George Orwell quotes

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it."

George Orwell

Other urls found in this thread:

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Managerial Revolution, Theory of the
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Orwell's idea of socialism was a lot different than it was today. He spent a lot of time interacting with poor coal miners and seeing their awful conditions and how their work made it possible for richer people to be comfortable. He sympathized with the working class and manual laborers, whereas today's progressives snub the coal miners and manual workers and instead suck up to college elites.

You should read his essay "down the mine", it's pretty damn amazing.

How do progressives snub the working class? Can I have some evidence?

Progressives =/= Socialists

if you haven't read Orwell you are a cuck. Fact

I read him.

If you look at a lot of their rhetoric, they like to strongly imply that people who live in small towns (relatively less wealthy people) are idiots because they usually vote Republican. So they may not look down at the working class itself, but they certainly look down on basically every attribute that applies to them at large in this country (white, rural, religious, not necessarily with a degree, etc.)

Democratic Socialism is Totaliarianism.

I see what you mean.

In what way?

Idea that socialism implies importing shitskins to give them welfare is absurd beyond belief
What is currently being promoted by liberals is not socialism or communism or marxism, its just collective societal suicide under different names

Furthermore they support the import of third world immigrants, which will only take the jobs of the working, if they ever actually get jobs, or leech off the taxes that the working classes pay for welfare.

Educated socialists in the modern era also desperately want to shut down many of the non ecologically friendly industries that employ and support the working class man (heavy industry i.e. steel, coal, logging, etc.).

wanting to bring in mass immigration from the third world does no favors to the working class

I agree. Welfare is just a tool to keep the working class quite and illegal immigrants are destroying culture.

The bourgeoisie seems to want to bring in immigrants to keep wages low.

Socialists are blind dreamers.

They sold their souls to the thing they hate the most in the name of progress.

What?

>supposedly hate corporate tycoons and the abuse of the working classes

>vote willingly for politicians who are owned by the 1%, even though the evidence that they are is right in front of them

progressives hate work, so instead of giving those miners better conditions, they want them to stop working in the mines

Are you talking about Hillary? If so I would never vote for her. Nor Bernie.

the redistribution of all means of production necessarily requires a state with control over all aspects of public and private life

Not really. The ownership is distributed between the workers who manage the business democratically.

Socialists don't care for the poor, They only hate the rich.

Modern progressives see white people as the bourgeoisie, so they will hate them.

Hitler cared for the poor and didn't hate the rich.

Really makes me think

White people aren't bourgeoisie all people who own a business are bourgeoisie. White people are victimized by the capitalist system just as much as black people. Progressives should all go to gulag. And wanting the poor to take control of the government via a diactatorhsip of the proletariat is definitely caring about the poor.

OK retard but to do that you have to forcibly use guns and take people's property away for the purpose of redistribution and then forcibly use guns to prevent people from reacquiring that property, which necessitates a powerful state.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

So the current state doesn't protect the property of the bourgeoisie at gunpoint? Hmmm...

She's a neo-liberal scumbag.

That quote's from 1946.

1984 was written in 1949.

I'm glad he came to his senses.

It's impossible to achieve, because you would have to force common ownership of companies being privately own.

Also such companies are much less profitable and efficient, so they would have no chance of competing with a private company in the free market.

Trying to achieve common ownership will always result in your avarage communist system.

The difference being that the bourgeoisie acquired their property through voluntary means and without state intervention.

They won't voluntarily give up all their property that they worked to acquire to low skilled workers for democratic management, so you will need the state to intervene and force them to do so.

He was pretty good. I have to disagree with his review of James Burnham's managerial revolution, but at least he reviewed it. Aldous Huxley understood the actual dangers better.

He didn't. He was criticizing Stalin specifically. Notice how he just loves gold stein (aka Trotsky)

Co-operative's currently work only at a slight disadvantage.

So what. Sometimes to bring about a fair system you need to destroy the unfair one. The bosses can still work there as long as they have some sort of leadership skills.

By calling them racist for wanting to be able to make a living in their country.

There's a reason the Left lost so much Middle Class ground.

In a just society, it is shameful to be poor. In a corrupt society, it is shameful to be rich.

You're moving the goalposts.

The original claim was that socialism = totalitarianism. You claimed that was false. I've just demonstrated to you why you cannot have socialism without totalitarianism.

That problem was solved long ago man, get with the times.

You have proved that you cant have socialism without a revoultion.

this guy gets it

Progressives completely abandoned native blue collar workers in the west.

It really depends on who you're talking about when you say "progressive." The social issues-focused liberals commonly tied to the term are removed from the reality of the working class. They focus on petty issues of race, gender, and other aspects of identity politics while ignoring or downplaying the importance of class dynamics and socio-economic issues. An example is how many Hillary supporters and proponents of mass immigration ignore the effects of immigration and globalization on the working class of each country.

Wrong. State ownership isn't necessarily socialism. Saudi government officials own many of the country's assets, but Saudi Arabia is definitely not socialist.

Wrong. The state doesn't even need to be involved in the shift towards worker ownership.

Its pure blatant neo liberalism

Co-operative's cannot function work the same efficiency as a large company. They have professionals carefully calculating what is the most profitable move.

Co-op's can rarely hold themselves in the current free market. I've heard of some working fishing co-op's, but can't think of anything else.

>Also such companies are much less profitable and efficient, so they would have no chance of competing with a private company in the free market.
Wrong. Cooperative businesses are actually more durable than conventional businesses. A much greater percentage of them last the crucial first few years in business.

Nigger, I didn't say state ownership. You cannot take the property out of the hands of the bourgeoisie and give it to the proletariat without using the state.

Explain how.

>The difference being that the bourgeoisie acquired their property through voluntary means and without state intervention.
Are you seriously saying that the property owning class isn't and has never been sheltered and protected by the state?

No, that's not what I said. The fundamental purpose of a state is to protect property rights.

Workers can, without calling upon the state, seize control of their workplaces, either by negotiations and democracy or by outright driving out the former owners. The state would just have to not protect the propertied class' privilege of ownership.

Actually the proof that they don't work as well is that there aren't really any co-op's in the free markets. You could say that the state give advantages through subsidies, but that would mean small business wouldn't exist. They aren't illegal, so theywould be dominate small business' if they really were better.

>came here to read some Orwell quotes
>nothing but a bunch of autistic fucks arguing

The bourgeoisie were deposed by the managerial elite in the 1930s. Marxism is the ultimate spook.

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Managerial Revolution, Theory of the

That's state protection of the propertied class. Those with property and wealth have always relied on the force of the state to uphold (more or less) the status quo of wealth and power.

Swayed a voter in November with this one OP

>most profit
This is one of the faults of capitalism.
Say the most profitable option is also one that hurts the workers. if were talking about planned market socialism then a huge union of workers could own all the factory's then becoming much more efficient than capitalism by producing according to need.

I wouldn't vote for either one of them.

>Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it

And what about Orwell`s list?

Those were people he considered sympathetic to Stalinism. Which is obviously totalitarian.

The price system is the best system to decide production according to need. It can only function within a free market.

Planned economy is inefficient because the state cannot make as good decisions as millions of competent people in a free market.

The best (and only way) to actually keep the efficiency of the free market and make the living conditions of the working class better is a progressive taxation and a social safety net. You can and need to set rules for free market to actually function, but they need to follow certain principles and be known beforehand. The state should not make arbitrary decisions that interfere with the market's decisions, but there are many cases were the state making decisions is a better solution for utilitarian purposes. The debate is where the line is drawn and a good example is Keynes vs Hayek.

I don't agree with the planned economy thing either. I'm actually a market socialist.

>considered sympathetic to Stalinism
>Isaac Deutscher

Kek, that`s just another proof, that all these "democratic socialisms" are bourg`s carrot and stick

too bad the Jews have brainwashed the public into thinking that all forms of Socialism are the same

Most of those people at least in Orwell's eyes must not have actually been democratic socialists.

yep. They mock the rural whites and say

>If a recent immigrant can take your job, you are a lousy (insert job title)!

Not admitting that these third world immigrants have no problem working for way less, while living fourteen deep in a four bedroom house and driving a POS truck that they have to work on every other weekend to keep running.

That's not how Americans live in his country.

We aren't going to be content with poverty line living simply bc we are grateful that a cartel won't lop off our heads for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So then according to Orwell, Stalin's Russia wasn't TRUE Socialism.

>whereas today's progressives snub the coal miners and manual workers and instead suck up to college elites.
Any proof, Professor?

As he said in the book. They "abandoned all principles of socialism in the name of socialism" So yes according to Orwell the USSR wasn't REAL socialism.

I really liked the idea of co-operative's for a long time, even when i became a little more right-leaning. Only recently i have realised thay are just a dream. A free system just doesn't allow them by it's nature.

Market socialism aims to outlaw all non-cooperative businesses. Democracy is hard so the production might go down a little bit but it will be worth it for a classless society.

Really? what a cuck. Of all forms of governments, social democracy is the worst.

And the best?

Anarcho-Monarchism.

Nice.

That is communism or it would result in it. People are naturally inequal and the state would have to push any achievers to the level of the lowest common denominator.

You can only punish those who get ahead by set rules like a progressive tax. The state punishing people for achieving as they see fit is a terrifying idea.

...

(((socialism)))

It would be a true meritocracy where everyone keeps what they make. No one would be kept down unless the only way up is to step on someone else.

...

They seize the means of production through a monopoly on legal violence and allow it to be publically owned (aka redistributing its value to an entire population).

I don't care about semantics or any other forms of damage control you may have, that is a government.

>That is communism or it would result in it. People are naturally inequal and the state would have to push any achievers to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Wrong.

Works well in practice.

>n-not real socialism

The state also exists the workers would be more like a militia.

>vegan
That explains it.

/leftypol/ ban guaranteed.

>It would be a true meritocracy where everyone keeps what they make.
People keep what they make only in hunter-gatherer societies. The standard of living is way better when people have specific jobs. Smart people will naturally get richer and stupid poorer. Their children will inherit the wealth they have created and will have an advantage in the system. You can only lessen their advantage, but not remove it altogether.

The current system is not perfect, but there is no other system that can create the living standards we have.

...

...

...

...

Nice.

Probably talking about Stalinism. Read his book on Catalonia.

Rarefied Air
a
r
e

>tfw already an intellectual heavy weight going toe-to-toe with every thinker ancient to modern
>tfw no need to appeal to other thinkers to defend my viewpoint as I can defend the truth just as adequately
>tfw low IQ Leftists will repeatedly ask for evidence of self evidential philosophical and economical conceptions

You must learn how to dismantle these ideas without having to resort to someone else's refutation of them.
You must also know how to put forth your own ideology without having to appeal to anyone else.

I'm reading Orwell right now

From Politics and the English Language:
"In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia."

teach me master

I've been itching to read economics in one lesson but I'm currently occupied with a different work.

Is there anything essential you'd say is required reading for btfoing leftist thought?