politics.

>>13114
>she's fucking the fat red faced man for sugarcubes and pretty ribbons in her mane.
It would fit the analogy she represents.

>>13183
excellent post comrade

>>13183
You got the gist of it. 1984 was a reaction to Orwell's own experiences in the British colonial police, as a propagandist for the BBC during WW2, and under the late 1940s Labour government. What most people (and evidently many American high school English teachers) don't understand is that the book has to be read as immanent to WW2. 'Newspeak' draws from an essay Orwell wrote on trends in British journalism. The longing for a half-remembered before time is not abstract and reactionary, but a concrete depiction of how WW2 imposed brutal austerity conditions on the British people. It's also a reaction to Fordism and the kind of obsession with a rationalized, efficient world that was common back then. We see this with "the clocks were striking 13"—they're on military time! It's a depiction of militarized efficiency cannibalizing all of society. The stuff about "we've always been at war with Eastasia"? That happened in 1945 when the war propaganda effort switched abruptly from focusing on Germany to Japan. Orwell was there when that happened, in the BBC. The book ends with Orwell giving up on, essentially, Blanquism and reformism and endorsing a proletarian revolution. It's a critique of the ideology behind British Imperial decline, of wartime social democracy, and of the contemporary trends that idolize that period.

>>13183
Fuck, i tried searching for this post so many times.

To whomever bumped this thread, i want to suck your clit/penis.

>>19485
Thanks… I guess.

>>13183
You got capped abd booru'd m8, good for you
https://lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=17999

>>13111
>>13107
>>13109
>Read Orwell's Homage to Cataluña
>the explanation of the USSR influence goes like this:
<There were two major marxist parties in cataluña: 1) POUM, that did not align with the USSR, and claimed that the civil war and the revolution were inseparable. 2) PSUC, that aligned with the USSR, and claimed that only after the civil war was won, and bourgeois democracy was restored, that the revolution could go on.
<He is very skeptical of PSUC's position, and states that the USSR would not allow the revolution to go on because they needed stable allies, and revolutions bring about many things, but not stability.
The USSR had no way to solely support a socialist revolution. Instead, the USSR's strategy was to defeat fascism via a Popular Front that included communists, socialists, and liberals. From the POV of the Communists, the POUM was undermining the war effort by pushing for revolution instead of political unity. I'd also like to add that the militia system was retarded and the Communists were the only faction on the side of the Republic that resembled a real army.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8caypg/in_homage_to_catalonia_orwell_portrays_the_soviet/