"Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics."
Review of The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek & The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus, reviewed in The Observer (1944-04-09.
Emphasis mine. Orwell might have known his stuff about fascism, but his economics knowledge is nil.
One can easilly spot gaps in Orwell's economic knowledge when reading "1984". However, that was still a damn fine book!
So what? Nineteen Eighty - Four is still a wonderful book. Although, his Homage to Catalonia is better.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I think the fact that Orwell identified himself as a social democrat says enough about his understanding of capitalism.
"dole queues"
I think he was right. Capitalism leads to lines for the bananas. As demonstrated here.
xSFx: "Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics." Review of The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek & The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus, reviewed in The Observer (1944-04-09. Emphasis mine. Orwell might have known his stuff about fascism, but his economics knowledge is nil.
I posted about this previously, it can be found here:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/4788/64067.aspx#64067
While I still like Orwell's novels, particularly 1984, Animal Farm, and Burmese Days after researching into his asburd paradoxes I realize that he wasn't a staunch defender of freedom as many claim him to be.
In liberty,
Chris
Chris:While I still like Orwell's novels, particularly 1984, Animal Farm, and Burmese Days after researching into his asburd paradoxes I realize that he wasn't a staunch defender of freedom as many claim him to be.
Now, you won't often find me defending statists, but George Orwell is, in my opinion, a worthy cause.
To begin with at some point in high life he identified himself as an anarchist, or at least sympathised with them. Granted, he was never a capitalist, but that's besides the point. It's silly to claim that he's not a defender of freedom, he did have a very limited of economics but to my knowledge he never deeply ventured into economics, so he can be forgiven. So it's going a bit far to say that he's not a defender of freedom, he merely had a flawed conception of what freedom was, and he can be forgiven.
Even if you don't accept this, he was a good novelist and if more people realized that 1984 isn't so much of a warning as it a picture of today then we'd be far better off. 1984 is a great novel and it has taught a good deal many people about the nature of government even if they don't fully understand the message. I say I owe my being a libertarian to Ron Paul, but it was Orwell who first made me a realise a good deal many things.
George Orwell was a Socialist...I thought people knew this.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: George Orwell was a Socialist...I thought people knew this.
And in some aspects, so was Mises. What's your point?
Explain those aspects.
Laughing Man: Explain those aspects.
What do you think minarchism is? Socialized defense and arbitration.
Which one of his works does he advocate such measure?
Laughing Man: Which one of his works does he advocate such measure?
Liberalism, for one.
Page number?
Laughing Man: Page number?
What, you want me to spoon feed you? Go be a big boy and find out for yourself.
You made a statement that he followed two tenets of Socialism in a sense. If you are affirmed in such a theory then why can't you show where you learned it from? Is it asking too much to have you back up your statements with factual referencing?
If you have a chapter, I'll take that.
Laughing Man:Which one of his works does he advocate such measure?
Well, in Human Action, he advocates conscription for defense against an invading nation, I think.
Schools are labour camps.
And he is talking about governmental conscription? Or just people banding together out of free-will and common cause?
Laughing Man: Page number? And he is talking about governmental conscription? Or just people banding together out of free-will and common cause?
1. By conscription, I imply one person using force to get another to provide defense at the first person's terms. This is not free will. And, yes, this is conscription from a minarchist state.
2. Page number, anyone?
It has just been quoted in another thread, and it is clearly from a minarchist point of view.
Mises was quite clearly a minarchist.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
As for conscription:He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all. Human Action 3rd Edition (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1966, p. 282)And yes, I realize the article linked above is meant to be a defense of the Misesian position. Nevertheless, his words are quite clear, and even if we consider the circumstances, it still is a written-down support for state conscription.As for minarchy: The maintenance of a government apparatus of courts, police officers, prisons, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy. To assert this does not, of course, amount to a justification of the confiscatory and discriminatory taxation methods practiced today by the self-styled progressive governments. There is need to stress this fact, because in our age of interventionism and the steady "progress" toward totalitarianism the governments employ the power to tax for the destruction of the market economy. (Human Action (p. 281f)
Sphairon: As for conscription:He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all. Human Action 3rd Edition (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1966, p. 282)And yes, I realize the article linked above is meant to be a defense of the Misesian position. Nevertheless, his words are quite clear, and even if we consider the circumstances, it still is a written-down support for state conscription.As for minarchy: The maintenance of a government apparatus of courts, police officers, prisons, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy. To assert this does not, of course, amount to a justification of the confiscatory and discriminatory taxation methods practiced today by the self-styled progressive governments. There is need to stress this fact, because in our age of interventionism and the steady "progress" toward totalitarianism the governments employ the power to tax for the destruction of the market economy. (Human Action (p. 281f)
Thank you.
Laughing Man:You made a statement that he followed two tenets of Socialism in a sense. If you are affirmed in such a theory then why can't you show where you learned it from? Is it asking too much to have you back up your statements with factual referencing?
I told you, Liberalism and Human Action, I'm not going to waste time giving you page numbers for something the majority of people who know anything about the Austrian school know anyway.
Regardless of what one specifically defines Mises as his "socialism", which I think is taking his beliefs out of context, is nothing compared to Orwell who was a full blown socialist. A quick reading of Why I Write with regards to the economic policies advocated by Orwell would leave one questioning whether it was him writing or if he was quoting Hitler. Giles, this is why I feel that I can say Orwell was not a staunch defender of freedom after reading these absurd things he said regarding capitalism. However well intentioned and ignorant he may have been, as I'm sure a great deal of socialists are, what this ultimately comes down to is the fact that socialism is not concomitant with freedom but that it is its total opposite. The society Orwell envisioned and advocated could never bee a free one and hence my reasoning on why I have abandoned my youthful belief that Orwell was a friend of freedom. I do agree with you regarding his novels and I don't think anybody could argue that 1984 was not amazing and inspiring as well as a frightfully accurate prediction of where we're headed. I don't like his novels any less after discovering who he truly was and what he advocated, but as a person I do not hold him in very high esteem and do not respect him nearly as much.
Chris:Regardless of what one specifically defines Mises as his "socialism", which I think is taking his beliefs out of context, is nothing compared to Orwell who was a full blown socialist.
Well, Orwell at some point in his life sympathized with anarchists, which is far more than one can say for Mises. Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding Orwell in the same light at Mises, nor saying that Orwell has helped "the cause of liberty" more than Mises, yes the opposite is true and I understand this, but to dismiss Orwell like that is silly.
And Mises did advocate socialism in defense and arbitration, so in that regard he's a socialist, nothing is being taken out of context.
Chris: A quick reading of Why I Write with regards to the economic policies advocated by Orwell would leave one questioning whether it was him writing or if he was quoting Hitler.
So what? He was ignorant of economics, he never deeply ventured into economics however and I believe for that he can be forgiven.
Chris:Giles, this is why I feel that I can say Orwell was not a staunch defender of freedom after reading these absurd things he said regarding capitalism
How can you say Orwell was not a defender of freedom? He was, he just didn't think capitalism was the way to acheive that. He was very wrong in that regard and I'm not defending his social democratic views, I just think sweeping statements such as that as silly.
He may have thought he was a defender of freedom, I thought he was too after reading 1984 & Animal Farm, but I still firmly stand by my belief that you can NOT be a socialist and defend freedom. Yes, he was ignorant of economics, he didn't "get it", he wasn't intentionally advocating statism - but here good intentions do not, in my opinion, make up for the disastrous tyranny that would ensue (and always has) from the types of policies he supported.
Chris: He may have thought he was a defender of freedom, I thought he was too after reading 1984 & Animal Farm, but I still firmly stand by my belief that you can NOT be a socialist and defend freedom. Yes, he was ignorant of economics, he didn't "get it", he wasn't intentionally advocating statism - but here good intentions do not, in my opinion, make up for the disastrous tyranny that would ensue (and always has) from the types of policies he supported. In liberty, Chris
He did defend freedom though, he just advocated the wrong means to attain it.
Orwell was a socialist, everybody knows that. But ultimately you can not condemn someone simply for his opinions. Opinions that are not transfered into action have no consquences and thus bring no evil onto the world.If we consider solely Orwell`s actions we discover they aided freedom far more than they worked against it. He might have spoken up for socialism in his other writtings, but his by far the most influential work is 1984 which is pro-freedom to the core.He might have been misguided in his stances but his actions were mainly on the correct side of the barricades.