/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13148833]

Was this book just anti-fascist propaganda?

[Anonymous No.13148858]

I wouldn't call it propaganda because many authors inject some sort of political message into their works.

[Anonymous No.13148967]

>>13148833
I remember reading this when I was an anarchist and being really butthurt about how he lionized the communists and made the anarchists look like buffoons. Also, how Hemingway himself went to Spain as a journalist while Orwell went to fight, despite Hemingway's supposed manliness.

[Anonymous No.13148990]

>>13148967
The communists were bourgeois sympathisers and took orders from the USSR to suppress the revolution. The Anarchists were the only ones actually sticking to their principles of overthrowing the bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.13149020]

>>13148858
It's more than just a political bias though it really feels like they want to stir you up against the fascists. He also doesn't go in depth on any political beliefs of each side, it's just republicans/communists = good and fascists = bad. Every passage feels like he's trying to encourage me as an American to fight fascism without educating me at all.

[Anonymous No.13149040]

>>13148990
Yeah nowadays I am not fond of either but the anarchists seem more committed to their ideals at least. They weren't the an arm of an alien country's foreign policy apparatus, at least. Still they were all allied with republicans who are the epitome of bourgeois ideology.

>>13149020
I don't think Hemingway had very clear political ideals at all. Him educating any one would be most unhelpful.

[Anonymous No.13149044]

>work of fiction: *exists*
>American readers: Is this propaganda?
Why are you faggots like this?

[Anonymous No.13149046]

>>13148967
Hemingway was really active in using his reputation and persona to hopefully sell more books. He definitely had a thing with masculinity and was into traditionally masculine pursuits but he did not live as macho a lifestyle as the story has it. He never really fought in any war, he was just an ambulance driver who happened to get hurt on the job. He was just a very gifted and handsome guy who did a good job at playing the original man.

[Anonymous No.13149052]

>>13148967
What does Orwell have to do with this?

[Anonymous No.13149067]

>>13149040
No the communists and republicans created an alliance and then destroyed the anarchists.
I think it was Chomsky who said this was the most revealing episode of the 20th century. Probably correct, at least in terms of politics.

[Anonymous No.13149073]

>>13149052
Because Orwell fought in the Spanish revolution for the Anarchists against the Fascists. Read Homage to Catalonia.

[Anonymous No.13149083]

>>13149052
Well, he also wrote a book about the Spanish civil war and he also felt strongly about it. However, he put his money where his mouth was. Also his book is much more interesting. It is not absurd to contrast them.

>>13149067
>No the communists and republicans created an alliance and then destroyed the anarchists.
Okay, but before this all were allied against the Nationalists.

>>13149073
He fought with the Troskyites, read homage to catalonia.

[Anonymous No.13149088]

>>13149044
It's mostly just here. But yeah, Mutts are kinda cretinous as a mass.

[Anonymous No.13149101]

>>13149073
I kinda find the Fascist etiquette to be wrong when applied to Franco. He was mostly just the long arm of the church and the conservatives. He was nowhere near Benito or a venomous cunt like Quisling in most things.

[Anonymous No.13149114]

>>13149083
He fought for the P.O.U.M, who were the Anarchists. I have no idea why you're trying to one-up me; the Anarchists were the Trotskyists.

[Anonymous No.13149161]

>>13149114
The anarchists were the CNT. The POUM were trotskyites.. Trotskyites are trotskyites. Orwell even says in Homage he would have preferred to join the anarchists. I am not trying to one up you I just think that facts are important.

[Anonymous No.13149179]

>Fascism good

[Anonymous No.13149342]

>>13149044
Three words: Culture War & Polarization. Since the sixties we've progressively gotten more and more divided in regard to liberal and conservative politics, and being that we americans are very individualistic, this of course turns everything today into political a shit show. It's great.

[Anonymous No.13149854]

>>13149044
>clearly anti fascist book published in 1939
>BUT ITS A BOOK YOU DUMB MURICAN

[Anonymous No.13149881]

>>13149854
Political opinion =/= propaganda

[Anonymous No.13149903]

>>13149881
There were no opinions expressed in the book.

[Anonymous No.13149914]

>>13149881
Not to mention the fact that propaganda doesn't have to be deceitful or contain any lies at all, it merely needs to drive a certain perspective.

[Anonymous No.13149931]

>>13149914
>Everything is muh propaganda.
Quite bizarre worldview burgers have.

[Anonymous No.13149936]

>>13149052
He wrote a somewhat similar and superior book about the war.

[Anonymous No.13149945]

>>13149931
>information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Retard. By definition it's propaganda

[Anonymous No.13149953]

>>13148833
Whats wrong with anti-fascism?

[Anonymous No.13149977]

>>13149945
My bad, bugerboi. It has another, non-pejorative connotation in my language.

[Anonymous No.13149999]

>>13149931
I was making the opposite point, dum-dum. I was stating that even if it is propaganda, it wouldn't necessarily make the description any less accurate or correct.
And I'm not a burger.

[Anonymous No.13150040]

>>13149914
And the perspective of this book is fucking heinous. They wanted small town american boys who had disagreements with their fathers but looked up to their veteran grandfathers (who of course they don't agree with the politics of) to come be a chad in world war 2 and get themselves a raped slut who wants to marry them, and they wanted them to be willing to put their lives on the line to do it. Someone suggest an alternative message because that's what I read.

[Anonymous No.13150085]

>>13150040
what's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.13150208]

>>13150085
Who said anything about right and wrong? It's just a bias and it seems a lot like propaganda. The story is a meaningless scenario just used as a platform to deliver the message. There's not so much as an insight into what each side believes, the fascists are just made out to be buffoons while the republican peasants are honorable.

[Anonymous No.13150219]

>>13150208
Meant to say rich buffoons

[Anonymous No.13150230]

>>13150208
>"And the perspective of this book is fucking heinous."
>"Who said anything about right and wrong?"
heinous (adjective): (of a person or wrongful act, especially a crime) utterly odious or wicked.

[Anonymous No.13150231]

>>13149101
Correct, he was a dictator but that doesn't make him a fascist. He purged the fascists from his coalition after the war.

[Anonymous No.13150250]

>>13150230
K you're right I think encouraging fighting for no reason is wrong.

[Anonymous No.13150259]

>>13150231
Franco wanted state controlled credit but still capitalism so he was probably a bigger enemy than most fascists.

[Anonymous No.13150288]

>>13149101
>>13150231
>>13150259
He was your run of the mill national conservative. Better than liberal conservatives, but not anywhere near as radical or interesting as Italian fascism and Iberian national-syndicalism

[Anonymous No.13150533]

>>13149083
Because the outside intervention of the Soviets ended that alliance immediately. Only anti-Soviet communists and anarchists rejected it, and this disproves what you say about an alliance.
It's incredibly important, and your tossing it aside shows that you have no clue of the extent of what occurred.

[Anonymous No.13150687]

The book is about Robert Jordan thinking "Never ever let them see you sweat".

[Anonymous No.13150715]

>>13149073
He was a pinko, friend.

[Anonymous No.13151008]

well....answer me...... Whompst does the bell tole for?

[Anonymous No.13151100]

>>13148990
>>13149067
The anarchists, even if we ignore the fact that they completely betrayed all their supposedly inviolable principles the second the reality of their situation demanded it (exactly as they should've done, and exactly as Marxists have known to be necessary) were shit at fighting. They were too busy trying to test out their high-wrought ideas - mostly behind the front lines - that couldn't survive contact with a wartime situation. And simultaneously calling everyone they were supposedly allied with traitors and liberals, while crying that they didn't get the best pick of Soviet arms. It's telling that after the war the PCE led and formed the backbone of the guerrilla resistance to Franco for decades, while the anarchists mostly melted away. Paul Preston summarises a lot of this sort of criticism in a review of Orwell's book - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/george-orwell-homage-to-catalonia-account-spanish-civil-war-wrong