Review of George Orwell's 'Why I Write' and 'The Lion and the Unicorn'
Originally Published 06/2022
Why I Write (1946)
George Orwell sees writers as having only four types of motivations for doing what they do. 1* A sheer egoism which desires the attention, prestige, and immortality that comes with writing something significant. 2* Aesthetic enthusiasm, that's allured by how words are put together and the beauty of describing the world with them. "Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed." 3* Historical impulse when one writes to record the facts of history for posterity's sake. 4* A political purpose that is about trying to describe a society that the writer wants to exist in, as well as shape society through their readership.
Orwell says these motives "fluctuate from person to person and from time to time." He says his nature is to write based on the first three motivations. But because of the drama of his time (in the midst of a World War) he is forced by his morality to write with a political purpose. That political purpose is demonstrated in his denouncement of totalitarianism and advocacy for democratic Socialism (a deeper reasoning for this is explored in his next story ‘The Lion and the Unicorn’). He also tries to fight against the notion that art shouldn't be political. All art/writing is political in his eyes and it's better to be honest with oneself about that so one doesn't sacrifice any aesthetic and intellectual integrity. "What I have most wanted to do throughout the past ten years is to make political writing into an art. My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice. - I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing." This all is true of the Orwell stories I have read so far. I appreciate the self-reflection too when he admits that his writing is not simply for the public good. "All writers are vain , selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery." It's easier to trust an author who can admit their faults. Admitting that sheer egoism drives you sometimes is working towards a letting go of the ego. Someone like that is easier to trust because their ideas are less likely to have selfish, ulterior, deceiving motives. This essay helps you confront your own motives for writing as well.
Self reflection is a fruitful exercise. What's the mystery that lies at the bottom of my motives? I recognize myself in all four of Orwell’s outlined motives. The aesthetic side of writing has a great draw. It's nice to communicate an idea as clearly and enticingly as possible. My purpose for writing is often political too. If you know what's going on and think something of it, democracy demands that you speak up. "It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such things." I'm working on speaking up more. Also a historical impulse is strong within me. Not entirely just that I enjoy reading and writing about history, but also feeling a push to make a record about my own life and ideas. The idea of being able to come back to them one day to experience the memories and analyze growth (or non growth) is exciting. That impulse also ties into egoism too because I can't deny that in the back of my mind I picture others reading what I write one day and turning me into a George Orwell, or Emily Dickinson (if I never put myself out there). It's ridiculous to think out loud because I have not even a .01% of their creativity. Yet the EGO is strong as hell. The immortality of influencers like an Orwell isn't even real in the end. Books will turn to dust one day. I wonder if that's part of the reason Orwell did not want a biography to be written about him postmortem. Did he just want people to confront his ideas instead of getting hung up on the man that wrote them? I do not know, but I'd guess yes. So I try to acknowledge that part of my motivation and work to feed the selfless parts instead. Sometimes we succeed, other times...
The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941)
In this essay George Orwell gives his strong opinions on the social and political realities of England during war time 1941. He points to systemic problems in his motherland, of which Capitalism is the main culprit. He laments how his country's unwillingness to fight an existential threat like Hitler's Nazi Germany, before it's too late, could be the result of those capitalist interests getting in the way. This criticism is incredibly relevant to our current day existential threats whether it be climate change, nuclear war, poverty, fighting disease, etc.
It amazes how I can substitute the words England for the modern United States of America and most of his points would nevertheless stand. Orwell was an expert at cutting through the disinformation of the time and revealing society for what it is; an amalgamation of hypocrisies. Clearly England was his main subject of study. Still his observations were through a macro lens and can be contemplated when thinking about similar societies. That's why I think analyzing this essay during our time in U.S and world history could be insightful.
I read this essay recently wanting to familiarize myself with more of Orwell's work. I like to highlight the most thought provoking sentences/paragraphs as I read a book. So I have those quotes presented here accompanied below with my writing. I try in my own words to explain and understand the critiques of modern Capitalism within the last century. Obviously Orwell has way more expertise writing eloquently on political issues. I do not pretend to know everything about history, socialism, class, anything. I try my best to interpret with the tools I have, but I am always acquiring new ones. The Lion and the Unicorn can be one of those powerful tools and is pertinent for modern minds. (NOTE: I have not annotated every quote yet. This is a work in progress.)
Quotes and Comments
"As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are 'only doing their duty', as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life."
Orwell is here not giving into the usual propaganda that comes during war where the 'other' is deemed evil. That way, makes it easier to kill them or wish them dead. In reality all wars are fought by a mass of ordinary people just "doing their duty" for the state that forcibly enlisted them (one way or another) and initially starts the conflict. Countries use mandates, drafts, or coercive methods to get the masses of young energetic men (predominantly) to join their armies. On both sides of the battlefront. Yet, most people want to eat, sleep, spend time with their family and prosper. Yes we can differ in certain cultural and aesthetic ways, but we spend most of our lives concerned with the same fundamental things. Thinking about that, we could all potentially see each other as neighbors. Yet oftentimes others seek to divide and conquer, e.g Hitler. And it's not just Fascists, "Democratic" societies use the same propaganda/dehumanization tactics.
"He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil."
Country has that ability to exonerate just like God does in a Christian church confessional booth. A country, or really a government, thinks the man is apart from the soldier, so once they come home all that happened in the battlefield is from another life. A life where yes you had to do terrible things BUT they weren't human so it's fine, they were going to kill you and your way of life so it was self defense, they were evil so it was righteous. What about your evil? It is confronted with a rationale by the state perpetuating the war that turns that evil into good, like previously stated. But there is a reason soldiers return home with both mental and physical scars. Knowing that you killed another human being eats away at most, no matter the propaganda. That's why Orwell's quote is expertly facetious.
"One cannot see the modern world as it is unless one recognizes the overwhelming strength of patriotism, national loyalty.... as a positive force there is nothing to set beside it. Christianity and international Socialism are as weak as straw in comparison with it. Hitler and Mussolini rose to power in their own countries very largely because they could grasp this fact and their opponents could not."
Nationalism is probably so powerful a tool because of all the self-identifiers wrapped up into it. Nations tend to have one dominant language, a certain history, distinct culture, and other things that people grow up with and thus are understandably attached to. Unlike religion which is just one identifier that can easily be incorporated into a nationalism, or International Socialism which takes a certain amount of work to untie yourself from your national identity. Nationalism is in that way a greater tool to bring the masses of a nation together for a common purpose. Leaders like Hitler and Mussolini used this tool extremely effectively towards their evil ends. Their playbook was not something new, but it was executed so expertly that we could draw historical lessons from it that could inform us of what not to do and what to watch out for.
"Also, one must admit that the divisions between nation and nation are founded on real differences of outlook. Till recently it was thought proper to pretend that all human beings are very much alike, but in fact anyone able to use his eyes knows that the average of human behaviour differs enormously from country to country."
Yes and no. It appears true that each nation has their own cultures and aesthetics so of course there are real differences. But sometimes this fact is used as a divisive tool that obscures the reality that humans everywhere have many common struggles. Stuff that is more important than culture and aesthetic (that doesn't have to disrespect or infringe upon those differences) that we could work together on. Stuff like having enough to eat, or having the freedom to choose what to do with ones life, access to education and shelter. The "differences of outlook" Orwell describes, I interpret as being different opinions on how to create a society that solves the common struggles. Not fundamentally different struggles. The differences in culture and region are used to convince people those others are nothing like you and thus make it easier to paint them as the enemy.
"The liberty of the individual is still believed in, almost as in the nineteenth century. But this has nothing to do with economic liberty, the right to exploit others for profit. It is the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above."
Orwell starts to get into what the English experience/mindset is, and how it informs their attitudes toward involvement in WWII. are largely about their ability to do as they please without government infringement. Many in the U.S would argue the same definition of liberty.
"Beyond a certain point, military display is only possible in countries where the common people dare not laugh at the army."
Makes me think about the fact that while Donald Trump was president, he often contemplated these big military displays. On July 4th, 2019 he ordered one. Yes there were a lot of critics and laughing from the liberal side of the aisle, but plenty of people took it seriously. A large part of the critique was about this parade being unprecedented and being akin to what dictators do. Still, half the country didn't laugh. They were those that have a strong nationalistic streak. America can do no wrong in their eyes. The decades of propaganda equating the military with patriotism always made the prospect of a goose stepping parade feasible in this country. And the Nationalist viewpoint doesn't just have hold of the conservatives, but Liberalism tends to draw from it too. If Obama called for the same parade the reactions would've been flipped. The liberal class would've been feeling patriotic while Fox News would have been invoking Mao. Both conservative and liberal parties prop up the military industrial complex. In a just society the military would strictly be used in self defense and it would cause us great inner turmoil to have to unleash it. The U.S military is a well documented offensive occupying force around the globe. The fact that our leaders would dare put on these pro-colonial celebrations of death really says something about how indoctrinated of a people we are.
"In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are very powerful illusions. The belief in them influences conduct, national life is different because of them."
These illusions may be powerful and work to maintain order in a society, but eventually the fact that they are illusions will be the undoing of that society. It just makes logical sense. In a time of incredible stress for a society those illusions begin to crack. These stressors are inevitable. Every society has to face them eventually; war, disease, famine, economic collapse, natural disaster. For examples of this idea we don't have to look very far. Covid-19 hit the world hard. The hit was even harder in places where illusions of a society stand in place of actually having societal structures. About 300,000 American lives could have been saved if we had a Universal Healthcare program. The U.S healthcare system is a joke compared to other developed countries and compared to the proportion of wealth we produce. Yet, our politicians maintain the stance that it's a perfectly healthy system that need not change. And people tend to vote for these politicians, over others with substantive wills for change, because of illusions. People are made to think that their "liberty" is being infringed upon if you "take away" their private health care plans. So many are also convinced that "freedom" means being able to make a profit off anything. Even if that's a vulnerable person on their last dying breath. Pay up or die; that's the choice Americans have to make everyday. Because I fall into the socialist online bubble sometimes, part of me thinks a lot of people are taking off the blinders of this capitalist structure. But, at the same time you walk around in the tangible world and see how many still hold up the illusion.
"The English electoral system, for instance, is an all but open fraud. In a dozen obvious ways it is gerrymandered in the interest of the moneyed class. But until some deep change has occurred in the public mind, it cannot become completely corrupt."
"But is not England notoriously two nations, the rich and the poor? Dare one pretend that there is anything in common between people with £100,000 a year and people with £1 a week?"
In this essay Orwell often critiques Capitalism and presents evidence showing the corruption that props up that system. The bit about England being notoriously two nations, rich and poor, precedes Capitalism in the country. It is interesting how the adoption of that new system was an easy transition for Monarchs, seeing as they had the Capital and all. Also, Orwell's commentary on the stark class divide back then really worked to show capitalism as a main culprit. This came before the expansion of the class divide in our modern hyper-capitalist world. The same results are had when the majority of power is held by those with capital. They continue to squeeze more and more of the profits up to the top. But because of the illusion of 'the American Dream' people fall into this lifelong trap of injustice. The 'American Dream' promotes an equality of opportunity where no matter who you are, if you work hard enough you can live a safe and prosperous life. That was a ruse from the founding of the country. Anyone that wasn't a white, land owning man was at an incredible disadvantage, and in some cases lived in an opposite universe where equality I guess meant subjugation. Fast forward throughout our history where those non-white male groups have had to fight and die for the most basic of human rights. Even so, today the idea of equality of opportunity is still a lie. There is an abundance of evidence for it being a lie. The systems of our society are "gerrymandered in the interest of the moneyed class". Not just our voting systems, but run away Capitalism rigs all.
"It follows that British democracy is less of a fraud than it sometimes appears. A foreign observer sees only the huge inequality of wealth, the unfair electoral system, the governing-class control over the press, the radio and education, and concludes that democracy is simply a polite name for dictatorship. But this ignores the considerable agreement that does unfortunately exist between the leaders and the led."
I love this quote. A big part of this chapter for Orwell is illustrating how the ineptitude of the British government is partly because of a complicit complacency from the British people. At the end of the day 'we' are the ones that vote for these twats, he argues. Or if not vote, then silently stand by (anti-revolution) as the powerful make decisions based on protecting their power and not based on the needs of the many. I would argue there's two reasons why a population would take this stance. One is that they are just comfortable enough, as a whole, to not rock the boat. Because rocking the boat has the potential to set them back even more (that's one of the rationales). The second reason for the complacency is a result of good indoctrination. To make people believe in societies 'powerful illusions' is the most effective tool there is.
"Later, perhaps, they will pick another leader who can grasp that only Socialist nations can fight effectively."
There are many reasons why this statement exudes truth. The whole idea of a socialist nation would mean that the nation would act based on the will of its people, by a vote. The people would way more effectively determine whether going into war or not was necessary for them. Especially when presented with proper information - facts. Socialism advocates true democracy and truth. The capitalist 'democracies' of early 20th century England and 21st century America pretend to be run by the people, yet because the power resides with capital holders they get to shape what we do, what we get to vote for, where we get to vote, what information we are privy to before making our life altering decisions. That is not advocacy for truth or democracy. And that doesn't result in fighting effectively. As Orwell repeatedly put it, that resulted in Britain's waiting almost until it was too late to enter the war.
At this point in my knowledge of history I cannot exactly pinpoint all of Britain's missteps around the time of WWII. I wish I could and hopefully one day I can, because it's a really interesting history from how Orwell describes it. He does a great job at giving major breakdowns of how England got to be where they were during the war. But this essay would definitely be better contextualized with the knowledge of the times. Not that that's Orwell's fault, he was just reporting expertly about his news of the day.
"The left- wing writers who denounce the whole of the ruling class as pro-Fascist are grossly over-simplifying. Even among the inner clique of politicians who brought us to our present pass, it is doubtful whether there were any conscious traitors. The corruption that happens in England is seldom of that kind. Nearly always it is more in the nature of self-deception, of the right hand not knowing what the left hand doeth. And being unconscious, it is limited."
Our ruling class today are quite varied in their types of corruption. Some are as Orwell says "unconscious". There are many politicians that buy into the state propaganda and therefore when they spew bullshit they believe it. Those people tend to get groomed from an early age. They come from affluent and powerful families so all they know is that world of comfort. Real world problems are not even on their radar. If presented with a question about how to deal with homelessness for instance, the disparity of power is so vast that they wouldn't know how to solve it 99 times out of 100. Some have used brutality to deal with it and others sweep the problem under the rug. To a person like that people like the homeless are not in fact people. Their game of life only recognizes others with power as humans. As an aside, the sad thing is that the ruling class has convinced a lot of the working class of this world view too. So when we pull up to an intersection and someone is asking for change we pretend they don't exist. This is another effect of the classic divide and conquer strategy.
There are also those in the ruling class who are 'conscious' actors. They knowingly deceive the public. These are the writers of the propaganda and in that way are more dangerous than the 'unconscious'. They also grow up in similar circles, but they are self aware enough to recognize the propaganda as a tool and not as truth. Now at the same time I don't think every case is an absolute. I think many of these people live in the in-between of being deceitful while also justifying what they do as righteous.
"All the papers that matter live off their advertisements, and the advertisers exercise an indirect censorship over news."
This is a revelatory fact that Orwell recognized and the modern day Political analyst Noam Chomsky popularized. The idea Manufacturing Consent in essence describes “..a very important aspect of the function of the mass media---that is to serve the dominant hegemonic interests of powerful groups such as governments and global corporations". In Capitalist societies the goal is to make money, almost by any means necessary, because profit equals power in that structure. The mass media in these places are no exception. Papers like a New York Times or TV news networks like MSNBC measure their success by advertising revenue and not by the number of people informed. In a functioning democracy the role of the media is to be a check on power and inform the public about the truths of the times. You open a newspaper or flip on the news today and you are inundated with ads upon ads. A pharmaceutical company might pay to run a commercial for their new overpriced drug. It's no wonder that that news station doesn't mention the fact that in a just society it's not right for someone to have to break the bank to afford a life saving medicine.
"They could not struggle against Nazism or Fascism, because they could not understand them. Neither could they have struggled against Communism, if Communism had been a serious force in western Europe. To understand Fascism they would have had to study the theory of Socialism, which would have forced them to realize that the economic system by which they lived was unjust, inefficient and out-of-date. But it was exactly this fact that they had trained themselves never to face."
"What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit - does not work. It cannot deliver the goods. This fact had been known to millions of people for years past, but nothing ever came of it, because there was no real urge from below to alter the system, and those at the top had trained themselves to be impenetrably stupid on just this point."
"Power conceded nothing without a demand". It's only logical, following human nature, that those in power would want to do everything to stay in power. Selfishness is a strong corrupting attribute of humanity. I don't necessarily think we are prone to selfishness, but there is definitely a danger of falling into it. That's why the way we structure our societies shouldn't promote the selfish side of our nature, like it does today. If the goal is a just world then we should create a society that promotes our altruistic tendencies. It has been done before. We have to want to do that though. Not just want, but will it. These grande changes always happen when a populace has had enough of the cruelty. We are hopefully on the horizon of some positive revolution.
"Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes."
"The mere efficiency of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen."
If a society has a goal, to reach it in the most efficient way would probably look like large groups of people working in unison with the 'motive' being a net positive outcome for everybody. But when the society is led by people whose primary motive is to personally profit off work/ work of others, it becomes harder to decide on a collective goal, let alone achieve it. Orwell's overall criticism in this essay is about the powers that be of England being too caught up in their personal profit, power, and comforts to make effective decisions on the dangerous Germany problem. He doesn't give everyday English people a pass either, but still acknowledges that at the end of the day they only know as much as they are fed. If all English people were privy to the cold truths about the dangers of Nazism they would've been clamoring the government to act sooner. But the privileged class had interest in maintaining the status quo (examples of which are coming up in the following Orwell quotes). Therefore they manipulate the masses into submissiveness through their private owned news press. It's incredibly selfish and short sighted thinking. It's all bliss until you have the German bombers soaring over your countryside estate. And this is why we sometimes call ourselves a self destructive species. We don't have to be though. These are all conscious decisions that humans make.
The same things are happening today, with similar dire outcomes. Capitalist interests still reign when it comes to foreign and domestic decision making . An easy example is that of the fossil fuel & agricultural industries being more concerned about short term profits than the habitability of Earth. Also, we can stick to the topic of war in Europe. Right now Ukraine and Russia are at war. Effectively the U.S and Russia are too. The U.S is supplying the Ukrainians with billions of dollars worth of Military aid in their fight against an invading Russia. Russia provoked Ukraine into defending itself, but it's clear that the U.S, through NATO, provoked Russia into drastic action. Both sides are indefensible from a humanitarian perspective. But to get a full picture of the conflict you have to analyze the history and motives of these super powers. Smarter people than I have explained that context and it's readily available. Putin and Co. see NATO expansion across Europe as a threat to their existence, power, and influence in the region. Their power and influence isn't justifiable, in that they operate in an undemocratic and violent way. Yet neither is that of the U.S. The U.S military hawks and everyone invested in its imperialistic foreign missions see Ukraine vs Russia as an opportunity. Arms manufacturers are making a literal killing off the conflict. And the hawks want the influence over the region because in the long run that equates to more capital they can exploit. The common angle expressed in our mass media about the Ukraine conflict is one focused on a military solution. Very rarely is a diplomatic solution discussed. Power and profits take precedence over the lives of the many. And that's an even more dangerous dynamic when you factor in that this is a proxy war between the two most nuclear armed countries on Earth. We put too much power and blind faith in our leaders. We are not using spears anymore, these powers can end life as we know it within minutes. We should be pushing for nuclear disarmament across the globe. There are some groups that do and they are heroes, but for anything to significantly change more people need to join the cause. Mutually assured destruction is not a safeguard, it's an inevitability.
In this quote Orwell gives an example of the Nazis using the tactic of collective work towards a shared goal and how effective it is. In Germany though the goals were set by Hitler and the Nazi party. Some of the goals being; building up stock of war goods, eliminating those opposed to Nazism, and ultimately a one race nation/world. In a totalitarian state like that, the rulers have a bludgeon over the head of the masses, so the mass motivation to work is immediate survival. If a society could run as efficiently but in a democratic way where the people govern themselves there would be incredible development of systems for human prosperity, like; non-profit Healthcare systems, efficient public transportation, free and non-censored public education, nuclear disarmament, etc.
"But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world."
The mainstream viewpoint of Socialism is warped, but it is pretty agreed upon both in conservative and liberal minds. One of the common statements made when they reference Socialism is that it is synonymous with Totalitarianism and Fascism. Some equate Nazism to Socialism for example. But this is not dealing with the idea in good faith. They deal with it with the warped perspective informed by the propaganda of the last half century plus. Usually those that say these things about Socialism have closed themselves off to the actual history about it and subscribe to a Capitalist way of looking at the world. Some do it knowing that it's in bad faith and others do it unconsciously, just regurgitating the talking points. If you take the propaganda as truth then there is no way of seeing it as anything other than evil. So how does one know if Socialism is a good idea? If you examine the history without bias you will see that Socialism advocates for more democracy not less.
"However horrible this system may seem to us [the Nazi system], it works. It works because it is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way. British capitalism does not work, because it is a competitive system in which private profit is and must be the main objective. It is a system in which all the forces are pulling in opposite directions and the interests of the individual are as often as not totally opposed to those of the State."
"To prevent war material from reaching the enemy is common sense, but to sell in the highest market is a business duty. Right at the end of August 1939 the British dealers were tumbling over one another in their eagerness to sell Germany tin, rubber, copper and shellac and this in the clear, certain knowledge that war was going to break out in a week or two. It was about as sensible as selling somebody a razor to cut your throat with. But it was good business'."
"In September 1939 war broke out. Eight months later it was discovered that, so far as equipment went, the British army was barely beyond the standard of 1918."
"There had even, previously, been a shortage of uniforms - this in one of the greatest woolen-goods producing countries in the world!"
"What had happened was that the whole moneyed class, unwilling to face a change in their way of life, had shut their eyes to the nature of Fascism and modern war. And false optimism was fed to the general public by the gutter press, which lives on its advertisements and is therefore interested in keeping trade conditions normal. Year after year the Beaverbrook press assured us in huge headlines that THERE WILL BE NO WAR, and as late as the beginning of 1939 Lord Rothermere was describing Hitler as 'a great gentleman'. And while England in the moment of disaster proved to be short of every war material except ships, it is not recorded that there was any short- age of motor cars, fur coats, gramophones, lipstick, chocolates or silk stockings. And dare anyone pretend that the same tug-of-war between private profit and public necessity is not still continuing? England fights for her life, but business must fight for profits. You can hardly open a newspaper without seeing the two contradictory processes happening side by side. On the very same page you will find the Government urging you to save and the seller of some useless luxury urging you to spend."
"In that spectacular disaster the working class, the middle class and even a section of the business community could see the utter rottenness of private capitalism. Before that the case against capitalism had never been proved."
"Almost entirely we are governed by the rich, and by people who step into positions of command by right of birth. Few if any of these people are consciously treacherous, some of them are not even fools but as a class they are quite incapable of leading us to victory. They could not do it, even if their material interests did not constantly trip them up."
"we are still commanded by people who managed to live through the years 193I-9 without even discovering that Hitler was dangerous. A generation of the unteachable is hanging upon us like a necklace of corpses."
"The British ruling class are fighting against Hitler, whom they have always regarded and whom some of them still regard as their protector against Bolshevism. That does not mean that they will deliberately sell out; but it does mean that at every decisive moment they are likely to falter, pull their punches, do the wrong thing."
"The bombed-out populations of the East End go hungry and homeless while wealthier victims simply step into their cars and flee to comfortable country houses. The Home Guard swells to a million men in a few weeks, and is deliberately organized from above in such a way that only people with private incomes can hold positions of command. Even the rationing system is so arranged that it hits the poor all the time, while people with over $2,000 a year are practically unaffected by it. Everywhere privilege is squandering good will."
"Revolution does not mean red flags and street fighting, it means a fundamental shift of power. Whether it happens with or without bloodshed is largely an accident of time and place"
"In the short run, equality of sacrifice, 'war-Communism', is even more important than radical economic changes. It is very necessary that industry should be nationalized, but it is more urgently necessary that such monstrosities as butlers and 'private incomes' should disappear forthwith. Almost certainly the main reason why the Spanish Republic could keep up the fight for two and a half years against impossible odds was that there were no gross contrasts of wealth. The people suffered horribly, but they all suffered alike. When the private soldier had not a cigarette, the general had not one either. Given equality of sacrifice, the morale of a country like England would probably be unbreakable."
"One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler's recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc. etc. Hitler's real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him. He stands for a centralized economy which robs the capitalist of most of his power but leaves the structure of society much as before. The State controls industry, but there are still rich and poor, masters and men. Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the moneyed class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish Civil War, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler's puppet government are not working men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians."
"The war and the revolution are inseparable. We cannot establish anything that a western nation would regard as Socialism without defeating Hitler; on the other hand we cannot defeat Hitler while we remain economically and socially in the nineteenth century. The past is fighting the future and we have two years, a year, possibly only a few months, to see to it that the future wins."
"But one must start by recognizing why it is that English Socialism has failed."
"In England there is only one Socialist party that has ever seriously mattered, the Labour Party. It has never been able to achieve any major change, because except in purely domestic matters it has never possessed a genuinely independent policy. It was and is primarily a party of the trade unions, devoted to raising wages and improving working conditions. This meant that all through the critical years it was directly interested in the prosperity of British capitalism. In particular it was interested in the maintenance of the British Empire, for the wealth of England was drawn largely from Asia and Africa. The standard of living of the trade-union workers, whom the Labour Party represented, depended indirectly on the sweating of Indian coolies. At the same time the Labour Party was a Socialist party, using Socialist phraseology, thinking in terms of an old-fashioned anti-imperialism and more or less pledged to make restitution to the coloured races. It had to stand for the 'independence' of India, just as it had to stand for disarmament and progress' generally. Nevertheless everyone was aware that this was nonsense. In the age of the tank and the bombing plane, backward agricultural countries like India and the African colonies can no more be independent than can a cat or a dog. Had any Labour government come into office with a clear majority and then proceeded to grant India anything that could truly be called independence, India would simply have been absorbed by Japan, or divided between Japan and Russia."
"To a Labour government in power, three imperial policies would have been open. One was to continue administering the Empire exactly as before, which meant dropping all pretensions to Socialism. Another was to set the subject peoples free', which meant in practice handing them over to Japan, Italy and other predatory powers, and incidentally causing a catastrophic drop in the British standard of living. The third was to develop a positive imperial policy, and aim at transforming the Empire into a federation of Socialist states, like a looser and freer version of the Union of Soviet Republics. But the Labour Party's history and background made this impossible. It was a party of the trade unions, hopelessly parochial in outlook, with little interest in imperial affairs and no contacts among the men who actually held the Empire together. It would have had to hand the administration of India and Africa and the whole job of imperial defence to men drawn from a different class and traditionally hostile to Socialism. Overshadowing everything was the doubt whether a Labour government which meant business could make itself obeyed. For all the size of its following, the Labour Party had no footing in the navy, little or none in the army or air force, none whatever in the Colonial Services, and not even a sure footing in the Home Civil Service. In England its position was strong but not unchallengeable, and outside England all the points were in the hands of its enemies. Once in power, the same dilemma would always have faced it: carry out your promises, and risk revolt, or continue with the same policy as the Conservatives, and stop talking about Socialism. The Labour leaders never found a solution, and from 1935 onwards it was very doubtful whether they had any wish to take office. They had degenerated into a Permanent Opposition."
"After twenty years of stagnation and unemployment, the entire English Socialist movement was unable to produce a version of Socialism which the mass of the people could even find desirable. The Labour Party stood for a timid reformism, the Marxists were looking at the modern world through nineteenth century spectacles. Both ignored agriculture and imperial problems, and both antagonized the middle classes. The suffocating stupidity of left-wing propaganda had frightened away whole classes of necessary people, factory managers, airmen, naval officers, farmers, white-collar workers, shopkeepers, policemen. All of these people had been taught to think of Socialism as something which menaced their livelihood, or as something seditious, alien, 'anti-British' as they would have called it. Only the intellectuals, the least useful section of the middle class, gravitated towards the movement."
"A Socialist Party which genuinely wished to achieve anything would have started by facing several facts which to this day are considered unmentionable in left-wing circles. It would have recognized that England is more united than most countries, that the British workers have a great deal to lose besides their chains, and that the differences in outlook and habits between class and class are rapidly diminishing. In general, it would have recognized that the old-fashioned 'proletarian revolution' an impossibility. But all through the between-war years no Socialist programme that was both revolutionary and workable ever appeared; basically, no doubt, because no one genuinely wanted any major change to happen."
"Now, however, the circumstances have changed, the drowsy years have ended. Being a Socialist no longer means kicking theoretically against a system which in practice you are fairly well satisfied with. This time our predicament is real. It is 'the Philistines be upon thee, Samson'."
"We cannot win the war without introducing Socialism, nor establish Socialism without winning the war. At such a time it is possible, as it was not in the peaceful years, to be both revolutionary and realistic. A Socialist movement which can swing the mass of the people behind it, drive the pro-Fascists out of positions of control, wipe out the grosser injustices and let the working class see that they have something to fight for, win over the middle classes instead of antagonizing them, produce a workable imperial policy instead of a mixture of humbug and Utopianism, bring patriotism and intelligence into partnership - for the first time, a movement of such a kind becomes possible."
"War is the greatest of all agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions, brings realities to the surface. Above all, war brings it home to the individual. That he is not altogether an individual. It is only because they are aware of this that men will die on the field of battle."
"It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy."
"It is all too obvious that our talk of defending democracy is nonsense while it is a mere accident of birth that decides whether a gifted child shall or shall not get the education it deserves."
"For at least eighty years England has artificially prevented the development of India, partly from fear of trade competition if Indian industries were too highly developed, partly because backward peoples are more easily governed than civilized ones. It is a commonplace that the average Indian suffers far more from his own countrymen than from the British. The petty Indian capitalist exploits the town worker with the utmost ruthlessness, the peasant lives from birth to death in the grip of the money-lender. But all this is an indirect result of the British rule, which aims half-consciously at keeping India as backward as possible. The classes most loyal to Britain are the princes, the landowners and the business community - in general, the reactionary classes who are doing fairly well out of the status quo."
"I only know that the right men will be there when the people really want them, for it is movements that make leaders and not leaders movements."
"If Hitler wins this war he will consolidate his rule over Europe, Africa and the Middle East, and if his armies have not been too greatly exhausted beforehand, he will wrench vast territories from Soviet Russia. He will set up a graded caste-society in which the German Herrenvolle ('master race or 'aristocratic race') will rule over Slavs and other lesser peoples whose job it will be to produce low-priced agricultural products. He will reduce the coloured peoples once and for all to outright slavery. The real quarrel of the Fascist powers with British imperialism is that they know that it is disintegrating. Another twenty years along the present line of development, and India will be a peasant republic linked with England only by voluntary alliance. The 'semi-apes' of whom Hitler speaks with such loathing will be flying aeroplanes and manufacturing machine-guns. The Fascist dream of a slave empire will be at an end. On the other hand, if we are defeated we simply hand over our own victims to new masters who come fresh to the job and have not developed any scruples. But more is involved than the fate of the coloured peoples. Two incompatible visions of life are fighting one another. Between democracy and totalitarianism says Mussolini, 'there can be no compromise.' The two creeds cannot even, for any length of time, live side by side. So long as democracy exists, even in its very imperfect English form, totalitarianism is in deadly danger. The whole English-speaking world is haunted by the idea of human equality, and though it would be simply a lie to say that either we or the Americans have ever acted up to our professions, still, the idea is there, and it is capable of one day becoming a reality. From the English-speaking culture, if it does not perish, a society of free and equal human beings will ultimately arise. But it is precisely the idea of human equality - the 'Jewish'
or 'Judaeo-Christian' idea of equality - that Hitler came into the world to destroy. He has, heaven knows, said so often enough. The thought of a world in which black men would be as good as white men and Jews treated as human beings brings him the same horror and despair as the thought of endless slavery brings to us."
"It is important to keep in mind how irreconcilable these two viewpoints are. Some time within the next year a pro-Hitler reaction within the left-wing intelligentsia is likely enough. There are premonitory signs of it already. Hitler's positive achievement appeals to the emptiness of these people, and, in the case of those with pacifist leanings, to their masochism. One knows in advance more or less what they will say. They will start by refusing to admit that British capitalism is evolving into something different, or that the defeat of Hitler can mean any more than a victory for the British and American millionaires. And from that they will proceed to argue that, after all, democracy is just the same as' or just as bad as' totalitarianism. There is not much freedom of speech in England; therefore there is no more than exists in Germany. To be on the dole is a horrible experience; therefore it is no worse to be in the torture-chambers of the Gestapo. In general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread. But in reality, whatever may be true about democracy and totalitarianism, it is not true that they are the same. It would not be true, even if British democracy were incapable of evolving beyond its present stage. The whole conception of the militarized continental state, with its secret police, its censored literature and its conscript labour, is utterly different from that of the loose maritime democracy, with its slums and unemployment, its strikes and party politics. It is the difference between land power and sea power, between cruelty and inefficiency, between lying and self-deception, between the SS man and the rent-collector! And in choosing between them one chooses not so much on the strength of what they now are as of what they are capable of becoming."