Loading... Please wait...

George Orwell, channa massala and socialism

Orwell CrickBy 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 I came across 49 words written by George Orwell, but unpublished in his lifetime, which express perfectly what Labour should be all about.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.

24 Comments · Show / Hide
Leave a comment »   show trash comments ·
I for one, am not ashamed to call myself a Social Democrat. We mustn't let the Gang of Four's use of the name to take away the rich inheritance it has given Labour over the years
Paul Burgin @ 57 weeks and 5 days ago
Genius. The arguments for the rights of the individual without state interference, and yet the moral right for the state to protect the vulnerable without any contradiction. This touches the heart of Social Democratic thinking
Paul Burgin @ 57 weeks and 5 days ago
I was a little older than Paul Richards, when I bought this book and I still am!

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".
Alan Griffiths @ 58 weeks ago
Ever heard of spelling Nazis? I think Orwell would have disapproved
Peter Jukes @ 58 weeks and 2 days ago
Just corrected my typo. Thanks
Peter Jukes @ 58 weeks and 2 days ago
Blah blah blah. More libertarian orthodoxy. I think Orwell would have a field day with this unthinking claptrap....

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.
Peter Jukes @ 58 weeks and 2 days ago
In some cases the language is completely distrusted due to either it's double meaning and potential implications or it's clumsy lack of depth.
Ralph Baldwin @ 58 weeks and 2 days ago
Economy of language, directness ... and getting the (bleep)message right.

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.

Patrick Casey @ 58 weeks and 2 days ago
At yet the Labour party is as authoritarian as it always was. To ensure people are equal you must have a great deal of knowledge of them and control over them. They are the logical ends of socialism. there is no getting around it. So we have ID cards, endless CCTV, DNA databases etc.. Peaceful protest is disliked and ignored.

You have seen Orwell's peripheral points and forgotten his main teachings.
Thomas Snoxell @ 58 weeks and 2 days ago
I agree. I love his defence of individual freedom, so while I'm loath to be constantly called a 'socialist', if that puts me in the same company as George I don't mind.
Peter Jukes @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
I, too, am not too impressed by brands. The majority of the general public, however, is.

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.
Max Sceptic @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
Max. I'm not much into brands, and to understand Democratic Socialism as Orwell intended, perhaps you should read him.
Peter Jukes @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
Mike. Please read comments before making distinctions I've already made. Of course social democrats and democratic socialists are two completely different camps in Labour Party history. And who has ignored what Orwell said about the Soviet Union? Homage to Catalonia is, along with Darkness of Noon, perhaps the most prescient and telling insight into Stalinism.

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
Peter Jukes @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
In Crick's book, at lengthy explanation, Crick surmised Orwell was a Tribunite Socialist in his political beliefs. Crick's analysis has endured for many years; few have disagreed.

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..”
Mike Thomas @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
As the 'brand' socialism is obviously - and one would argue, irretrievably - tainted. Perhaps good 'democratic socialists' should ditch the socialist moniker and place some clear pink water between them and those that espouse the collective above the individual.

Or have I misunderstood the meaning of democratic socialism?
Max Sceptic @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
Tell that to Orwell, and millions like him, who have followed these ideas for decades. As I say in a comment above, the unqualified 'socialist' label on its own is just an attempt to mislead. From the left of the Labour Party, Orwell described himself as 'democratic socialist' (as different from plain socialist as 'national socialist') while most Labour politicians think of themselves as social democrats.
Peter Jukes @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
Thomas. You're confused because you haven't paid any attention to the history of the Labour Party. Orwell, on the left of the party, did spend a lot of his energies in combating Leninist and centralising tendencies on the British left - hence EngSoc in 1984, and of course the tragedy of Animal Farm.

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.
Peter Jukes @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
I'm confused as to how you can attempt to use Orwell to advocate socialism when his books were a destruction of socialism. You say;

"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."
Thomas Snoxell @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
I am confused as to why you think that these four points (and especially the last one) have anything to do with Socialism?

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.
Max Sceptic @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
I am surprised that you are praising George Orwell,when many people,outside the Labour Party,feel that Brown & Co are using his two most famous works as a guidebook.
Paris Claims @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
I agree Alan to a point. I have seen plenty of right and left governments stifle creativity. That is a matter of history, in my experience the centre point of balancing these focres is the brings out the most. Ironically there have been massive boughts of creativity in difficult times and periods of warfare (through necessity).

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.
Ralph Baldwin @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
Absolutely right, Ralph. This is a surprisingly good post by Paul Richards, sadly undermined by the drawing of parallels between Orwell and James Purnell. Unfortunately, in the context of be-suited New Labour operators, Orwell is wheeled out when people want to illustrate how Left they are. The prose stops being relevant when faced with a decision of any kind or a threat to the control model of politics to which Purnell and Richards have both subscribed.
Carl Rowlands @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
Great ideals, and I dont think that there is anyone who reads these pages who would disagree with you,
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.
Alan M @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
Good idea on your last point, I'll even buy you a drink if any of the Ministers actually understand it.

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.
Ralph Baldwin @ 58 weeks and 3 days ago
-->

Contributors

  1. Alex Smith
  2. Tim Nicholls
  3. Jack Scott
  4. Sunder Katwala
  5. Brian Barder
  6. Sonny Leong
  7. Michael Green
  8. Paul Richards
  9. Chris Cook
  10. Jag Singh
  11. Anthony Painter
  12. Cath Arakelian
  13. Amanjit Jhund
  14. Grace Fletcher-Hackwood
  15. Lewis Goodall
  16. Salome Zourabichvili
  17. Rosie Hucklesby
  18. Sam Tarry
  19. Tom Miller
  20. Jessica Asato
  21. Olly Deed
  22. James Alexander
  23. Fiona Millar
  24. Ellie Levenson
  25. Gabe Trodd
  26. Colin Burgon
  27. Richard Watts
  28. Richard Lane
  29. James Stafford
  30. Mike Katz
  31. Jeremy Corbyn
  32. Mary Honeyball
  33. Byron Taylor
  34. Mark Hanson
  35. Mike Ion
  36. Richard Murphy
  37. Julian Ware-Lane
  38. Wes Streeting
  39. Paul Burgin
  40. Bill Dewison
  41. Hadleigh Roberts
  42. LabourList
  43. Rowenna Davis
  44. Will Straw
  45. Don Paskini
  46. Jennette Arnold
  47. Robbie Erbmann
  48. Martin Tiedemann
  49. Jonathan Isaby
  50. Rebecca Hickman
  51. Hugh Goulbourne
  52. Ed Miliband
  53. Alun Michael
  54. Frances Rehal
  55. David Rodgers
  56. Douglas Alexander
  57. Ed Balls
  58. Louise Ellman
  59. Michael Stephenson
  60. Len Wardle
  61. Greg Rosen
  62. Gareth Thomas
  63. Rachel Reeves
  64. Laurie Penny
  65. Simon Fletcher
  66. VoteRed GoGreen
  67. Tom Watson
  68. Kathryn White
  69. Morys Ireland
  70. Jack Straw
  71. Andrew Lomas
  72. Graeme Cooke
  73. Andrew Neilson
  74. Stuart White
  75. Kathryn Corrick
  76. Ed Williams
  77. Bill Kerry
  78. Gisela Stuart
  79. Shamik Das
  80. Gary Kent
  81. Mathew Hulbert
  82. Gavin Hayes
  83. Rupa Huq
  84. Andrew Pakes
  85. Tom Ogg
  86. James Mills
  87. Dan McCurry
  88. Christine Quigley
  89. Huw Lewis
  90. Marie Birchall
  91. Societarian
  92. Tom Harris
  93. Harriet Yeo
  94. Andy Burnham
  95. Tom Flynn
  96. Theo Blackwell
  97. John Gray
  98. Liam Byrne
  99. Ian Adderley
  100. Paul Afshar
  101. Olivia Bailey
  102. Alex Ross
  103. Duncan Weldon
  104. Tim Cheetham
  105. Kevin Bonavia
  106. James Crabtree
  107. James Valentine
  108. Johanna Baxter
  109. Dan Wilson
  110. Rich Green
  111. Rachel Rowson
  112. James Macintyre
  113. Luciana Berger
  114. Jake Hayman
  115. James Purnell
  116. Sue Regan
  117. John Healey
  118. Mark Spiro
  119. Glenis Willmott
  120. Chris Ostrowski
  121. Andy Slaughter
  122. Hope not Hate
  123. John Prescott
  124. Mark Day
  125. John Hirst
  126. Gary Elsby
  127. Shane Mann
  128. Alastair Campbell
  129. Cherie Booth
  130. Nick Clegg
  131. You - Email us if you want to post!

View all contributors


Latest comments

BlogList


#LabourDoorstep

Update comrades on your campaigning progress at #LabourDoorstep.


LabourList on Twitter

Follow us on Twitter