Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 168 posts

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#31

Post by because1 »

aalleavitch wrote: post #22
aalleavitch wrote: post #13

Unlike authoritarian communism, anarcho-socialism never got the chance to succeed or fail on its own merits. It was strangled in the crib.

I’m interested to hear what part of my statement people seem to disagree with: this was largely the thesis of Homage to Catalonia. It was the point behind most of Orwell’s writing, he was an anarcho-syndicalist.

Even tough the internet is an invention of the anarchist movement, like any cool stuff it’s now filled with people who are just trying to make some quick and big money. And these people don’t want to argue with you because time = money.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#32

Post by DubiousPusher »

oh_sigh wrote: post #16
RangerScience wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hazard a guess that it has something to with most revolutions being riddle with purges, paranoia and violence, and then that most (AFAIK) modern revolutions are communist movements. In other words, AFAIK (which isn't far), it's a trait of revolutions, not of communist movements.

Why were those things notably absent in the US revolution?

A big part is that it was not a social revolution. Nor did it seek much material restribution which is a feature of many revolts and rebellions.

After the war, Americans ended up with a government and distribution of material wealth very similar to what they had before.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#33

Post by partialrecall »

Symmetry wrote: post #29
gedy wrote: post #5

I'm not versed enough in political theory to know myself, but why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been so riddled with purges, paranoia, and violence?

Not at all, most democratic socialists like the Fabian society are willing to change their approach when they try something and it doesn't work. The result is mere inefficiency, not corpses piling up. If the SRs, say, had won the Russian Revolution things would probably have turned out basically all right. But it was the Bolsheviks with their plan of communism immediately, not in 20 years, who won. They treated their…

Is it fair to say that democratic socialists are communists? I've met more than a few self-described democratic socialists who would object to that characterization.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#34

Post by cptnapalm »

Symmetry wrote: post #29
gedy wrote: post #5

I'm not versed enough in political theory to know myself, but why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been so riddled with purges, paranoia, and violence?

Not at all, most democratic socialists like the Fabian society are willing to change their approach when they try something and it doesn't work. The result is mere inefficiency, not corpses piling up. If the SRs, say, had won the Russian Revolution things would probably have turned out basically all right. But it was the Bolsheviks with their plan of communism immediately, not in 20 years, who won. They treated their…

Do I see Voeglin on HN?

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#35

Post by partialrecall »

aalleavitch wrote: post #13

Unlike authoritarian communism, anarcho-socialism never got the chance to succeed or fail on its own merits. It was strangled in the crib.

Could getting strangled in it's crib be seen as anarcho-socialism failing on it's own merits? If it wasn't strong enough to protect itself, does it not then lack merit from a pragmatic perspective?

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#36

Post by paggle »

oh_sigh wrote: post #16
RangerScience wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hazard a guess that it has something to with most revolutions being riddle with purges, paranoia and violence, and then that most (AFAIK) modern revolutions are communist movements. In other words, AFAIK (which isn't far), it's a trait of revolutions, not of communist movements.

Why were those things notably absent in the US revolution?

Because the American revolution was not a “revolution”, it was a split between the highest levels of management in the US and the higher level management in England. It was like PayPal spinning out of EBay.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#37

Post by dragonwriter »

Symmetry wrote: post #29
gedy wrote: post #5

I'm not versed enough in political theory to know myself, but why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been so riddled with purges, paranoia, and violence?

Not at all, most democratic socialists like the Fabian society are willing to change their approach when they try something and it doesn't work. The result is mere inefficiency, not corpses piling up. If the SRs, say, had won the Russian Revolution things would probably have turned out basically all right. But it was the Bolsheviks with their plan of communism immediately, not in 20 years, who won. They treated their…

> If the SRs, say, had won the Russian Revolution things would probably have turned out basically all right.

> But it was the Bolsheviks with their plan of communism immediately, not in 20 years, who won.

The Bolsheviks won in no small part because they were a particularly violent, insular faction. Revolutionary situations don't really reward being accommodating and adverse to violence, even though that might be very desirable post-revolutionary condition.

It's something of a problem with revolutions that the people you want running the show afterwards aren't the kind of people that revolutions inherently favor.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#38

Post by [deleted] »

zentropia wrote: post #7
RangerScience wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hazard a guess that it has something to with most revolutions being riddle with purges, paranoia and violence, and then that most (AFAIK) modern revolutions are communist movements. In other words, AFAIK (which isn't far), it's a trait of revolutions, not of communist movements.

I think so. French Revolution had its Terror period.

[deleted]

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#39

Post by SequoiaHope »

aalleavitch wrote: post #22
aalleavitch wrote: post #13

Unlike authoritarian communism, anarcho-socialism never got the chance to succeed or fail on its own merits. It was strangled in the crib.

I’m interested to hear what part of my statement people seem to disagree with: this was largely the thesis of Homage to Catalonia. It was the point behind most of Orwell’s writing, he was an anarcho-syndicalist.

People on HN downvote comments that are pro anarcho socialism without saying why they disagree. HN is a very capitalist place apparently. It would be nice if we could really engage in these discussions, but people seem to want to just downvote without comment.

Re: The Plot to Assassinate Orwell

#40

Post by dragonwriter »

cm2187 wrote: post #24
zentropia wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think so. French Revolution had its Terror period.

Even though it is true, it is dwarfed in magnitude by the repression in the communist world. The French revolution was attempting to terrorise a political ellite. Communism was aiming at terrorising everyone.

> Even though it is true, it is dwarfed in magnitude by the repression in the communist world.

From 1789 to the first Empire was only 15 years; to the Thermidorean Reaction even shorter.

> The French revolution was attempting to terrorise a political ellite.

That's a very generous interpretation. It's certainly what Robespierre would say, sure, but it's just as much what Lenin would say.

Post reply on HN