/lit/ - Literature

>meet the new boss, same as the old boss
What did he mean by this?

>being against totalitarianism
>being for socialism

Doesn't compute.

>>10288283

Totalitarianism did look pretty bad back in his day, though, because it was enforced through fear and violence. It's only today you can envision a totalitarian government most people would be willing to support even without any underlying war or crisis, and it's ironically much more similar to Huxley's ideas than to Orwell's.

>>10288341
>being a brainlet

>>10288341
>socialism=totalitarianism
What a nuanced and complex mind you have.

>>10288283
>totalitarianism
>bad

>>10288479

Forcing people to produce for the public good is by definition authoritarian.

>totalitarianism is bad
>better lean towards monarchy in my latter years
>oh and send a list of suspected homosexuals and socialists to the government

>>10288508
You've never read Marx

>>10288508
What about the kind of socialism where I sit on my ass and take?
Or the one where I only consume what I produce?
Or the normal kind that just advocates for workers owning the enterprises they are employed by?
There are different kinds, just like anarchism and the rest. Not all of them are totalitarian. I just trying to keep this thread honest.

>>10288351
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>10288508
Oh yeah, and you've never read Marx.

>>10288516
>oh and send a list of suspected homosexuals and socialists to the government

clearly you don't know anything about Orwell

>>10288527
>Or the normal kind that just advocates for workers owning the enterprises they are employed by?

Why should someone who makes sandwiches at subway own the company when they don't provide any of the materials, any of the advertising, any of the technology, or any of the food? There is no logical reason why they should own anything about the company

>>10288531
Hes saying we live under totalitarianism.

>>10288536
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list

you're genuinely pants on head retarded
you should probably only comment on subjects you understand

>>10288564
>links wikipedia
aren't you a dense one?

"Orwell named no names and disclosed no identities. The papers show quite clearly that he gave only his opinion, and only that about people already in public life. Furthermore, they show that he gave it only to a woman whom he regarded as a trusted friend and to whom he had once proposed marriage. Finally, he said no more in “private” than he had long been saying in public."

>>10288545
The sandwich maker produces the money for all that stuff. The reasoning is he should be in a position where he owns a share of the decision making capacity of that which he helped produce. That way he will not outsource his own job, replace himself with a machine, lower his wages or benefits below what is reasonable. It's more of a corrective to the potential faults of a capitalist system rather than its own stand alone system. Although I realize this would kill the free market.

I'm just explaining socialism to you bud, not that I'm a socialist. I'm just doing a public service, so don't get cunty.

>>10288564
>>10288516
besides that, would you specify what you mean by "latter years"? ..as he died of tuberculosis

>>10288579
>Orwell named no names and disclosed no identities. The papers show quite clearly that he gave only his opinion, and only that about people already in public life.
>Orwell named no names
>only that about people already in public life
>Orwell named no names
>only named people in public life
>named no names
>only named public names
wew
keep defending cryptofascist high-school reading you insufferable moron

>>10288351
I don't know why redditors still feel the need to regurgitate this

>>10288606
how insufferable are you? "named no names" as in, did not name any names to be reported to any goverment agency
he played a game with his friends, where they would guess who would be the first to capitulate to either the goverment or the soviet union, which is why the list exists
when he was dying, the I.R.D. sent a friend of Orwell - Celia Kirwan - to him to fetch the required information

now fuck off to your wikipedia pages

>>10288531

I'm talking about the totalitarian state you live in

>>10288606
Two plus two is five comrade, get with the program

>>10288593
>Will not be replaced by a machine
So socialists are luddites?

>>10288631
>writes a novel about a Totalitarian government who specifically finds the protagonists personal journal
>But lol I'll play a """game""" IRL where I make a purge list because what could go wrong

I know Orwell is a hack but he wasn't fucking retarded, how can you believe this shit

>>10288649
it is not a matter of believing or not, it is fact.
read a book
anyhow, return to your daily dose of wikipedia (which is even wrong regarding the publishing date of the list; it was published in 1980 in Bernard Crick’s biography)

>>10288641
No. Not necessarily. It would be up to the workers to decide if they wanted to invest in technology which they probably would being that they're going to make decisions that benefit the overall enterprise.

>>10288665
>it is fact.
Because someone claimed it?
Orwell sold people out and this is just flimsy damage control, you're just believing a tall story about a coincidental game because you'd prefer to believe it

>>10288697
..just as someone else claimed he did the opposite thing? again, are those cogs rotating properly? surely you can think of a better defense buddy
but yes, it is substantiated by reputable people that either knew orwell, or know a great deal about orwell (like crick). alas, though, you'll have to read a book, which isn't quite suited for you

>>10288710
My friend you can assert your narrative all you like but to claim as though it is credible on the basis you've laid out is laughable.
If you've done so much reading yourself feel free to actually lay out some account instead of just talking shit about some arcane knowledge that proves you're not a looner

>>10288593

But the difference is that there is no practical reason why the person making a sandwhich should have a say. Everything would go slower that way, and if the goal is to satisfy customers, then having such involvement from such a simple laborer would very much slow the process and distract from the process of delivering what the customer wants.

>>10288858
He's probably a nigger too

>>10288807
Get a load of this twat.

Literally read one of the collections of his diaries, he alludes to it. Pretty much every biography of the guy talk about it (yeah, they are all biased toward him, obviously) and even Christopher Hitchens little polemic on Orwell talks about it in the context of Orwell's later work and thinking.

Literally read anything other than Nineteen Eighty-Four, pleb, and get your book on.

>>10288283
Gonna say no beuno.
Any society that has the potential to destroy social mobility is in itself going to lose people to cultures that do.
I'd rather be able to roll up my sleeves and make something of myself than not be able to at all and have the government decide everything.

>>10288872
I could do that but I really don't give a shit enough about this hack sci-fi writer to go into such an investigation. Until then all I have is your word against the situation as it stands. The impetus is not on me to take your word for it just because you would like me to

>>10288807
stick to your frogs mate

>>10288879
>mate
Oi crikey dingos

>>10288878
I'm not that other anon, anon. I literally couldn't give care less what you think. The cold hard truth of things is you are wrong, admit it and fuck off.

>>10288858
It's just a different model of management. You can have a board of directors who are undemoractically chosen by private share holders make the decision of how to satisfy customers. Or you can have a board composed of democratically elected employees make that decision. I don't see how speed or efficiency are effected from that change. The difference is how the profit will be spent.

>>10288905
>admit it

Why the fuck would I "admit" something I have all of zero evidence to believe

>>10288908
>I don't see how speed or efficiency are effected from that change

Well you go from intelligent white men selecting the board to stupid niggers and spics

>>10288911

>This is how plebs actually think
You've been told where you can get the evidence for yourself and refuse to do it.

>>10288920
>if you read this book you'll come to the exact same conclusion as me
>I can't explain why or quote from it but I'm super sure about this

>>10288925
Like I said, anon, you don't need to believe what other people say, nor do you need to read what other people tell you to. Your ignorance is all your own.

>>10288930
Unless of course my interpretation thus far is correct and you're only asking me to waste my time toward a forlorn conclusion

>>10288934
You'll never know unless you find out. And you'll never know because you'll not find out. So maybe I've been trolling your ass this entire time? Who knows?

Not you. Obviously.

>>10288938
In the meantime the record stands that Orwell was a hypocritical coward and a traitor to his friends

>>10288943
Proof that's the record there buddy?

>>10288948
Read a book, its right there in his most recent biography

>>10288950
Quote it.

>>10288955
Not doing your work for you, go read it yourself or accept your ignorance

>>10288960
Then the record stands that he did not.

>>10288536
>>10288564
>>10288579
>>10288606
>>10288631
>>10288649
>>10288665
>>10288697
>>10288710
>>10288807
>>10288872
>>10288878
>>10288905
>>10288911
>>10288920
>>10288925
>>10288930
>>10288934
>>10288938
>>10288943
>>10288948
>>10288950
>>10288955
>>10288960
>>10288965

>>10288916
Well, that's one on the main differences between right and left thought for sure. And the idea of race is so important to you that you're willing to bet everything on it. Good luck, hope that works out for us all.

>>10288981
He started it

>>10288983
What that guy meant is having the company run by some labourer who doesn't know about management vs. hiring someone trained and educated in managing the company to the highest efficiency and profit is a terrible idea. Sure it would be more fair but in the end less money would be made and the initial labourer would have less money at the price of more supposed control.

>>10289113
No I meant Niggers are inferior, don't put words into my mouth

>>10289291
Compelling argument faggot. I was giving your argument merit other than reee niggers. Believe me I hate them too but it ain't gonna convince this guy.

always found it bizarre that trotskyist propaganda got memed into every english class in the united states

>>10289303
>I hate them too
gotcha

>>10288516
what a fucking hero, holy shit. I knew there was a reason I liked him despite knowing he was a commie retard, guess it wasn't permanent

>>10289303
>Compelling argument

Its pretty hard to argue with desu

>>10288517
>>10288533
commies and commie sympathizers get the axe faggots