Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Wasn't Orwell, in general, just against totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right? And, especially, he showed how it could come about from either "side"? Human 03:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

  • The viewpoint of leftists is that totalitarianism can come about from either side, but they give no examples (except maybe Hitler, whose attempt failed). Leftists will do anything to justify socialism and communism, but taking away people's freedom will not bring about peace, lasting prosperity or any kind of ideal world. --Ed Poor Talk 18:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Suharto. - EAB 19:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Suharto's Indonesia is another good example of an Authoritarian regime which permitted emigration and religious freedom. If you want to start a debate about what form of government is best, that's what the Conservapedia:Debate Topics are for. You won't fool any conservatives here with that one. --Ed Poor Talk 19:45, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Are you serious? Suharto killed close to 20,000 people in East Timor alone, not counting all those who died of starvation and disease (around 84,000) due to his invasion.
No such things as conservative totalitarianism.--Aschlafly 12:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Ever heard of Francisco Franco, Andy? He was the definition of conservative. religious, in favor of the old style of government. Strongly backed by the Church. sure i know you all like to pretend fascists aren't right wing, but compared to the nazis or mussolini, Franco had no socialist background nor beliefs. and he killed tens of thousands of people after he'd consolidated power, not to mention trhose exterminated behind fascist lines during the civil war. ever heard of Frederico Lorca? how about Guernica?
Surely Augusto Pinochet of Chile leaned to the conservative side of things? In fact, the Independent Democrat Union, a party founded under his direct influence, is the largest conservative party in Chile today. - EAB 17:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Thatcher is a big fan of Pinochet. [1] --Toffeeman 17:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
EAB, are you saying that Pinochet, who established democracy and voluntarily stepped down, was a "totalitarian"???--Aschlafly 18:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
He did have one heck of a "disappearing" act... - EAB 18:30, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, did you just praise Pinochet? Democracy didn't come to Chile until the 80's, Pinochet was in power from the 70's. DLerner 18:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Pinochet is the poster boy (or whipping boy) for Western leftists. Supposedly he is the great example of being "right wing" and "anti-democratic". Others say that his anti-socialist coup (of 1973) ultimately preserved democracy.

He's only hated because he prevented Communism from taking over. They only criticize the "disappearances" he allegedly perpetrated, but not the murders carried out by Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, so it's actually an outstanding example of the leftist double standard.

Leftists pretend praise democracy, but they really want to take away other people's power. --Ed Poor Talk 18:55, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Right, Ed. I'd add that leftists have hated Pinochet for decades because he defeated them. It's analogous to how the leftists hate other people who beat them, such as Nixon (who exposed Alger Hiss) and Joe McCarthy. Leftists do hold grudges, big time.--Aschlafly 19:04, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
The two of you would do well to read this: Wandering 19:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

So, I'm a communist 'cause I think Pinochet was a brute. I guess my ancestors escaping from Russia was just to bring communism to the US. I dislike Pinochet because of the:

  • Leftists who would "disappear" and never be heard from again.
  • Torture
  • Arbitrary detention etc.

These anger me as a human not as a leftist. And since we're using cheap shots. Back in the 30's, people on the right admired Mussolini and Hitler for their "efficient" systems of government. DLerner 19:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

So far, the only time I've heard you express anger over human rights abuses is with respect to a few cases in a government which (1) had US support and (2) transitioned peacefully to democracy. I wonder how you feel about Communist countries which have done 100's and 1,000s of times more . . . --Ed Poor Talk 19:52, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
1) and 2) don't make the human rights abuses go away. Wandering 20:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Your silence about Communism's proven millions of murders is louder than your profession of outrage over Pinochet's alleged thousands. --Ed Poor Talk 21:47, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh, I think the point is that totalitarianism and dictatorship come from either side of the spectrum. Nobody's denying the communist atrocities.

As for Orwell expressing Conservative as well as anti-authoritarian views in 1984 and Animal Farm, I don't think so. So in 1984 Wintson's having sex with prostitutes, having a love affair in strict contradiction of the state's suppression of extra-marital affairs for purposes other than reproduction, talking about how victory can only come with a proletarian revolution and so on. In animal farm the farmers represent conservatism and capitalism in Romanov's Russia and the West - and the (Communists) evil is measured by their similarities with the farmers. I mean, the ending of the book is that the west is just as bad as the east. I don't think he expresses particularly anti-conservative views in the texts, but he certainly doesn't express pro-conservative views. Some of the arguments that are presented for why his views are particularly conservative are also quite incorrect. Wanting a wealthier society isn't strictly conservative, Marx for example advocated Communism because he thought it would produce a wealthier society. Patriotism is also hardly something Conservatism has a monopoly on, again if you want to go to the extreme other end of the section you'll find Stalin talking about the Great Patriotic War, Mother Russia, etc. It's worth adding that where he expresses his most patriotic views is probably in The Lion and the Unicorn, in which he outlines quite clearly that in order to be a patriot (at this point in time meaning wanting to defeat Hitler) one had to be a socialist, a new kind of patriot. That is earlier on in his career (1941) but it's still noteworthy when considering what he means by being a patriot.JohnyGoodman 23:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Response to Ed Poor's comments in order: I express my anger over these violations because some editors seem to be defending(!) Pinochet. US Support: So what? It wasn't the first time the CIA meddled in another country causing chaos. Salvador Allende was a democratically elected leader, but since he was guilty of the indefensible crime of being a Socialist, the Nixon administration supported a military coup. (If I remember right, Colin Powell once referred to this act as a bad moment in our history). Transitioned to Democracy: Almost two decades later.... Communists: Much of my ancestry fled from Russia to come to the United States, so rest assured, I most certainly am angry about the human rights violations that happened (and are still happening...) there. Why than haven't I mentioned it? Because nobody here has defended Stalin... DLerner 08:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

It's obvious Ed Poor and Aschlafly aren't replying because their dishonesty (or perhaps inanity?) has been shown. "Your silence about Communism's proven millions of murders is louder than your profession of outrage over Pinochet's alleged thousands." Uh, well maybe he was silent "about Communism's proven millions of murders" because that was irrelevant. He should be asking you why you're silent on Pinochet's atrocities. You two are the ones with the double standards. Alexjohnc3 19:08, 16 November 2008 (EST)

It is generally accepted that Orwell always held socialist views. However, as evidenced in particular by his two most famous works, Animal Farm and 1984, Orwell was highly critical of Stalinism which in his opinion was not socialism. The way this apparent mystery is framed is also counter-productive. It is framed as if there are only two possible choices, liberal or conservative. The term 'political spectrum' is used for good reason and the labels being applied here are arbitrary and only heighten impressions of differences in political opinion. RobertWDP 07:57, 27 February 2009 (EST)
Personal tools