> So once again, let’s invite the obvious: Orwell is lying when he calls himself a socialist. And again, once the possibility is admitted, the evidence piles up. Read Orwell’s correspondence with poor Victor Gollancz over Wigan Pier and you see the stolid, loyal Gollancz trying desperately to understand why his star writer spent so much time vilifying his fellow socialists in a book commissioned by them. Read that exchange and you’ll never buy Orwell’s version of himself as simple, honest man. He’s the Satanic diva, pushing Gollancz into objections which allow Orwell to play the lone, misunderstood hero.
> But if he never was a leftist, why did he call himself one? For Orwell, the red star was protective coloration. It allowed him to smuggle his hates into print, gave them a fine radical gloss, and spared him the cold, clear readings his essays deserved. (Only academics believe that writers want to be understood. Writers want to be misread to their advantage.)
I've read Wigan Pier. I've read his criticism of socialists. And nothing in it precludes him from being a socialist. However, the hysterical reaction to it by other socialists proves it hit the mark.
"Socialists" are largely bitter unsuccessful upper-middle class or above and speak in academic babble that is completely offputting to the actual working class who they claim to represent. And this (to the great pleasure of capitalists like me) ruins any chance of them succeeding. It's just as true today as it was when Orwell pointed it out in Wigan Pier, and it's why you came with an ad hominem instead of saying he is incorrect.
> But if he never was a leftist, why did he call himself one? For Orwell, the red star was protective coloration. It allowed him to smuggle his hates into print, gave them a fine radical gloss, and spared him the cold, clear readings his essays deserved. (Only academics believe that writers want to be understood. Writers want to be misread to their advantage.)
https://exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-chri...