[opaque]

Interesting article, but some of the arguments are pretty weak.

>“Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war.”

>"Capitalism led to the creation of monopolies ..., to food lines, and to war"

The author seems to think these two statements are a damming contradiction, which proves

> "When it came to recognizing unpalatable truths, it seems that Orwell had as much difficulty as the next man."

However, both Capitalism and Communism can be flawed (and are), there is no contradiction here. The ability to critique both is probably why Orwell's work endures.

[padobson]

I completely agree. His review [0] of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom [1] illustrates his capacity for nuance combined with his willingness to face those unpalatable truths.

As a sample, he was a socialist who also wrote this:

It cannot be said too often – at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough – that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.

[0] https://maudestavern.com/2008/10/09/george-orwell-review/ (Not sure where to find the original, but I've read it several times, and this looks like a faithful copy)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

[ZeroGravitas]

The article also quotes this line, the next paragraph for context:

> Professor Hayek is also probably right in saying that in this country the intellectuals are more totalitarian-minded than the common people. But he does not see, or will not admit, that a return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would far rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.

I'm not sure why more democracy doesn't solve both issues, while retaining the benefits of both, which seems to be where most modern nations are broadly headed, in fits and starts.

[PoignardAzur]

Coordination problems are really hard to solve.

Most of the world has settled on capitalism because it solves a specific class of coordination problems really well, and targeted intervention can stave off the externalities enough to make the system bearable.

Slumps and unemployment aren't, like, an avoidable curse, but they're pretty damn hard to avoid, and so far no system has had real success.

[pie420]

But you're wrong. If you look at economic records going back to the middle ages, you can see the effect of Keynesian economics, central banks, social safety nets, social security systems, etc. Have had on reducing slumps and unemployment. We've gotten very, very good at it. In the 1600's, there were great depression-style crashes every 5 years or so. Despite massive wars, pandemics, geopolitics, and automation, economic slumps and unemployment have been incredibly moderate the past 90 years or so, and they have gotten milder as a function of time over that timeframe.

[emmelaich]

I didn't downvote you but .. it can easily be argued that the reduced slumps is because of the liberalisation of trade and reduced central control of money. e.g. floating currencies.

It has also been plausibly argued that the great depression was lengthened (and possibly deepened) by things like the New Deal.

[PoignardAzur]

Fair enough. To reformulate my point: no system has been successful at eliminating them completely.

Social safety nets and technological progress do improve life outcomes a lot.

[panta]

In my view it’s because democracy is somewhat orthogonal to capitalism or collectivism, and masses are easily controlled anyway (they can live with the illusion of being in control). A democracy loses something central to the concept when a restricted group has a very concentrated power (be it political, as in the case of pure collectivism, or economic, as with pure capitalism). In my opinion there can’t be true democracy when there are strong imbalances in a society, even when there are regular democratic elections.

[pmoriarty]

"A democracy loses something central to the concept when a restricted group has a very concentrated power (be it political, as in the case of pure collectivism, or economic, as with pure capitalism)."

Yes, it's concentrations of power which are the real enemy.

Unfortunately, no matter how many dictatorships, oligarchies, monarchies, theocracies and kleptocracies the world suffers through, we never seem to learn that lesson.

[sharemywin]

To me it seems that capitalism leads to monopolies.

ask an investor if they would rather invest in a monopoly or not a monopoly.

seems like the only thing standing in the way of a world full of monopolies is corporate founders egos not willing to sell out for more profits.

[chalst]

Orwell wrote that review at pretty much the same time as the Bretton Woods system of international monetary exchange was implemented, which the largest single piece of the Keynesian economic foundations for 25 years of economic growth with a high level of stability and a low level of inequality in the US-centric world.

There were good reasons why Bretton Woods failed in 1970, but the subsequent ascendance of Hayekian neoliberalism doesn't look so good 40 years on.

[young_unixer]

> Hayekian neoliberalism

That very concept is a nonsensical. No Hayekian economist or ideologue calls themselves neoliberal.

[pnin]

Hayek himself used the term "neo-liberal" to describe the "movement" of liberalism to which he belonged [0]. The historian Quinn Slobodian [1] advocates using the term "neoliberal" for the intellectual history surrounding the Mont Pelerin Society. In this context, it is sensible to distinguish between a Hayekian strand and, say, Wilhelm Röpke's version of neoliberalism.

[0] The Freeman, 1952. https://mises.org/library/freeman-july-1952-b

[1] Globalists. The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism.

[young_unixer]

Thanks. I didn't know that. My bad.

[Voline]

Those two statements are only in contradiction if you believe there are only two choices for how to organize a society: A Red one and a White one — and both built on hierarchical power. Orwell clearly didn't believe that. As he wrote:

"Had I gone to Spain with no political affiliation at all I should probably have joined the International Column and should no doubt by this time have had a bullet in the back for being "politically unreliable", or at least have been in jail. If I had understood the situation a bit better I should probably have joined the Anarchists."

– George Orwell, "Letter to Jack Common [October? 1937]", in The Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell, Volume 1: An Age Like This, 1920-1940, eds. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (New York: Harcournt Brace Jovanovich, 1968), 289.

[dang]

I read the article and had the same feeling. The details are interesting but the arguments seem weak, particularly his argument about how self-contradictory Orwell was.

[mesofile]

> "It is often the contradictions in an individual’s character that give it distinction; in the case of Orwell, these were more marked and more numerous than in most, but it is not clear whether he was even aware of them."

I gave up right there, this was so grossly condescending to its subject. Orwell was not aware of his own contradictions? Has the author ever actually read any Orwell?

[godelski]

I think they also got confused with the differences between communism, socialism, social democracy, and democracy. Granted we often conflate these terms but there are differences, especially in authority and where that power lies or who it belongs to. Orwell strikes me as a person who was afraid of authority and how power corrupts, or how quickly it can corrupt. Seems like a good reason to criticize communism. Seems like also a good reason to be afraid of the status quo. But you can also be critical of authority and think some is necessary. I think many for a long time have sought to find the balance of authority and democracy. I don't think anyone has found the solution, if one exists.

[godelski]

I think it has to deal with how people think of optimization problems. Many people think there are global solutions. What we've learned over the last 200 years is that most problems are non-convex, lie in high dimensions, have long and coupled causal chains, are long-tailed, not-gaussian, non-zero summed (many positive, many negative), and are probabilistic in nature, but we assume the opposite of all these things (mostly due to approximations).

Needless to say, things are complicated. It's why we created specialization in the first place, but at the same time we expect people to be experts in many subjects (generalists). Because of this thinking many people will assume someone is being contradictory when they can criticize different things. The nature of reality is complex. No matter how you side on complicated issues there are reasons to critique different sides (Israel/Palestine, China/US, Communism/Socialism/Capitalism/xism, and so on). Simplifying things just causes us to argue over things we have no qualifications to argue over, but we'll do it with self-righteous indignation instead of as a way to learn or update our views. This is strange because arguing, debate, criticism, and self reflection are so important to democracies. It is far more important to critique your own philosophies (the ones you are fighting for) than those you oppose, since those are the things you have control over the direction of.

Sometimes it isn't about contradictions, sometimes (most of the times) we're just dumb and over simplifying.

[switchbak]

Increasingly I think arguments are in public and recorded for posterity, making the social cost of a mistake (or being poorly informed, etc) much higher. Given that, I think we're seeing many arguments that are more about group belonging and performance rather than a genuine effort to learn via debate and dialog.

Throw in some radical oversimplifications and that's a pretty strong recipe for polarization. One that's actively cultivated and amplified due to media profit incentives. Unfortunately it's a vicious cycle that seems to make us dumber and oversimplify even more.

[pjc50]

The problem with a lot of conservative journos is their inability to make the distinction between left-wing political thoughts, tending to lump everything under "socialism". This renders them unable to understand why Orwell was a left-wing anti-communist and in particular anti Stalin.

This is like dealing with the kind of writer who thinks that java and javascript are the same thing.

Similarly part of what makes Orwell both interesting and entertaining to read is him skewering some of the excesses of the left of his time, without fundamentally being hostile to egalitarianism. It's criticism because he wants a better left, not a non-existent one.

[thundergolfer]

> anti-communist

I don't think he was. He was anti-Stalinist, stemming from anti-totalitarianism, but I don't he was generally hostile to communism.

> without fundamentally being hostile to egalitarianism

Which puts it much less forcefully that you could. Orwell was a socialist. He fought with the Marxist POUM in the Spanish Civil War. He was fundamentally pro-egalitarianism and dedicated his life in a big way to egalitarianism as realised by Socialism.