This is generally rooted in the Confucian thought that is broadly spread across Northeast Asia.
To think about your logic a bit more precisely, Orwell's metaphor is about why the power to trample others ultimately arises. In Confucianism, it's usually said:
孟子曰: 君子以仁存心，以禮存心。仁者愛人，有禮者敬人。
(Mencius said: The noble person keeps benevolence in their heart and keeps propriety in their heart. The benevolent person loves others, and the person who has propriety respects others.)
論語: 不憤不啟，不悱不發。
(The Analects: If the learner is not eager to know, do not enlighten them; if they are not struggling to express themselves, do not inspire them.)
孟子曰: 教亦多術矣，予不屑之教誨也者，是亦教誨之而已矣。
(Mencius said: There are many ways to teach. My refusing to teach someone because I deem them unworthy is also a form of teaching.)
This can be summarized as: 'When that desire passes through benevolence and propriety, it becomes good teaching. When it loses benevolence and propriety, it becomes scolding, interference, and self-display.'
From this, teaching can be understood as having different stages. Teaching is meaningful only when the other person is ready to receive it. Teaching is not about pouring out explanations; sometimes not teaching, stepping back, and letting the other person reflect on themselves is also a form of education.
The extreme of power that Orwell speaks of is, in other words, a kind of 'forcing' upon someone who does not want it. This means that the same desire can lead to completely different outcomes depending on which ethical filter it passes through.
However, this is also a very fragmented explanation when viewed in the full context. In modern society, we rarely live out classical thought as a complete system; instead, we cut out fragments of it and use them to explain current problems. I am not trying to explain Confucianism as a whole either. I am simply using the Confucian sensibility that is relatively commonly spread in Korea to try to understand this issue. So I cannot claim that the passages I cited are arranged in a completely rigorous way.
Perhaps the reason I feel this way is because I was born and raised in Korea, and I am currently active there. I am just active on HN because it is the metropolis of the programming world.
I feel that Western individualism treats the individual as a more autonomous unit. In contrast, in the Confucian sensibility I am familiar with, an individual is less like an independent point and more like an intersection of multiple relationships.
I think both Western and Eastern thought have their strengths and weaknesses, and they arrive at similar insights through different paths.
Orwell starts from a macroscopic, top-down perspective and examines how power tries to subjugate humans. This is a response to the macroscopic question, as seen in Machiavelli, of 'power as a matter of order and domination.'
As seen in Orwell's 'Notes on Nationalism,' his thinking is about the problem of proxy power: the attitude where an individual dissolves their identity into a group and pursues that group's power and prestige.
In other words, I think Confucianism asks questions about how to solve this problem at the microscopic level, while Orwell's work is closer to an explanation of how unresolved problems at the microscopic level can cause trouble.
Of course, what I have read is only at a university-level introduction to philosophy, so I hope you will take my answer as being just as superficial. For more detailed explanations, I suspect wild philosophers hungry for questions will appear and take over.
p.s. The irony is that this very comment is basically me pouring out content you probably didn't ask for. The biggest contradiction is that I'm talking about controlling the urge to act like a teacher, while I'm not practicing it myself. In fact, I think Confucianism also has macroscopic discourses, and Orwell also has microscopic explanations, so they don't fit together perfectly. There are also points where they conflict