The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is a book that caught my attention. I read it as a kid living in Chicago where my father worked as a boilermaker.
I knew intimately from watching my father and hearing his stories about how brutal life was for working class men and women in those days. Raw and harsh ~ and that was after working people (many socialists or union types) had struggled for basic concessions.
Needless to say, as a young boy, I was probably a socialists in spirit, without really understanding it. It wasn’t ideology. It was simple recognition of reality. I’m sure that’s what oriented Orwell given his time in the world and his experiences.
Some socialism is good. Too much is definitely bad. And too much ideology in anything is a recipe for disaster.
I say that now as a conservative older man.
Most people on the left today have no real experience with such realities. Instead, it’s mostly a kind of fetish for wealthy and over educated types to wallow in their (current thing) “compassion” and to project their “virtues” amongst their own. That and a giant grift and opportunity to seize power within the institutions in the name of preferred (client groups) who often are facing real oppression.
But little progress comes of it. Millions are spent, while the actual poor remain unaddressed. Instead, funding for the nonprofits and NGOs rolls on, serving only to build resumes and more power for the elect.
Meantime, the actual working class (and less) are demonized for caring about the boarder, crime, and drugs and for not saying the right words or holding the correct opinions about the “rights” of men to get undressed in the lady’s room or to beat the shit out of girls on the basketball court.
Does that sound like fucking progress?
The value of a system should be measured by what it actually does. Not bullshit words.
In any case, thanks Andrew Carnegie for the opportunity to read that book. 😉
Orwell is so often cited as a prescient social/political essayist, it's easy to lose sight of how good a writer of prose he was. I had occasion to mention him in an essay on tone of voice recently:
Orwell does a similar thing in 1984. The Party’s three slogans—War is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength—help to establish a world where familiar values are turned upside down. Thus, Orwell can invoke a father’s pride in his children with devastating effect:
“Did I ever tell you, old boy,” he said, chuckling round the stem of his pipe, “about the time when those two nippers of mine set fire to the old market-woman’s skirt because they saw her wrapping up sausages in a poster of B.B. [Big Brother]? Sneaked up behind her and set fire to it with a box of matches. Burned her quite badly, I believe. Little beggars, eh? But keen as mustard!
When I think of Orwell, the first thing that pops into my head--oddly, perhaps--is DOWN AND OUT IN PARIS AND LONDON, especially his intimate portrait of life in the "back of the house" of a Paris eatery--or, truly, the underneath of the house; it was my first exposure to the word plongeur, which has found a home in my psyche for what reason I do not know.
Anyway, I just subscribed to your posting. I know we'll disagree at times, for which I'm grateful.
Yes, Orwell knew how to use words. As I mentioned, reading him taught me a lot about the craft of writing.
In a memoir written in 1967 and published in the "Atlantic Monthly," Anthony Powell told how he read "Down and Out" on the recommendation of a friend who said, "You'll never again enjoy sauté potatoes after learning how they're cooked in restaurants." Powell read the book, whose "savagery and gloom" impressed him. Later he and Orwell became good friends.
Aside from his last two and best-known books, the ones that come to mind for me are "The Road to Wigan Pier" and "Coming Up for Air." You mentioned tone of voice and that made me think of the latter novel's protagonist and narrator, George Bowling. There are also a dozen or more essays I could mention, ranging from "Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool" to "A Nice Cup of Tea."
My perspective on Orwell being claimed by both left and right connects to your earlier statement that he was both left wing and conservative.
People in today’s world are much confused about the terms left/right, conservative/liberal, authoritarian/democratic. There is conflation of left/liberal/democratic and right/conservative/authoritarian. Of course this is hogwash if words are to mean anything, there are least three separate dimensions or dialectical pairs here that do not automatically and necessarily travel together.
Left/Right refers to a person’s propensity towards status quo vs change. It is in that regard fairly interchangeable with progressive/conservative (not that the progress is the opposite of conservative, not liberal), a conservative being someone who is inclined towards the status quo and wishes gradual and cautious change. Progressives are inclined towards as much change as possible as quickly as possible. It is my opinion that any serious student of the social sciences is conscience-bound to be conservative as one of the iron laws of social interventions is that that they never work out as planned.
If liberal is not the opposite of conservative, than what is its opposite? Collectivist. The liberal believes in the sovereignty of the individual, and the collectivist believes there is no such thing as an individual, and that everyone is but an instrument of some group to which they belong.
Now let’s consider authoritarian. It’s opposite is democratic. And we have a special term for something in between the two: representative democracy.
Finally, the last axis is between republican and totalitarian. The republican is almost necessarily also liberal and the totalitarian almost necessarily collectivist in some fashion or another.
I would say that Orwell was not necessarily of the left, despite his “socialist” leanings. He clearly was liberal, not collectivist, he clearly was republican, not totalitarian, he was clearly democratic, not authoritarian. Whether he was progressive or conservative, I cannot say, but neither one would be in conflict with his other clearly held views.
I have one more thing to add, you say that Orwell taught you “to notice when politicians, intellectuals, and journalists play games with history, with language and with reality itself.”
I feel that my experience in attempting to have a rational discussion with you about exactly these issues in the context of the Ukrainian conflict did not reflect any such openness on your part. I wish you had been willing to consider the possibility that what you are being told by politicians and journalists about the Ukraine is absolutely playing games with history and reality.
This is distinct from your opinions of Putin with which I have no issue other than to say that if you are able to peer into a mans’s soul remotely with no common cultural or personal background, you are a much more powerful man than I.
Regarding Orwell, I agree that he was no orthodox socialist. I think, as I suggested, that he was temperamentally incapable of being one. Orwell had something of the old-fashioned radical in his character that prevented him from being a party member of any stripe. On the other hand, he did espouse socialist principles. These seeming contradictions were what made him both an important writer and an interesting man.
Regarding V. Putin I would say, first, that one can to some extent evaluate the man's character by looking at the regime he's created. As for the historical background to the present war and my conclusions about it, I've written an article on the subject that I commend to your attention:
See my reply below that article. TL;DR I feel the historical background you provide is incomplete and insufficient.
Once again, I enjoyed this article very much. The fact that I do not always agree with you does not diminish my ability to truly appreciate the rest of your work.
Required reading for me in catholic school! Either 8th grade or hs. Both books. Wow. Was I lucky!
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is a book that caught my attention. I read it as a kid living in Chicago where my father worked as a boilermaker.
I knew intimately from watching my father and hearing his stories about how brutal life was for working class men and women in those days. Raw and harsh ~ and that was after working people (many socialists or union types) had struggled for basic concessions.
Needless to say, as a young boy, I was probably a socialists in spirit, without really understanding it. It wasn’t ideology. It was simple recognition of reality. I’m sure that’s what oriented Orwell given his time in the world and his experiences.
Some socialism is good. Too much is definitely bad. And too much ideology in anything is a recipe for disaster.
I say that now as a conservative older man.
Most people on the left today have no real experience with such realities. Instead, it’s mostly a kind of fetish for wealthy and over educated types to wallow in their (current thing) “compassion” and to project their “virtues” amongst their own. That and a giant grift and opportunity to seize power within the institutions in the name of preferred (client groups) who often are facing real oppression.
But little progress comes of it. Millions are spent, while the actual poor remain unaddressed. Instead, funding for the nonprofits and NGOs rolls on, serving only to build resumes and more power for the elect.
Meantime, the actual working class (and less) are demonized for caring about the boarder, crime, and drugs and for not saying the right words or holding the correct opinions about the “rights” of men to get undressed in the lady’s room or to beat the shit out of girls on the basketball court.
Does that sound like fucking progress?
The value of a system should be measured by what it actually does. Not bullshit words.
In any case, thanks Andrew Carnegie for the opportunity to read that book. 😉
Orwell is so often cited as a prescient social/political essayist, it's easy to lose sight of how good a writer of prose he was. I had occasion to mention him in an essay on tone of voice recently:
Orwell does a similar thing in 1984. The Party’s three slogans—War is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength—help to establish a world where familiar values are turned upside down. Thus, Orwell can invoke a father’s pride in his children with devastating effect:
“Did I ever tell you, old boy,” he said, chuckling round the stem of his pipe, “about the time when those two nippers of mine set fire to the old market-woman’s skirt because they saw her wrapping up sausages in a poster of B.B. [Big Brother]? Sneaked up behind her and set fire to it with a box of matches. Burned her quite badly, I believe. Little beggars, eh? But keen as mustard!
When I think of Orwell, the first thing that pops into my head--oddly, perhaps--is DOWN AND OUT IN PARIS AND LONDON, especially his intimate portrait of life in the "back of the house" of a Paris eatery--or, truly, the underneath of the house; it was my first exposure to the word plongeur, which has found a home in my psyche for what reason I do not know.
Anyway, I just subscribed to your posting. I know we'll disagree at times, for which I'm grateful.
Yes, Orwell knew how to use words. As I mentioned, reading him taught me a lot about the craft of writing.
In a memoir written in 1967 and published in the "Atlantic Monthly," Anthony Powell told how he read "Down and Out" on the recommendation of a friend who said, "You'll never again enjoy sauté potatoes after learning how they're cooked in restaurants." Powell read the book, whose "savagery and gloom" impressed him. Later he and Orwell became good friends.
Aside from his last two and best-known books, the ones that come to mind for me are "The Road to Wigan Pier" and "Coming Up for Air." You mentioned tone of voice and that made me think of the latter novel's protagonist and narrator, George Bowling. There are also a dozen or more essays I could mention, ranging from "Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool" to "A Nice Cup of Tea."
Thanks very much for subscribing.
A great article. Thank you.
My perspective on Orwell being claimed by both left and right connects to your earlier statement that he was both left wing and conservative.
People in today’s world are much confused about the terms left/right, conservative/liberal, authoritarian/democratic. There is conflation of left/liberal/democratic and right/conservative/authoritarian. Of course this is hogwash if words are to mean anything, there are least three separate dimensions or dialectical pairs here that do not automatically and necessarily travel together.
Left/Right refers to a person’s propensity towards status quo vs change. It is in that regard fairly interchangeable with progressive/conservative (not that the progress is the opposite of conservative, not liberal), a conservative being someone who is inclined towards the status quo and wishes gradual and cautious change. Progressives are inclined towards as much change as possible as quickly as possible. It is my opinion that any serious student of the social sciences is conscience-bound to be conservative as one of the iron laws of social interventions is that that they never work out as planned.
If liberal is not the opposite of conservative, than what is its opposite? Collectivist. The liberal believes in the sovereignty of the individual, and the collectivist believes there is no such thing as an individual, and that everyone is but an instrument of some group to which they belong.
Now let’s consider authoritarian. It’s opposite is democratic. And we have a special term for something in between the two: representative democracy.
Finally, the last axis is between republican and totalitarian. The republican is almost necessarily also liberal and the totalitarian almost necessarily collectivist in some fashion or another.
I would say that Orwell was not necessarily of the left, despite his “socialist” leanings. He clearly was liberal, not collectivist, he clearly was republican, not totalitarian, he was clearly democratic, not authoritarian. Whether he was progressive or conservative, I cannot say, but neither one would be in conflict with his other clearly held views.
I have one more thing to add, you say that Orwell taught you “to notice when politicians, intellectuals, and journalists play games with history, with language and with reality itself.”
I feel that my experience in attempting to have a rational discussion with you about exactly these issues in the context of the Ukrainian conflict did not reflect any such openness on your part. I wish you had been willing to consider the possibility that what you are being told by politicians and journalists about the Ukraine is absolutely playing games with history and reality.
This is distinct from your opinions of Putin with which I have no issue other than to say that if you are able to peer into a mans’s soul remotely with no common cultural or personal background, you are a much more powerful man than I.
Best, AZW
Regarding Orwell, I agree that he was no orthodox socialist. I think, as I suggested, that he was temperamentally incapable of being one. Orwell had something of the old-fashioned radical in his character that prevented him from being a party member of any stripe. On the other hand, he did espouse socialist principles. These seeming contradictions were what made him both an important writer and an interesting man.
Regarding V. Putin I would say, first, that one can to some extent evaluate the man's character by looking at the regime he's created. As for the historical background to the present war and my conclusions about it, I've written an article on the subject that I commend to your attention:
https://open.substack.com/pub/unwokeindianaag/p/stalin-and-putin-and-ukraine?r=dibcs&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
See my reply below that article. TL;DR I feel the historical background you provide is incomplete and insufficient.
Once again, I enjoyed this article very much. The fact that I do not always agree with you does not diminish my ability to truly appreciate the rest of your work.
AZW
A fine tribute. I feel much the same way about Orwell.