[HoniSoit]

I'm writing a short essay on the topic: 'How has the experience of Spanish Civil War impacted on George Orwell'. I've gone through much of the primary sources, namely 'Homage to Catalonia', 'Spilling the Spanish Beans', 'Looking Back On The Spanish War', and many of his letters and book reviews, and some of the secondary sources. As a very primary note, I came up with the following ideas, and I will very much appreciate it if you could comment on them, or add anything that I overlooked.

1) Media, Press and Propaganda:

Orwell devoted much of his writing on Spanish Civil War on the way in which the Spanish Civil War was (mis)represented in the media, especially in the left-wing British and American press (the right-wing press was not really worth mentioning). Though he had always recognised the inaccuracy in reporting, he had not seen such disregard of truth, either resulting from deliberate distortion or simply igorance and thus going along with party line. He used the example of May Barcelona fighting which he was a witness of to illustrate the lies and distortions perputrated in the press. His own book on Spanish Civil War, Homage to Catalonia, was flatly rejected by his long-time publisher before even a word had been written down, and in some instance newspapers also refused to publish his articles.

2) 'Political Education' and Communism

Orwell went into Spain rather unware of the political situation, and later uninterested in it when people around him engaging in such discussions as he saw winning the war far more important than the political and ideological difference within the Republican side. However, as he bore witness of the May Barcelona fighting, he became more conscious of the deep poliitcal issues, and later worte extensively about it.

Not only Orwell was aware that Capitalism was merely a version of Fascism, he also came to understand there was a social revolution underway in Spain and it was sabotoged by the Communists (by means of the USSR's influence), right-wing Socialists and liberals who were in alliance to crush the revolution. And evidently in his later works, as compared to his early ones, they became less literary (on his experience of living among and witnessing the hardship of the poor) and more political, a shfit in focus which saw me took a determined anti-communist and anti-totalitarian stance that resulted in his two most celebrated works, Animal Farm (whose central ideas were conceived in 1937, Preface to Animal Farm) and Ninteen-Eighty-Four.

3) Believing in Socialism

While Orwell occasionally showed his diaillusionment of the Left, he 'reaffirmed' his commintement to (democratic) Socialism. In a much quoted letter, Orwell wrote, 'I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before'. This belief in Socialism mainly came from his own experience in contact with ordinary people (the Italian solider, for example) who regarded each other as equal and with very warm and comrade feeling in the army as well in Barcelona when Orwell first arrived. To Orwell, Socialism for the first time, as a result of his experience in Spanish Civil War, seemed a reality to him, something that was worth fighting for.

[kami321]

I'm not really a big fan of Orwell, and although his books maybe worth reading, I'd never write an essay on that guy just as I'd probably never write an essay on Hitler.

Not only Orwell was aware that Capitalism was merely a version of Fascism

Uh oh, please don't use the big F word. You're not an expert on it, and no one really is, so leave it alone.

he also came to understand there was a social revolution underway in Spain and it was sabotoged by the Communists (by means of the USSR's influence)... right-wing Socialists... in alliance to crush the revolution

Sabotaged? Maybe delayed? Maybe he came to realize that the revolution was sabotaged, and I wouldn't be surprised, but it was a false realization. I hope you will note that somewhere in your essay, unless you really believe it.

[HoniSoit]

Uh oh, please don't use the big F word. You're not an expert on it, and no one really is, so leave it alone.

That's what Orwell wrote which I paraphased. Though I take your point as it does sound like I'm agreeing with him as opposed to simply stating what he said.

Maybe he came to realize that the revolution was sabotaged, but it was a false realization.

Certainly it is not simply delayed. I admit it is complicated. But to argue it is delayed, you have to show how the revolution would be carried out later. In the light of Communist policies in Spain, practically an extension of Stalinist USSR, with its centralisation of power, its intolerance and suppression of other leftist groups, and its disarming and disempowering the working class, I don't quite see how the revolution is simply being delayed. Now you havr to tell me why you think it is a false realisation.

[kami321]

In the light of Communist policies in Spain, practically an extension of Stalinist USSR, with its centralisation of power, its intolerance and suppression of other leftist groups, and its disarming and disempowering the working class, I don't quite see how the revolution is simply being delayed.

So your argument is that USSR never had a revolution? Then I think you should define what you, and maybe Orwell, really ment by that "revolution". I believe the Bolshevik revolution triggered an enormous shift in the policies of the empire, and on the social scale too (since in the original post you said "there was a social revolution"), even though the Stalin's cabinet remained vaguely conservative, it was far far less conservative than the Monarchy. Compared to the rest of the world, the policies of the USSR were truly revolutionary and.. well, that was certainly part of the reason why the West hated USSR so much.

As for "centralization" and "disempowering the working class"... first of all not really disempowering (because that implies that they had power at one point, but then lost it, which isn't the case), it sounds to me like you are talking specifically about the Marxist revolution here. You should therefore specify what kind of revolution you are talking about. Besides, although I know your paper is, of course, supposed to be opinionated, it's not supposed to be just an impersonal objective analysis, still I would advise you to stay out of the left-wing battlefield of "what is the true interpretation of Marxism". Stalin and later USSR leaders, fully believed that they were working in accordance to the Marxist doctrine towards the communist future, and you can't argue whether that was their real intention or not since USSR collapsed permaturely. So if I was you and I was writing a paper on this, I'd try to stay out of this "You're not a true Marxist!" kind of debates and/or arguments.

[HoniSoit]

So your argument is that USSR never had a revolution? Then I think you should define what you, and maybe Orwell, really ment by that "revolution".

What Orwell thought as a social revolution, which I concur, is a revolution from below. It is about people, namely the workers and peasants in both cases, seizing control and collectivise the land and industries. In this sense, once could certainly say October Revolution is a social revolution. However, in the following months, the power of the local soviets were taken away from them by the cenrtralised government, thus ceasing to be a social revolution.

first of all not really disempowering (because that implies that they had power at one point, but then lost it, which isn't the case).

I don't think you can dispute that the CNT for example which was mainly consisted of anarchists had a quite large share of power in Catalonia, and was effective in resisting Fascism in the early months of the war, but were disarmed mainly due to the Communist influence. And of course, the POUM, in which Orwell served, was suppressed, and declared an illegal organisations, with many of its leaders and members jailed or shot. I call this disempowerment of the people.

Stalin and later USSR leaders, fully believed that they were working in accordance to the Marxist doctrine towards the communist future.

Did they? Apart from being revisionists of Marxism, weren't they more concerned with holding on and increasing their power?

[quote=kami321"]Besides, although I know your paper is, of course, supposed to be opinionated, it's not supposed to be just an impersonal objective analysis, still I would advise you to stay out of the left-wing battlefield of "what is the true interpretation of Marxism".[/quote]

It is supposed to be an 'objective' analysis in the sense that I should not distort or intentionally omit relevant facts. Being opinionated therefore is not contradictory to being 'objective'. And I certainly would avoid discussing Marxist theories which has nothing to do with my essay. But I do care about how the communist influence led to the suppresion of left opposition groups with lies and false accusations (e.g. POUM being a Facist organisation in disguise, and what happened during the May fighting etc.) as it was relevant to the formation of Orwell's view on totalitarian communism that later produced his two most widely read books.

[kami321]

However, in the following months, the power of the local soviets were taken away from them by the cenrtralised government, thus ceasing to be a social revolution.

Oh... Well then what can I say, the power of the workers thus existed only during the revolution itself, which is expectable, and lasted, at least in major cities, for about one night. Once the workers won, they installed a new government immdiately, which, according to you, took their power away from them. Thus you seem to say that the only possible social revolution can exist and go on only as long as the government does not exist, hence I'd prefer if you termed it then as such: "anarchist revolution", not just social revolution. The term "social revolution" will certainly confuse people and lead to similar questions.

I also have to point out that the power of the soviets never really deminished, unlike you say, similarly as the power of US and European electoral organs never really deminished, it's just that the soviets become overwhelmingly filled with CPR(b) members, due to deliberate "flaws" in constitution. Saying that the soviets were disempowered sounds to me like an oversimplification. The soviets were, after all, the official Soviet Government, until its very collapse in 1991.

I don't think you can dispute that the CNT for example which was mainly consisted of anarchists had a quite large share of power in Catalonia

I was actually talking about USSR in that paragraph.
Speaking about Spain though, I've read a few things about Catalonia, and I'm far from an expert on it, but I am aware that a state (state as in - condition) of relative anarchy existed there for a historically brief period, and I also have little doubt that such state of affairs was harmful to the Republican war effort. The Spanish communists and their Soviet overlords were looking for unity and consolidation of the Republican ranks under the leadership of the parliamentary government, and they actually had a good reason to do so - they were losing the war.

And of course, the POUM, in which Orwell served, was suppressed, and declared an illegal organisations, with many of its leaders and members jailed or shot. I call this disempowerment of the people.

POUM, afaik, was a Trotskyist organization. So if POUM was the one leading the Spanish government you'd see something more resembling USSR style state industry planning rather than your anarchist ideals.
Yes, I guess it is "disempowerment" of a certain segment of the population, but in general the people were always repressed, and they will always be and frankly it sometimes seem like they deserve it, but let's not go into this.

Apart from being revisionists of Marxism

Marx never said that the people have to follow his ideas word by word. I'm also pretty sure that you know how annoyed Marx was getting when the indoctrinated people started repeating his cathchprases without really thinking. So I don't see why you're trying to use the word "revision" in a negative sense.

weren't they more concerned with holding on and increasing their power?

Certainly they were concerned with holding power as any sane politician would be. And certainly they did not seem to want to increase their power as after Stalin's death the hierarchial control of the state was actually getting more and more relaxed with each new leader. But you don't have any evidence that they were concerned with holding power more than with achieving communism. You could say that only about Gorbachev and other perestroika-era Soviet leaders who changed their ideology along the way.

totalitarian communism

oxymoron "Totalitarian socialism" is the right term.

that later produced his two most widely read books

Which is a major reason why I dislike him as a person. He might have been a good person and had the best intentions in mind, but he allowed the US market and elites to skillfully use his writings to an advantage of the US government, making him an American hero, as if he preferrs capitalist totalitarianism to socialist one.

[HoniSoit]

Thus you seem to say that the only possible social revolution can exist and go on only as long as the government does not exist, hence I'd prefer if you termed it then as such: "anarchist revolution", not just social revolution.

It is not so much about no government as about workers retainning ownership and management of their factories, and peasants their land.

I also have little doubt that such state of affairs was harmful to the Republican war effort.

That's surely a strong argument one would often come across. Apart from whether it was really wise to take weapons away from anarchist and socialist militias, what I'm more concerned about is that the majority of those who resisted Fascism seemed not only just wished for a Republican government, which they were already unhappy about, but rather for a social revolution and a more equal society. There is no doubt a Republican government would have been better than a Fascist government, but not by that much.

POUM, afaik, was a Trotskyist organization. So if POUM was the one leading the Spanish government you'd see something more resembling USSR style state industry planning rather than your anarchist ideals.

They were called a Trotskyist organisation only in the sense that they consisted of ex-Communists and left-oppositions. Apart from that, POUM would have never dominated the government as they were really a tiny force. But that's not even the point. They were fighting against Fascism but were called a Fasict army in disguise, which was of course a lie, and systematically suppressed and its many of leaders and members jailed.

But you don't have any evidence that they were concerned with holding power more than with achieving communism.

The burden of proof is really upon those who claim they were really concerned more about achieving communism as it is apparent they cared quite a lot about power, and did virtually nothing to advance the communist cause.

Which is a major reason why I dislike him as a person...he allowed the US market and elites to skillfully use his writings to an advantage of the US government, making him an American hero, as if he preferrs capitalist totalitarianism to socialist one.

That's a curious comment. Orwell never 'allowed' it, and the problem is with those who used the books for propaganda, not with Orwell. Don't know how you transmitted the hatred to him.

And actually it is what makes Orwell a true socialist, which is about always trying to tell the truth. He was quite disgusted by the left-wing propagandas (the right-wing propaganda was not even worth mentioning), their distortion of truth, and balant lies etc. which was actually more harmful to the socialist casue than right-wing propaganda. Soviet Union was simply not a good example of socialism. However I dislike capitalism, I would have nothing to do with the Soviet-style communism.

[Far-Right Sage]

Orwell was a fantastic writer, but in actuality, he fought for the wrong side during the Spanish Civil War, and he was a deeply disturbed individual.

[kami321]

The burden of proof is really upon those who claim they were really concerned more about achieving communism as it is apparent they cared quite a lot about power, and did virtually nothing to advance the communist cause.

The burdern of proof is upon no one because this can't be proven or disproven. They did achieve state socialism, and they claimed it was a transitionary state to communism, which could be achieved either once USSR started outproducing all of its capitalist enemies, or once the communist revolutoin swepd through the world.
Unfortunately fo them, neither of those things happened.

which was of course a lie

Well, what do you expect, everyone lies. It's just that the Bolsheviks were always really bad at lying, always. To the very end of its history the USSR never seemed to learn lie properly, in the way that would make this lie believable to a semi-intelligent person. I guess the Bolsheviks just didn't care about the intelligent people. Apparently they hoped they could win the wars just by mobilizing the masses. They might have managed to win the Second World War that way, having taken disproportionately huge casualties, but in the long term this strategy was obviously a failure.

But in general, when you want to appeal to common population, you've got to lie a lot, you just have to do it properly.

Orwell never 'allowed' it, and the problem is with those who used the books for propaganda, not with Orwell

I'm sure he knew very well the consequences of writing and publishing his books in late 1940s. He published them, he became a hero.

Orwell was a fantastic writer

See, even the far-right likes him