On Orwell - My Archive

Of course, nobody could possibly doubt - which I am sure you must concede - that the specific great wartime essay on English identity and patriotism, The Lion and the Unicorn, is the work of a democratic Socialist
I am afraid you confidence is misplaced and the word I quibble with is ‘democratic’. Firstly can I splutter a little . Orwell `s essays are not in any way to be compared with his novels or rather his novel 1984 . Such a misapprehension is possible only for A Political historian whose interest in English Literature is evidential rather than artistic .His journalism is fun and discursive by virtue if introducing Conservative insights into the world of the mid 20th century “Intellectual” soi disant . He remarked in L and U that there were only left wing intellectuals beautifully contradicting himself with reference to TS Elliot (a familiarity with whom was a prerequisite for entry ). It is the literary achievement of 1984 and to a lesser extent Animal Farm that is the source of his fascination and had he only been an essayist he would have been forgotten .( I will happily discuss this further if you are interested in the books as Literature at all)
The Lion and The Unicorn
The Lion and the Unicorn is truly extraordinary but more performance than art. It is a glittering fragmented mess veering wildly between ferocious personal resentment wisdom foolishness paranoia and arrogance . Its best passages are the almost lyrical investigations of Englishness which contain some thrilling steps along the way to Conservatism …“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. Things that could happen in one country could not happen in another…..”
“And above all, it is your civilization, it is you. However much you hate it or laugh at it, you will never be happy away from it for any length of time.”
He does not resolve the glaring dissonance between the implications of “cultural man” and “Economic man” although he tries . That ,I take it ,is your interest together with the mirage of Socialism that is not against the English.He notes the disappearance of stratified class system , the acquisition of wealth by the poor without recognising the part of capitalism in that. He despairs of the intellectual as knowing nothing of courage and work . He has no comprehension of the creative potential of Capitalism which he treats as a “resource “ flowing unbidden from the earth , neither does he see the futility of the planned Russian economy . On the contrary he regards planning as the only possible route to efficiency. His attitude to Empire does indeed shows signs of Neo Con Realpolitik ( India can no more be independent than a cat or a dog ,,…)At this time he sees the need for planning in mass war in war a truth which any Conservative would happily accept. For him this holds out a utopian prospect you might say ‘A heaven forged in Hells despite’. “…….“The fact that we are at war has turned Socialism from a text-book word into a realizable policy. “…. “ In effect he describes socialism that would work in a perpetual state of war and there is more than one sinister excursion. The quality of the book is impossible without the errors of its day , it is exactly the “ terrifying present “ of it is which makes it so compelling for all its flaws .You have the sense of a man in the crucible convinced the forces of good and evil were at last showing themselves . Meanwhile in Oxford CS Lewis and Tolkein were describing the same feeling in very different ways . It is like fierce love affair when tomorrow may bring the bomb.This is by way of preparing you to accept that a rapid transformation took place over the next few years . Consider the following…..
“If we can survive this war, the defeat in Flanders will turn out to have been one of the great turning-points in English history. 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. Russia, the only definitely Socialist country, was backward and far away. ….”
You will note at this stage Russia is definitely within his definition of socialism. Important this when you trace the disillusion and bitterness he latterly expressed against the very English Socialism he tries to invent here .It is a salutatory reminder to us all to see what socialism actually means even to a man whose thinking and emotions are taking him from it . The main point for our purposes is this“Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
..and the consequence …“ From the moment that all productive goods have been declared the property of the State, the common people will feel, as they cannot feel now, that the State is themselves.” and as he remarks elsewhere , ‘’everyone works for the state’ .
That is what socialism is a belief that man is fundamentally changeable by his economic environment alone , but what of democracy , what of all the Englishness he tries to include in his idea? This is the utopia that awaits us
“It will shoot traitors, but it will give them a solemn trial beforehand and occasionally it will acquit them. It will crush any open revolt promptly and cruelly, but it will interfere very little with the spoken and written word. Political parties with different names will still exist, revolutionary sects will still be publishing their newspapers and making as little impression as ever. It will disestablish the Church, but will not persecute religion. It will retain a vague reverence for the Christian moral code, and from time to time will refer to England as ‘a Christian Country “
There will not in fact be any real democracy at all except token “Different names “. Yes , he is certainly a socialist at this time , but Democratic , in form only. . It would have been impossible to admit for him at the end what he had seen . He saw it in Russia and he saw it in the power the state took in the war .1984 reeks of the growing evil state control brings and specifically to wartime Britain.ConclusionOrwell saw socialism as emerging from war not persuasion and democracy as a comforting token to be retained like the monarchy. His obviously love of England and his deep understanding of it are precursors to true Conservatism . His admiration of Russia shows he was yet to acquire the bitter energy behind his final denunciations of socialism which , as he had already begun to see , cannot co -exist with true democracy . The oft quoted statement in ‘Why I write ‘ must be understood chielfy as an attitude to literature ( for which he was not forgiven) placing its effect above all. It is asking tok much of him to say .” I have had good instincts and spoke honestly but I now see I was wrong and am a Conservative ” Not so unusual , look at Frank Field