Tag: george-orwell

2 + 2 = what?

Democratic socialism is a great ideal but offers no solution for the flaws of human nature. The slim hope for Orwell’s democratic socialism is “The Ministry of Truth” which ironically is its greatest danger.


Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Ministry of Truth (The Biography of George Orwell’s 1984)

Author: Dorian Lynskey

Narration by: Andrew Wincott

Dorian Lynskey (Author, journalist, based in London)

Dorian Lynskey has written an informative biography of George Orwell’s most well-known book, “1984″. Orwell, a 6’ 3” political activist and theorist, shakes the foundations of communism and democracy. He argues both systems of government fail their citizens. Orwell argues the power of the few in communism and rising authoritarianism in capitalist democracy create an environment of inequality that victimizes the powerless and poor of society.

Orwell believes government run by the few is seduced by personal interests. Lynskey argues that Edward Bellamy influenced Orwell by showing how the utopian visions of all governments, however well‑intentioned, become authoritarian when they demand total social conformity. From that insight, Orwell writes “1984”

Edward Bellamy (American author, journalist and political activist, died at the age of 48 in 1898.)

Orwell’s “1984” becomes more relevant and threatening today because of artificial intelligence. The potential of A.I. for thought manipulation by purveyors of misinformation, and its surveillance capabilities threaten societal norms.

Personal convictions of Orwell’s political beliefs are exemplified by his participation in Spain’s civil war.

Lynskey argues that 1984 is relevant today because the forces of communism and democracy manipulate truth, are authoritarian, and define language in ways that harm society. Lynskey’s view isn’t that we live in Orwell’s world, but that we live in a world where Orwell’s insights may help us understand what is happening around us.

George Orwell (1903-1950, died at age 46.)

Orwell pillories the Soviet Union and communism in his satirical book “Animal Farm” which he wrote between 1943 and 1944. He had experienced Stalinist-like repression in the Spanish Civil War. Those who have travelled to the Baltics and listened to families that lived under Stalin’s reign over their countries will understand Orwell’s view of communism. Pigs in Animal Farm are Stalin’s apparatchiks that become the ruling class in Animal Farm, just as they did in the Baltics. They claim leadership, privileges and exempt themselves from labor. As “…Farm” leaders they squeal propaganda, censor activists that resist their piggish control and manipulate language to exploit the working class of the farm. The pigs lie among themselves by believing sacrifice of everyone is necessary for the “greater good” while the pigs feed on farming production and others grow hungry.

“1984” does not directly attack democracy but it reveals its weaknesses, illusions, and vulnerabilities.

“1984” is written near the end of Orwell’s life and becomes his most successful publication. He shows how democracies can sleepwalk into authoritarianism. Some would argue that is happening today in the guise of immigration policies that deny basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Agencies designed to serve America are being dismantled by today’s government. The idea of “it can’t happen here” is happening here. Propaganda and misinformation distort what is actually happening across America. Many Americans are becoming complicit with the rhetoric of a punitive federal government.

The rhetoric of misdeeds.

Lynskey explains “1984” is relevant today because the struggle over truth, language, surveillance, and authoritarian thinking has intensified, making Orwell’s warnings seem like a toolkit for understanding the present.

Orwell went to Morocco primarily for his health—specifically to recover from severe lung problems that are later recognized as tuberculosis. Morocco was a cheap place to live with a warmer climate that eased his respiratory illness. He left Morocco in 1939 and returned to Britain during WWII. After the war, he spent his last years (1946-1949) writing “1984” in Jura, Scottland. He died in London on January 21, 1950.

Lynskey explains Orwell, like Martin Luther King, believed in socialist democracy.

What is missing in “The Ministry of Truth” is an Orwellian solution to capitalist greed in western culture. Human nature interferes with the ideal of socialist democracy. “The Ministry of Truth” shows how prescient Orwell is about the ills of government but discounts the dark side of today’s democracies, i.e., namely capitalism. The underlying weakness of capitalism is the consequence of a permanent underclass because of economic inequality. Lynskey notes Orwell rejects capitalism because of its flaws, but socialist democracy is no answer because of human nature. Orwell seems to acknowledge that material life with capitalism is better, more freedom is inherent, but less perfect. However, socialist democracy offers no solution to that part of human nature that is human greed. He criticizes democracy without offering any alternative.

The ubiquitous internet and iPhone are not foreseen by Orwell.

The internet is a medium for “alternative facts” that can as easily offer lies as truth. When power speaks with “alternative facts” truth is lost and the public is misled. Society is diminished. Democratic socialism is a great ideal but offers no solution for the flaws of human nature.

Inequality in America.

The slim hope for Orwell’s democratic socialism is “The Ministry of Truth” which ironically is its greatest danger. A “…Ministry if Truth”, with the potential of A.I., can aid or destroy democratic socialism by focusing on concrete recommendations to mitigate inequality. On the other hand, A.I. in the hands of an unchecked tyrant can increase inequality.

Orwell & A.I.

In the pre-A.I. age, democratic socialism is unachievable, but A.I. may resurrect its potential. However, as Orwell noted, the risk is a “Brave New World” rather than a hoped-for democratic socialism.

GEORGE ORWELL (Author, 1903-1950)

In Norm Chomsky’ ‘s and Nathan Schneider’s book, “On Anarchy”, George Orwell’s book “Homage to Catalonia” is called one of Chomsky’s favorite books. “On Anarchy” infers Orwell believed in anarchy because of his role in the war (1936-1939) against the Franco government. Though Orwell’s risk of life in Spain’s war is inconceivable to me, it seems prudent to listen to his story and point to the significant difference between what Chomsky and Schneider infer about Orwell’s belief in “…Anarchism” and what Orwell really wrote and believed. Though Orwell takes anarchism seriously as a political working-class movement, he believes it is impractical and that democratic socialism (with “1984” reservations) is what he believes could be the best form of government. The idea of abolishing all forms of coercive authority and hierarchy with a government anarchy is impractical because of the nature of human beings.

Francisco Franco with his soldiers in 1936.

Because of Orwell’s belief in democracy and equality he chooses to join the fight against Franco’s fascism. He joins the resistance at the age of 33 because of his belief in democratic socialism. He felt he needed to join the ideological struggle against Franco’s regime. It is a remarkable decision considering he is married, and relatively unknown. He is oddly driven by his moral belief in democracy and equality. Presumably, he entered the war to understand what it means to fight a war against a government he felt was immoral and totalitarian. Orwell served for approximately six months beginning in December 1936. He was shot in the throat and nearly died.

Anarchy and human nature.

It seems inconceivable that anarchism is a reasonable way of governing human nature. It is interesting to contrast what Orwell believes and what anarchists argue. This is particularly relevant in the 21st century because of the inevitable change in society that is occurring with artificial intelligence. A.I. has an immense potential for creating Huxley’s “Brave New World”. However, his writings reject the ideal of “Anarchy” espoused by Chomsky and Schneider because of its impracticality. Huxley shows that human nature contains both heroism and weakness tied to the material world. Even though human nature is basically decent, it is easily corrupted. That corruption makes humans hope and fear human decisions designed by consensus. It is not to say democratic socialism would be infallible, but it offers a structure for regulation of different governments at chosen intervals of time.

“The Laws of Human Nature” is a tour deforce of what one learns in life.

Human nature will not change. Human nature is a set of relatively stable psychological, biological, and social tendencies that are shared by all human beings. These tendencies shape how humans think, feel, and act even as culture and governance changes. Artificial intelligence will only intensify the strengths and weaknesses of human nature. The principles of anarchy in an A.I. world is frightening:

  • No centralized government, police, or standing armies.
  • Society organized through federations of communes, cooperatives, or councils.
  • Emphasis on direct democracy, mutual aid, and local autonomy.
  • Suspicion of any coercive authority — even democratic majorities.
  • Change often imagined as revolutionary, not incremental.

A more rational alternative to Anarchy is Democratic Socialism believed by Orwell and espoused by MLK.

  • The state remains, but becomes more egalitarian and accountable.
  • Markets may still exist, but are regulated or supplemented by public ownership.
  • Political parties and electoral competition are central.
  • Emphasis on universal programs: healthcare, education, housing, worker protections.
  • Change is gradual, through reforms, not revolution.

Differences of opinion.

There are obvious differences between Chomsky’s and Orwell’s beliefs. Both have social weaknesses. Human nature gets in the way of both forms of governance. Orwell seems to have recognized the weaknesses of his belief in democratic socialism in his writing of “Brave New World”. In contrast, Chomsky’s and Schneider’s pollyannish view of anarchy as “…a better form of government where power is decentralized and citizens can and should collectively manage their own affairs through direct democracy and cooperative organizations” is absurd. The difference is that Huxley foresees the dangers of his idea in “Brave New World” which anticipates something like A.I. that has the potential for society’s destruction. “On Anarchy” ignores the truth of human nature, “Brave New World” does not.

Franciso Franco (1936-1975, died in office.)

Orwell’s decision to join opposition to Franco’s dictatorship fails. Their right-wing beliefs in authoritarianism, anti-communism, and pro-Catholicism prevails. Spain’s 1930s opposition leaders (Manuel Azaña, Largo Caballero, and Juan Negrín) were pro-democracy with anti-fascist, socialists, communists, anarchists, trade unions, urban workers, and peasants who Orwell joined to support democratic socialism, not anarchy.

In the pre-A.I. age, democratic socialism is unachievable, but A.I. may resurrect its potential. However, it is the risk of a “Brave New World” or “1984” rather than a hoped-for democratic socialism.