"Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics."
Review of The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek & The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus, reviewed in The Observer (1944-04-09.
Emphasis mine. Orwell might have known his stuff about fascism, but his economics knowledge is nil.
One can easilly spot gaps in Orwell's economic knowledge when reading "1984". However, that was still a damn fine book!
So what? Nineteen Eighty - Four is still a wonderful book. Although, his Homage to Catalonia is better.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I think the fact that Orwell identified himself as a social democrat says enough about his understanding of capitalism.
"dole queues"
I think he was right. Capitalism leads to lines for the bananas. As demonstrated here.
xSFx: "Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics." Review of The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek & The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus, reviewed in The Observer (1944-04-09. Emphasis mine. Orwell might have known his stuff about fascism, but his economics knowledge is nil.
I posted about this previously, it can be found here:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/4788/64067.aspx#64067
While I still like Orwell's novels, particularly 1984, Animal Farm, and Burmese Days after researching into his asburd paradoxes I realize that he wasn't a staunch defender of freedom as many claim him to be.
In liberty,
Chris
Chris:While I still like Orwell's novels, particularly 1984, Animal Farm, and Burmese Days after researching into his asburd paradoxes I realize that he wasn't a staunch defender of freedom as many claim him to be.
Now, you won't often find me defending statists, but George Orwell is, in my opinion, a worthy cause.
To begin with at some point in high life he identified himself as an anarchist, or at least sympathised with them. Granted, he was never a capitalist, but that's besides the point. It's silly to claim that he's not a defender of freedom, he did have a very limited of economics but to my knowledge he never deeply ventured into economics, so he can be forgiven. So it's going a bit far to say that he's not a defender of freedom, he merely had a flawed conception of what freedom was, and he can be forgiven.
Even if you don't accept this, he was a good novelist and if more people realized that 1984 isn't so much of a warning as it a picture of today then we'd be far better off. 1984 is a great novel and it has taught a good deal many people about the nature of government even if they don't fully understand the message. I say I owe my being a libertarian to Ron Paul, but it was Orwell who first made me a realise a good deal many things.
George Orwell was a Socialist...I thought people knew this.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man: George Orwell was a Socialist...I thought people knew this.
And in some aspects, so was Mises. What's your point?
Explain those aspects.
Laughing Man: Explain those aspects.
What do you think minarchism is? Socialized defense and arbitration.
Which one of his works does he advocate such measure?
Laughing Man: Which one of his works does he advocate such measure?
Liberalism, for one.
Page number?
Laughing Man: Page number?
What, you want me to spoon feed you? Go be a big boy and find out for yourself.
You made a statement that he followed two tenets of Socialism in a sense. If you are affirmed in such a theory then why can't you show where you learned it from? Is it asking too much to have you back up your statements with factual referencing?
If you have a chapter, I'll take that.
Laughing Man:Which one of his works does he advocate such measure?
Well, in Human Action, he advocates conscription for defense against an invading nation, I think.
Schools are labour camps.
And he is talking about governmental conscription? Or just people banding together out of free-will and common cause?
Laughing Man: Page number? And he is talking about governmental conscription? Or just people banding together out of free-will and common cause?
1. By conscription, I imply one person using force to get another to provide defense at the first person's terms. This is not free will. And, yes, this is conscription from a minarchist state.
2. Page number, anyone?
It has just been quoted in another thread, and it is clearly from a minarchist point of view.
Mises was quite clearly a minarchist.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap