/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11609733]

Is he the only writer that could basically be described as "genuinely socialist conservative"? I have never seen another writer say they want socialism while also praising the traditional aspects of their culture so heavily. In modern times he might even come across as nationalist given how often he extols the virtues of his British culture and how he likes it so much. That said, he also wasn't one of those "British First" people either, as he genuinely seemed to think poor people cooperating everywhere made the most sense.

[Anonymous No.11609739]

>>11609733
He was just a socialist nationalist

[Anonymous No.11609926]

>>11609739
who hated the gays.

[Anonymous No.11610037]

He wasn't a socialist, he was a socdem revisionist and possible trotskyist.

[Anonymous No.11610049]

>>11610037
>socdem
succdem*
ftfy

[Anonymous No.11610066]

In previous generations, SJWs were far more tolerable simply because by their lack of influence on society at large they hadn't yet undergone decades of purity spiraling into the absurd void of their arrogance, and hadn't yet been driven into Pharisaical insanity by Divine Providence's constant and repeated refutations of their falsities at every historical juncture. They seemed to human much more convincingly.

[Anonymous No.11610072]

socialist is meaningless

[Anonymous No.11610241]

>>11610037
t. communist who believes old USSR propaganda

[Anonymous No.11610253]

>>11610037
He was a socialist who hated other socialists for being as much of a socialist as him like you

[Anonymous No.11610295]

>>11609733
>>11610037
>>11610253
He was the only socialist who actually gave a shit about the working class whereas the rest of the socialists of his time were a bunch of pretentious faggots who spent more time masturbating to communist theories than converting the lower classes. The second half of The Road to Wigan Pier is basically "no one cares about your theories. Stop acting pretentious. Stop pandering to faggots and other weirdos. Relate to the common man and convert him to our cause," and this common sense advise infuriated other socialists/communists so much Victor Gollancz tried to convince Orwell to drop it and when Orwell refused Gollancz wrote a foreward that shits all over it. It's funny how all these decades later nothing has changed.

[Anonymous No.11610377]

>>11609733
Christopher Lasch, maybe.

[Anonymous No.11610420]

>>11610295
it's highly based how marxism is more effective at fighting non-marxist socialism than it is at fighting capitalism

[Anonymous No.11610464]

>>11610295
The working class of Wigan are currently too busy getting gang-raped by Asians to set aside enough time to grasp the nuances of dialectical materialism.

[Anonymous No.11611609]

bumped

[Anonymous No.11611788]

>>11609733
He emphasised British culture in the face of the pretentious cultureless circles of multinational intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.11612532]

>>11610420

[Anonymous No.11612555]

Is there an economic model that explores balance between socialism and capitalism?

[Anonymous No.11612564]

>>11612555
>balance between socialism and capitalism?

[Anonymous No.11612572]

>>11612555
social democrats?

[Anonymous No.11612582]

>>11612572
Social democrats are whores for the status quo masquerading as radicals.

Even fascists are more sincere in borrowing from socialism than SuccDems are.

[Anonymous No.11612594]

>>11612564
like, you know. Only redistributing some of the wealth and eating the rich but also burning the poor.

[Anonymous No.11612665]

>>11612594
Oh that's succdems

[Anonymous No.11612686]

>>11609733
>is Orwell the only non-SJW socialist?
No. Socialism is fundamentally about politics/economics, not about culture war issues.

[Anonymous No.11612966]

>>11612665
>>11612665
succ what?

[Anonymous No.11612977]

>>11612966
Cocks of rich people while they slap the shit outa poor people

[Anonymous No.11613027]

>>11612686
The remaining working class in western countries is white males. The people who pay the taxes that support the welfare state for women and minorities are blue collar white men. That tranny's hormone replacement therapy, sex change operation, and suicide funeral were paid for by a plumber named Steve who listens to hard rock and goes to church and voted for Trump. The left regards these people as the living incarnation of Satan, and openly calls for their mass extermination. Now I say remaining because manufacturing has been outsourced to the third world. Your typical Starbucks Socialist's iPhone that they use to rail against their oppression by Republicans was made by a Christian inmate in a Chinese Communist concentration camp. There is no one on earth as morally bankrupt and bereft of all wisdom as baizuo.

[Anonymous No.11613030]

>>11612977
>>11612977
they'd be dead though

[Anonymous No.11613039]

>>11613027
Are sex change operations in the us paid by the state?

[Anonymous No.11613071]

>>11613039
Obamacare is the only reason why transsexualism is still classified as a mental illness, so public health insurance covers the hundreds of thousands of dollars to fully prepare their bodies for their funerals.

[Anonymous No.11613072]

>>11609733
>genuinely socialist conservative"
How could Owell be a socialist when he was vocal AND adamant they were harbingers of the ills of collectivism, specifically Bolshevik communism?

[Anonymous No.11613225]

>>11613072

Because Orwell, had he not been who he was, when he was, would have been some kind of preacher:

"The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough. Men use up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another. And they want that world as a first step. Where they go from there is not so certain, and the attempt to foresee it in detail merely confuses the issue."

- Why Socialists Don't believe in Fun (1943)

Here's Orwell on Dickens: "Consequently two viewpoints are always tenable. The one, how can you improve human nature until you have changed the system? The other, what is the use of changing the system before you have improved human nature? They appeal to different individuals, and they probably show a tendency to alternate in point of time. The moralist and the revolutionary are constantly undermining one another. Marx exploded a hundred tons of dynamite beneath the moralist position, and we are still living in the echo of that tremendous crash. But already, somewhere or other, the sappers are at work and fresh dynamite is being tamped in place to blow Marx at the moon. Then Marx, or somebody like him, will come back with yet more dynamite, and so the process continues, to an end we cannot yet foresee. The central problem — how to prevent power from being abused — remains unsolved. Dickens, who had not the vision to see that private property is an obstructive nuisance, had the vision to see that. ‘If men would behave decently the world would be decent’ is not such a platitude as it sounds."

Orwell seems to have had his emotional sympathies with the moralist position. So the Russian revolution and all that followed horrified him. At the same time, his mind and temper were not formed in such a way that he could throw in on the moralist side. He might have wound up another Chesterton had he been able to do so.

[Anonymous No.11614133]

>>11613030
And that would stop you?

[Anonymous No.11614169]

>>11613072
> 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. (Why I Write)

You can do both -- indeed, the only socialists who endorse the totalitarian line are Leninists and their offshoots including Stalinists, some Trots and Maoists. They all developed their theories of repression and Terror because their ideology developed under conditions of civil war; and, while they fucked up at socialism, you can't deny that they're the only ones who managed to seize state power.

Socialism as a tradition is, in the broad sweep of it, strongly in favour of grassroots democracy (democratic unionised control of your workplace, your community, and your life, against the centralising bureaucracy).

[Anonymous No.11614205]

>>11612555
>Capitalism
The system where property is privately owned, and hence also the means of production
>Socialism
The system where property is *not* privately owned, and hence also the means of production

[Anonymous No.11614227]

What does socialism never work, bros?

[Anonymous No.11614240]

>>11609926
Damn maybe I haven't given Orwell a fair shake...

>>11609733
There are tons of socialist conservatives. Distributism is basically Catholic socialism.

[Anonymous No.11614246]

>>11614227
You're going to have define both "socialism" and "working" dude.

Let's not forget that capitalism is breaking down and shitting on socialism outright because it failed in corrupt backwater countries isn't helping anyone, not even capitalists.

[Anonymous No.11614265]

>>11613072
Socialists and the Bolshevik/Stalinist establishment didn't get along.
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

[Anonymous No.11614275]

>>11614246
I feel like the fatal flaw of 'true' or 'absolute' socialism is that it asserts that there can be such a thing as a benevolent state that cares for the people as much or even more than it cares for itself. It is an unstable system in that it necessarily creates a bureaucracy to has the task of distributing wealth, but the bureaucracy will then see that it has the power and becomes corrupt. And in anarchistic variants, this is just exacerbated because if you create an absolute power vacuum it will be filled again by those that are willing to risk death to rule.

The only difference is that in capitalism one accepts this to be the inevitable outcome and tries to work through the system, whereas socialism tries to continuously revolt against it.

But I might be wrong.

[Anonymous No.11614542]

>>11614240
>Distributism is basically Catholic socialism.
Distributism is the idea of everyone owning their own private business. It's the opposite of socialism, in which only the government can own businesses.

[Anonymous No.11614588]

>>11609733
yeah i bet theres no one else like this guy in the world... babby's first political writer just happens to be the only example of his kind

[Anonymous No.11614899]

>>11614542
Socialism existed before Marx. Really annoying to see Marxists screech that anything which isn't Leninist isn't socialist.

You guys are only good at attacking non-Marxist socialisms and are powerless when it comes to attacking capital.

[socialismguy No.11614915]

>>11614899
I am pretty sure that guy is not attacking Distributism from a Marxist perspective. A Marxist would'nt generally say "only the government can own businesses".

Marx was a great thinker in socialist history, but you don't need to be Marxist to be a socialist.

[Anonymous No.11614975]

>>11609733
>I have never seen another writer say they want socialism while also praising the traditional aspects of their culture so heavily
Then you probably haven't read much. See also William Morris, for example. Hell, Lenin and Stalin were also culturally conservative in many ways. State control is arguably a much more natural 'fit' for preserving cultural traditions than capitalism, because capitalism is inherently unstable, always trying to sell something new and tearing down the old in the process. IIRC classical music and the ballet survived much better in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe.

[Anonymous No.11615111]

>>11610066
True, socialism is degenerate but because of his historical vantage point Orwell was never too bad.

True he fought the fascists in Spain (meddling Anglo-ZOG pawn) but he also supported the maintenance of traditional gender roles among NEET families in the lower classes. You have to keep in mind, he was dealing with the same shit but at a much simpler level- we have tranny fags and he had sandal wearing vegetarians.

I think in the modern era he'd be a Berniebro centerist.

[Anonymous No.11615114]

>>11612555
National Socialism

[Anonymous No.11615119]

>>11614899
I'm an anti-Communist, classical British liberal, socially conservative, Christian, constitutional monarchist, not a Marxist lol.

[Anonymous No.11615128]

>>11614915
>A Marxist would'nt generally say "only the government can own businesses".

A Marxist would say that under Socialism only the government in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat (the Communist Party) can own businesses, but in the transition to Communism the government would gradually cease to exist and the proletariat would own the businesses directly. In other words, they'd bullshit you.

[Anonymous No.11615359]

>>11613071
Obamacare is a market solution. For better of worse it hands insurance companies a monopoly via it's public exchange. It is not a single payer system.
Meanwhile dysphoria (previously called gender identity disorder) has been documented in the DSM for for decades, and in other literature even earlier. This has nothing to do with the US government, the DSM is maintained by the APA.
You're full of more shit than an outhouse, and I'd suggest you get off the Infowars

[Anonymous No.11615370]

>>11609733
Ah shit, the mossbacks are finally on to me.

[Anonymous No.11615375]

>>11613027
What does that have to do with classical socialism

[Anonymous No.11615382]

>>11615359
fuck off kike shill

Men are talking here. Go read a book, you might just learn something

[Anonymous No.11615393]

Guys,.... I just got big brain thuoght.. what if aminal far m wasn't axtually about animils onna farm?!!

[Anonymous No.11615430]

>>11615393
fun-ny

[Anonymous No.11615736]

Didn't Orwell himself say that he was a "Tory socialist" ?

Which isn't surprising if you ask me. A lot of socialists in my country also have this kind of agrarian nostalgia, which I really don't understand at all.

[Anonymous No.11615783]

>>11610464
DOES NOT HAPPEN IN WIGANS M8

[Anonymous No.11615797]

George Bernard Shaw

[Anonymous No.11615822]

>>11615119
absolutely disgusting

[Anonymous No.11616542]

>>11614899
nevermind that the biggest push from workers against capital in the late 19th and early 20th centuries all came from marxist tendencies, culminating in the actually successful russian revolution (regardless of its 'socialism' lasting less than 4 years) and the attempts in germany, hungary, spain, etc

socialism of the "lets just b good" variety was already stupid as a program and practical guideline before marx's time.

[Anonymous No.11616573]

>>11609733
he was a trotskyite cuck
if you want someone left leaning who panders to your cuckservative boomerisms then read christopher lasch

[Anonymous No.11616622]

>>11613027
The fact that none of us will ever have affordable healthcare because you dumb fucks are so abjectly terrified of trannies is ridiculous
If you genuinely think the country is in ruin because poor downtrodden Steve that loves Van Halen and The Same Brand of Beer as You pays for a trillion sex changes a year then you're too retarded and prone to falling for propaganda to ever save

[Anonymous No.11616981]

>>11612555
Titoism

[Anonymous No.11617118]

>>11616542
> Leninism

lol sorry a vanguard of bourgeois intellectuals driving around in Rolls Royces is not a successful revolution

and then you had the anti-semitic purges of Stalin etc

it was never a classless society...think beyond Leninism and beyond Marxism (LTV is beyond saving...do not tell me to read Cockshott)

[Anonymous No.11617151]

>>11609733
Orwell is pretty typical as far as non-Jewish socialists go. All that hate of Western Civilisation comes from the kikes.

[Anonymous No.11617184]

>>11617118
>dude just nicely ask the rich to share a bit more

pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffbbbblllllllltttttttttt

[Anonymous No.11617205]

>>11617184
*blocks your path with mass strikes*

or I guess we should wait for the inevitable collapse of capital since it evidently hasn't produced enough technology yet? capital supresses technology

[Anonymous No.11618374]

>>11617118
you said marxism is powerless when it comes to attacking "capital" and i showed you that marxism was literally the only thing producing any kind of actual result from the mid-19th century onwards, regardless of it becoming degenerate. and as much as people like to say the russian revolution was "doomed to fail" from the get-go, what happened in the first few years and what started happening around 1921 and onwards are pretty markedly different, not to mention the majority of the masses of conscious workers who had done the actual state-taking had died in the civil war.

>mass strikes
a practice that isn't contradictory with marxist theory at all, yet nevertheless it doesn't happen, and when it does (france) it isn't as a push for a socialist cause. the point is seeing why and how to change it

[Anonymous No.11619285]

>>11612594

[Anonymous No.11619461]

>>11616622
>he thinks Communists are in the business of saving people instead of damning themselves

[Anonymous No.11619465]

it's funny how most modern leftists/conservatives don't know that syndicalism is a thing and that it exists

[Anonymous No.11619850]

>>11618374
Paris Commune is Marxist when its convienient

lmao the absolute state of current year Leninists

[Anonymous No.11620076]

>>11619461
You don't have to be a communist to ignore Fox News-tier "muh taxpayer money" scare tactics. Do you think Nordic countries spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on sex changes?

[Anonymous No.11620097]

>>11613072
but honestly, how was bolshevism socialist?

[Anonymous No.11620113]

>>11619465
It's funnier that syndicalism is an obscure, failed ideology that no one knows about and that only the impotent and futile claim to advocate yet don't practice and never will.

[Anonymous No.11620134]

>>11620076
Seeing as how each tranny costs tax payers several hundred thousand dollars (more than the average real woman costs tax payers, which is impressive). that's more than a few people's total lifetime contributions to the public coffers combined, so it seems like a fair point. Imagine if the working white men who created that wealth actually got to keep it and put it toward raising families and bettering their lot in life, instead of it getting sucked into the pockets of sniveling morbidly obese bureaucrats and South American butchers who call themselves surgeons. But hey you're the one who loves the working class, aren't you? Shouldn't you be thinking up a new scheme to bleed them dry and destroy them now that this one is already in place, you creepy godless pinko piece of shit?

[Anonymous No.11620158]

>>11620134

[Anonymous No.11620170]

>>11620134
>several hundred thousand dollars
Do you have a source for that? That sounds outrageously high.
But once again, you fall right into the "you just want to steal the money from red-blooded americans and give it to BUREAUCRATS and FOREIGNERS" line. Do you think the working white man is happy he got to keep 2% more of his paltry paycheck to buy a larger tv one year is glad when he gets lung cancer and spends the rest of his life in crushing debt working a humiliating job greeting people at walmart instead of retiring? I suppose he can consoled when we tell him one seventh of a tranny killed themselves thanks to the money he saved, but will that be enough?

[Anonymous No.11620720]

>>11619850
i was talking about the recent mass strikes due to the labor reform