| Shaunodon said: Since you mentioned Orwell: https://quillette.com/2023/04/21/orwell-and-socialism/ "The typical socialist is not a ferocious working man in greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a useful snob or a prim little man with a white-collar job—usually a secret teetotaler and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of non-conformity behind him and a social position he has no intention of forfeiting. In addition to these two types is the disquieting presence of cranks. Socialism draws into itself by magnetic force every juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex maniac, Quaker, Nature cure quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. These groups alienate decent people. And there are the middle-class socialists who talk about a classless society but will never give up their own social prestige." "Orwell suggested socialism appealed chiefly to unsatisfactory or even inhuman types: You have the warm-hearted unthinking socialist, the typical working class socialist, who only wants to abolish poverty and doesn’t understand what that implies. On the other hand, you have the intellectual book-trained socialist, who understands that it is necessary to destroy the current civilization and is quite willing to do so. And this latter group is drawn almost entirely from the middle class and from a rootless town-bred section of the middle class at that. "Orwell believed that a rise of fascism can result from socialist parties failing to control their members. The appearance of communism is a signal the labor class is unraveling and the only way to save a capitalist system is a transition to fascism. Fascism achieves the goal of socialism while retaining fundamental values like religion and nationalism. Orwell believed that socialism could prevail over fascism if class distinctions could be put aside. He feared that if England failed to build a strong party of labor, fascism would prevail. If it came to a struggle between socialism and fascism, he hoped the diverse socialist groups would unite for the cause and put aside their differences. Obviously, Orwell could not see the future from 1937. He was frustrated by the lack of progress socialism was making and worried that socialism’s competitors had the upper hand in a world rejecting capitalism. He could not foresee fascism would be destroyed by its lust for power and universally condemned as an unjust political system. He knew the Soviet Union was a corrupt authoritarian oligarchy, but did not know that its success, too, would be limited. Capitalism and democracy won the Second World War and became the dominant political system worldwide because they represented the best path to opportunity and freedom. As for socialism, it remains today the fragmented ideology of the Left." -Michael C. Anderson has a PhD in Information Science and has been a writer for over 20 years. His fourth book, ‘Twilight of the American Experiment,’ That a snobby enough degree for the masses? |
I can find snobby degree holding people who peddle nonsense. That's an appeal to authority.
On the first part of it, this seems very selective. I say bad things about leftists myself. I'm very critical about ResetEra. And I generally think that most people, whether they are on the left or the right are not doing tons of research to get to their views. I'm pretty sure that doesn't make me a right winger.
Even if there's truth to the rest of it - and I'm not sure that there is, I don't think most of it points to him not being a socialist.
