A decade of
political chaos shaped George Orwell's vision of a totalitarian future, writes David Aaronovitch.
I was brought up in
a house full of books, none of them by George Orwell.
Simone de Beauvoir
was there, as was Sartre and Aldous Huxley and even Lenin. The last is actually
a clue as to the absence of the first.
My parents were
Communists. To them Orwell was on the other side of politics - someone whose
principal writings were hostile to them and what they wanted to achieve.
This suspicious
animosity had lasted beyond the death of Orwell and the demise of Stalin, and
into the period when British Communists, by and large, now held the same view
of the Soviet Union under Uncle Joe that Orwell had held and that had motivated
him to write both Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Their problem was, I
now think, made acute by the way in which these two great books - and Nineteen
Eighty-Four in particular - had become major weapons in the ideological war
between left and right.
This use of Nineteen
Eighty-Four, and its contradiction to Orwell's own long-stated support for some
kind of socialism, needed explaining.
How had it come
about that the targets in Nineteen Eighty-Four were English socialists and
their nightmare totalitarian state? After all, Orwell was in charge of naming
his own inventions and could have easily decided on names and characteristics
that were friendlier to the political tendencies that he claimed to favour.
For years the
question of Orwell's intentions in Nineteen Eighty-Four has caused great debate.
With a few
exceptions on the far left, every political tendency has wanted to claim him.
So there has been a well-established and heartfelt desire on the more moderate
left to claim that Orwell was indeed a genuine socialist whose warning was
aimed at totalitarianism in general, not at the left per se.
The right, of
course, have had the easier task of suggesting that Orwell was writing about
what he appeared to be writing about. It seems to me that the right probably
has the better argument.
Nineteen Eighty-Four
was published in 1949, but Orwell was first set on the road to it at least 12
years earlier when he was fighting Franco's insurgents in Spain as a member of
a left-wing, but non-Stalinist militia, the Workers' Party of Marxist
Unification (POUM).
Orwell had gone to
Spain to fight Francoist fascism, but found himself face-to-face with another
form of totalitarianism. The pro-Stalin communist forces in Spain turned on the
POUM, branding them Trotskyist traitors.
Back home no one
wanted to know about his experiences. Even non-communist left-wingers,
including the publisher Victor Gollancz and the New Statesman editor Kingsley
Martin, were reluctant to publish his accounts of what had happened, for fear
of harming the overall cause of anti-fascism.
Orwell's opposition
to totalitarianism, of left and right alike, was toughened up by his
association with the novelist Arthur Koestler, a communist who had been
imprisoned under threat of execution by the fascists in Spain.
Koestler later
escaped to England where he published his novel, Darkness at Noon, in 1940.
This bleak story of
an old Bolshevik who confesses to crimes he has not committed and is shot by
the Soviet authorities, was to have a profound influence on Orwell.
His many book
reviews also reveal much about his political influences, but one name, James
Burnham, stands out.
An ex-communist,
Burnham's 1941 book, The Managerial Revolution, filled Orwell with both horror
and fascination.
In the book, he
found two of the crucial elements of his novel: a world ruled by three
super-states, and the idea that the overlords of the future would not be
demagogues or democrats, but managers and bureaucrats.
Two events were to
bring Burnham's dark prophecy to some kind of fruition. First, in 1943, at the
Tehran Conference, Marshal Stalin, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister
Churchill met to discuss the world after the war.
Orwell saw the
beginnings of a Burnham-style carve-up of the globe into superpowers and told
friends that this was what initially set him going on the novel.
Less than two years
later, the Americans dropped atom bombs on Japan. In an essay for Tribune
magazine called You and the Atomic Bomb, Orwell argued that the A-Bomb
threatened to bring into being Burnham's world of super states governed by
totalitarian hierarchies of managers.
It's often missed
that Nineteen Eighty-Four is set a few decades after an atomic war. The
managers administering the book's three super states, Oceania, Eurasia and
Eastasia, have tacitly agreed not to try to destroy each other but to continue
forever in a kind of cold war.
Indeed, it was
Orwell who coined the phrase "cold war" in that 1945 essay.
In his view of
things, totalitarianism was not merely a theoretical threat from a fictional
future. The urgency of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and of much of Orwell's wartime
and post-war writing, springs clearly from his sense that totalitarianism was
already proving dangerously attractive to many on the left, not least
intellectuals..
But what I think we
can see is that, with fascist totalitarianism utterly defeated in WWII, Orwell
found himself one of the relatively few people prepared to agitate against the
left-totalitarianism of our erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union.
When Animal Farm was
published, and when Nineteen Eighty-Four was being conceptualised and then
written, Orwell's overwhelming preoccupation was to warn against Stalinism and
its onward march.
We may speculate
what Orwell might have thought had he lived to see Stalin dead, Joe McCarthy in
his pomp, to have witnessed the Khrushchev speech denouncing Stalin to the 20th
Party Congress in 1956, decolonisation, or a succession of Conservative
governments led by men like Eden, whom Orwell appeared to despise.
Perhaps a new book
would have been written to give succour to the real socialists of the world.
And maybe my parents
would have allowed that one on to their shelves, somewhere between Alex Comfort
and Virginia Woolf.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21337504
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario