Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
23Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
George Orwell - Anti-communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer

George Orwell - Anti-communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,435|Likes:
Published by Communist Party
“What attracted the bourgeoisie to this third-rate writer
was not his pretended support for the ideals of the October Revolution,
but his real driving hatred for the ideals of communism”
"Refute the slanders contained in Orwell's work, arm young people with the
knowledge to defend the Soviet Union both in and out of the classroom"
“What attracted the bourgeoisie to this third-rate writer
was not his pretended support for the ideals of the October Revolution,
but his real driving hatred for the ideals of communism”
"Refute the slanders contained in Orwell's work, arm young people with the
knowledge to defend the Soviet Union both in and out of the classroom"

More info:

Categories:Types, Brochures
Published by: Communist Party on Sep 15, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
George OrwellAnti-communist Propagandist,Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer
by Joti Brar“What attracted the bourgeoisie to this third-rate writerwas not his pretended support for the ideals of the October Revolution,but his real driving hatred for the ideals of communism”"Refute the slanders contained in Orwell's work, arm young people with theknowledge to defend the Soviet Union both in and out of the classroom"Political Bias In Education The Orwell MythOrwell the State Informer 
Since the publication of 
 Animal Farm
in 1945, the work of George Orwell has had a permanent place on the school curriculum. He has been much praised as a literary genius, asone who combines talent with principles and continues the great ironic tradition of Swift andothers. This is belied, however, by the boredom felt by students who come to a work like
 Animal Farm
with no idea about the events it purports to be based on. Although it is muchvaunted as a great work of art; a story that stands on its own as a fable about totalitarianismin general, examination questions all refer to the events of the Russian Revolution, and “anability to regurgitate the equations of a Cold War wisdom is taken for granted in mostexams.” (
Examining Orwell: Political and Literary Values in Education
, Alan Brown;
 Inside the Myth
, ed. Christopher Norris: London, p.48)Stephen Sedley points out that the story works only if the reader understands and agrees withthe conclusions Orwell is trying to demonstrate
before
starting the novel:
 
“Orwell's lineage from Swift is frequently spoken of. In background and personality thereare similarities. . . but not in
 Animal Farm
. It is not only that Swift has humour as well as passion, which Orwell does not. . . you cannot get into the fiction of 
 Animal Farm
at allwithout accepting as your starting point the very thing that Orwell has to prove - that in politics people are no better than animals: their traditional rulers may be feckless butungovern them and a new tyranny will fill the place of the old. Naturally if you are preparedto accept that conclusion as your premiss, the story follows. You can demonstrate that theearth is flat by a similar process”. (
 An Immodest Proposal 
, Stephen Sedley;
 Inside the Myth
,ed. Christopher Norris: London, p156)Orwell has been widely published, in fact,
in spite of 
the lack of artistic merit in his work, precisely because he fulfils such a useful political purpose for imperialism. FollowingTrotsky's model of pretending to defend the October Revolution, Orwell protests at thecorruption of communism's ideals in the Soviet Union by Stalin. Thus millions of peoplearound the world remain ignorant of the actual developments in the USSR, since“Having read anti-communist trash such as
 Animal Farm
, they feel sufficiently well-equipped to become experts on the former USSR and to pontificate about the degeneration of the ideals of the Russian Revolution from every platform, and through every medium provided to them courtesy of the imperialist bourgeoisie”. (
 Lalkar 
, September/October 1996)Political Bias In EducationMany study guides have been written with the intention of showing students exactly what itis they are supposed to think about the story, and consequently how to write model answersin their exams. These guides are far more candid than Orwell himself was about the anti-communist content of his work.Contained in the latest edition of 
York Notes
on
 Animal Farm
is a succinct, bullet-pointedhistory of the Soviet Union, written without any untidy reference to the real thing anddesigned to fit neatly with Orwell's version of events, as presented in
 Animal Farm
. It isinteresting to note that in 1997, the anti-communist nature of Orwell's work is stressed over all else, far more than was the case 20 years ago. Older study guides are more apologetic,asking the reader not to take too literally the parallels with Soviet history. Obviouslyembarrassed by the blatant lies and unfounded allegations, they ask the reader to read thestory as a fable about dictatorships `in general'. In part, this may be due to the fact that thegeneration who lived through the War has become far remote from the classroom, but in themain, we can attribute this to the fact that, whatever the claims of the bourgeoisie, Cold War or no Cold War, the threat to imperialism that communism poses is greater than ever.It is worth examining the text of this latest study guide, since it makes no bones about thereal purpose of Orwell's novel, and the warped version of history that he wanted to spreadamong the workers:“Communism was strongly influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx who believed that lifecould be explained in economic and social terms. The rich
capitalist 
class exploited thelower 
 proletariat 
. . . and this situation could only be reversed by revolution. Many of Marx'sideas lie behind Major's speech in Chapter I”. (
York Notes, Animal Farm
, Wanda Opalinska:1997, London, p.12)The slant in the writing leaves no room for question. The science of Marxism is described asan `idea', ie. something fabricated out of Marx's head with no particular reference to, or proof from, the concrete world. It is noticeable that the use of the past tense is designed to give the
 
impression that capitalism no longer acts in this way.“The Communist Party under the leadership of Lenin rose and took power.“After the Revolution, Trotsky and Lenin established a communist society in the SovietUnion. . . All property, wealth and work was meant to be divided equally between allindividuals” (
ibid.
, p.12).Having said that Lenin led the Revolution, Opalinska is quick to bring Trotsky onto thescene as an equal partner in leadership. This serves a triple purpose:1) the names of Trotsky and Lenin are linked in a casual and natural way, as if they were of one mind and purpose - a linkage which is repeated at every opportunity throughout the bourgeois press and the education system, so that it becomes inculcated in the minds of allwithout the necessity of ever having to find out from a reliable source;2) it leads quite naturally to the belief that Trotsky must have been the `next in line' to theleadership of the Bolshevik party - the idea of `succession' coming far easier to most bourgeois students than that of proletarian democracy;3) by omitting his name, it denies Stalin any role in the Revolution or its immediateaftermath. By leaving out Lenin from the events of the Russian Revolution, Orwell is able togive credit for all Lenin's achievements and leadership to Trotsky, adding credence to theidea that it is Trotsky, rather than Stalin, who is the defender of Leninism.Along with this is the statement that a communist society was established straight after theRevolution. Any cursory study of Marxism will show that Communism, which can bedefined according to the maxim, `from each according to his ability, to each according to hisneed', is not possible until the lower stage of Socialism has first been accomplished, in whichthe state administers the bourgeois right `from each according to his ability, to eachaccording to his work'. The Soviet Union succeeded in building the lower stage, but even thisdid not begin to take place until after 1928, when the New Economic Policy was abolished,and with it hostile, exploiting classes within society. Opalinska casts aspersions on thequality of this “communism” by then asserting that “property was meant to be divided”, aninsidious phrase, directed at nothing in particular, since no Communist would ever aver that“communism was established” overnight, or that property was divided equally the day after the Revolution. Nor is it the aim of communism to divide property. The Revolution's aim isto establish common ownership of the whole, not individual ownership of tiny parts. Thereader, however, is supposed to glean from this that communism was established, but it wasalready quite rotten, since although property and work were supposed to be divided, in fact,they were not.“After Lenin's death a struggle for power took place between Trotsky andStalin. Trotsky, although favoured by Lenin, was ousted by Stalin who tried to remove alltrace of him - even removing Trotsky's image from certain photographs”. (
ibid.
, p.12)One is no longer surprised at the lack of substantiation offered for this staggering assertion, but it is interesting to note the continued stress on the idea of succession over democracy, nomention being made of the facts that:1) Lenin and Trotsky were in bitterest opposition for almost their entire careers, not only before, but also after, the Revolution. After 1917, Trotsky and Lenin were in constantconflict over the question of the prospects for socialist construction, the question of tradeunions, the question of war and peace and questions of party unity and discipline, all withtheir grave implications on the maintenance of the proletarian dictatorship in the USSR. The

Activity (23)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Jeongsik Bang liked this
Timothy Michael liked this
Joanne Cey liked this
cucurbitulae liked this
longlivekke liked this
Alec Weinstein liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->