By Paul Richards
In 1945 Arthur Koestler, Bertrand Russell, Victor Gollancz and George Orwell attempted to establish a "League for the Dignity and Rights of Man". They failed to make it fly, although some of the ideas surfaced 20 years later in Amnesty International. Orwell’s contribution, as befits the greatest writer of the 20th century, was to draft a manifesto.
I know all this because the other night I found myself alone in a curry house with my battered undergraduate copy of Bernard Crick’s biography of George Orwell. Like all the best visits to a curry house, this one revealed an essential truth. I came across 49 words written by George Orwell, but unpublished in his lifetime, which express perfectly what Labour should be all about.
Orwell always advised writers to keep it short and simple, but to distil centuries of debate about the meaning of socialism and the role of the state is some achievement. Orwell wrote that the main function of the state should be:
1) To guarantee the newborn citizen his equality of chance
2) To protect him against economic exploitation by individuals or groups
3) To protect him against the fettering or misappropriation of his creative faculties and achievements
4) To fulfil these tasks with maximum efficiency and a minimum of interference
Read it again.
You are struck by the economy of language and directness of meaning. By the 1940s, Orwell had succeeded in his life’s ambition to make political writing into an art. You should also be struck by the simple exposition of complex ideas. His first point "to guarantee the newborn citizen his equality of chance" anticipates endless debates about the nature of equality. It sounds to my ears like a more comprehensible version of what James Purnell and others have been calling "equality of capability." (A phrase which Orwell would immediately have denounced as "barbarous".)
If you read point one alongside point three, which demands that our ‘creative faculties’ be unfettered, you can see the socialist view of human nature: that human beings contain almost limitless amounts of creativity, imagination, decency, altruism and love, but inhuman social systems drive people into venal competition, soul-destroying work, ugly buildings and dangerous streets.
Orwell’s final demand "to fulfil these tasks with maximum efficiency and a minimum of interference" is as fresh as a daisy. "Maximum efficiency" is the current cri de coeur from the political class. "Minimum interference" places Orwell firmly in the camp of the libertarian socialists who warned about the danger of an over-mighty state and the stifling of the individual. In the era of Stalin, this was more than a theoretical concern. In these times, with the limitations of Labour’s central targets and lever-pulling ministers laid bare, it speaks too to our own needs.
I am going to make Orwell’s four points into a postcard, and send it to every current Labour minister, to serve as their guide to the final months of this Parliament. As we draft the manifesto for the fourth term, we could do worse than to test every policy against Orwell’s rubric.
A final, and melancholy thought: how we miss Bernard Crick. His book on Orwell is surely one of the best ever political biographies, and Crick’s writings on socialist values and politics must earn him a place on the pantheon of great and influential socialist writers, alongside his literary hero George Orwell.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I went to the publishers to get a signed copy as a birthday present for my dad. Quite convenient, as I was on my way round the corner to the office of the Labour Co-ordinating Committee that evening.
The most recent Orwell book I bought for my dad (and another for myself) was the collected columns he wrote for "Tribune".
Labour are no more authoritarian than the Tories. On the other hand, I agree the communitarian instincts of New Labour got out of hand, and need to be checked. Wouldn't trust the Tories to do it though.
Loath/Loth - reluctant, unwilling
Loathe - hatred, extreme dislike
So, which is it, "I'm loath/loth to be constantly called a socialist ..." or "... I loathe being constantly called a socialist..."?
While I'm at it, substitute "constantly" for "sometimes", "occasionally" or even "often".
Perhaps this is where we've being going wrong, by not making our intentions clear to the electorate and by not taking more care with the language we use in our messages.
Best wishes.
You have seen Orwell's peripheral points and forgotten his main teachings.
I do read Orwell. (Was just dipping in and out of Homage to Catalonia the other day with reference to Anthony Beevor's magisterial work on the Spanish civil war).
It is worth noting that just because Orwell was right on many things, doesn't mean he can't ever be wrong on others. On the whole, however, he was solid about the sanctity of individual rights.
Orwell is a hero of the left because, like Camus in France, he took on the tankies and the Fabian control freaks, and rescued the idea of left wing politics from the authoritarians on the left, and reactionaries on the right.
I've plenty of quotations to prove that too
Whilst he called himself a 'Democratic Socialist'; it was not modern Social Democracy. Orwell called for all wealth and income to be shared equally; that is not Social Democracy.
Furthermore; you cannot ignore the entire second-half treatise on Socialism found in The Road to Wigan Pier. He found the British left far too enchanted with the Soviet Union for his liking. It was a scathing attack on British Socialism; so much so; his publisher feared to publish it.
My favourite passage in The Road is this one The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible—-the really disquieting—-prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England..â€
Or have I misunderstood the meaning of democratic socialism?
However, he like most on the left throughout the post war and cold war period, emphasised they were 'democratic socialists' and opposed to any hijacking of power through classic leftist means.
Meanwhile, the bulk of the Labour party considered themselves 'social democrats' (up until the Gang of Four split in the 80s).
Social Democrats were hounded and persecuted by communists and fascists alike in the Soviet Union and Germany.
So perhaps a little bit of knowledge might overcome your confusion.
"To protect him against the fettering or misappropriation of his creative faculties and achievements"
At a stroke you are missappropriating Orwell's achievements by
connecting them with anything but utter distain for Socialism. My favourite Orwell quote and is as true now as it always was is;
"the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."
In spite of its lip service to 'equality of opportunity' and 'protection from exploitation', Socialism is diametrically opposed to these ideals.
I can only assume that you are at heart a libertarian.
Wake up - you are supporting the wrong party.
I believe on animal farm there were two sets of antagonists, the greedy simply replaced the greedy. Ofcourse we have all witnessed the utter hypocracy and stupidity that is Communism. The simple reality is whoever is at the top gets greedy and segregates themselves from the ones who put them there, this is as true for the conservatives at it is for Labour. The good news is after a while we get to get rid of each others pigs.
even those rightward leaning individuals.
However this is not a matter or mantra only for the left.
The only difference is the method of delivery of the ideals.
"If you read point one alongside point three, which demands that our ‘creative faculties’ be unfettered, you can see the socialist view of human nature: that human beings contain almost limitless amounts of creativity, imagination, decency, altruism and love, but inhuman social systems drive people into venal competition, soul-destroying work, ugly buildings and dangerous streets."
What does the above mean? I am really confused! Who has suddenly given socialism the monopoly on all that is good, creative, decent, imaginative, and altruistic.
Arguably socialism is even more restricting to the individual than free market economics, in fact by definition the latter
frees up everything, but only on the premise that one can actually afford it
(this is true no matter what ideology is being imposed, socialism will however limit the wealth of the individual via re-distribution). Whereas
Orwell, was totally unforgiving about the excesses of socialism, although he understood the
requirements of social democracy and the need to create a level playing field, I believe that socialism wouldnt have
been his tool of choice.
Whereby "The Road to Wigan Pier" gave a damning indictment of the living standards and exploitation of the poor of the day,
"Animal Farm" and "1984" were both damning of the purist/socialist model. This is of course against a background of
Soviet Socialism rather than todays version which would have been unrecognisable to Orwell.
I disagree with the drawing of a parallel necessarily with Purnells idea. You must remember that Governemnt will "interfere" a great deal in assessing our "capability" and I would love to know how they will (if they will even bother, which I doubt) measure our creative capability as i don't even think that is possible.
Purnells ideas are very dangerous and marry well with the ID card scheme where huge amounts of information will be accessable by the government (who will also sell some to the private sector). No government can measure a persons capability as our capabilities change with time along with some of our values.
However I have no doubt the government using such a language will be more than happy to tell us wwhat are capabilities are when sending us all off to a factory and preventing us from advancing ourselves becaue whenever our ID card is referenced we will not be measured as capable enough to do so.
Scary stuff and I try not to think about it. I bet George Orwell could have written a blinder of a book on it, but then he was a creative expert and our Purnell is a walking, talking immoral right wing moron in comparison. But hey lets not compare silk to cotton.