Designer capitalism

[FBM]

I first read the book umpty-dozen years ago before knowing anything about the author's intent. I recall that, in my first reading, I saw as much criticism of capitalism as of socialism. At the time, I thought Orwell was taking jabs at both equally. Even now, knowing the author's intent, I still read it like that. Neither capitalism nor socialism/communism can delete human nature. We're a mixture of wolves, sheep and people who refuse to play either part.

[.Morticia.]

I first read the book umpty-dozen years ago before knowing anything about the author's intent. I recall that, in my first reading, I saw as much criticism of capitalism as of socialism. At the time, I thought Orwell was taking jabs at both equally. Even now, knowing the author's intent, I still read it like that. Neither capitalism nor socialism/communism can delete human nature. We're a mixture of wolves, sheep and people who refuse to play either part.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS

[.Morticia.]

In every socialist state I've heard of, there are those who are more equal than others and who take much more than their share. Socialism seems best suited to small tribes and villages. I don't see how it'll ever work once the workers and leaders become strangers. Strangers are less equal, and thus, expendable in the face of self-interest. I read a neuroscience report once in which this phenomenon was referred to as "self-valence". It's hard-wired in the brain.

In other words, Orwell was right on target when he wrote "Animal Farm." g

I thought that book was more about how personality, in this case psychopathic personality, is more important in choosing who your comrades are than choosing on ideological purity.

That must be why it was on the list of "Forbidden Books" in the eastern bloc nations and the Soviet Union until 1989.

But, I never heard of your interpretation of the book. I don't personally see the book as having anything to do with how personality is more important in choosing who your comrades are than choosing on ideological purity. I'm not even sure what, exactly, you mean by that. Purges and choice of comrades, cadres and mambers of vanguards within the far left have traditionally ( still are for trotskyists :eyeroll: ) been based on ideological purity, not on personal character.

It seems to me to be a critique of the Russian revolution and a retelling of the events during the development of Soviet Communism for it's first 30 years, and the rise of Stalin. The Farmer is the Czar, who is overthrown by the animals, and then there is a consolidation of power. The pigs (communists) establish themselves as the ruling class. Snowball and Napoleon represent Stalin and Trotsky. <-------------- You mean these two psychopaths? The book itself is an indictment of the hypocrisy beneath the tyranny and despotism of ( machiavellian psychopaths ) Communism, as exemplified by the eroding away of the "Seven Commandments" through logical machinations of Squealor.

It also seems to illustrate the natural tendency of humanity stratify itself into classes. And, it also shows that while classes may appear unified when they have a common enemy, when that enemy is removed (farmer/Czar) the power vacuum that remains is inevitably ( why inevitably? ) filled by a replacement oppressor.

Also the way the story is told, from the perspective of the oppressed animals, it shows that oppression comes not only from the nefarious acts of the oppressORS but also from the naivete' and ignorance of the oppressed ones. That is, it's Orwell's implicit call for an educated proletariat, ( doesn't work, hasn't worked because people don't make intelligent educated choices, they make choices based on emotion. The idea that people make rational choices is one of the worst aspects of the left I know and it drives me nuts. An idea that came from Marx himself. grrrr So it's a tough one to change other than through using scientific arguments. ) so that we can identify the oppressors ( psychopaths ) when they appear, whether people or animals.

[Coito ergo sum]

In every socialist state I've heard of, there are those who are more equal than others and who take much more than their share. Socialism seems best suited to small tribes and villages. I don't see how it'll ever work once the workers and leaders become strangers. Strangers are less equal, and thus, expendable in the face of self-interest. I read a neuroscience report once in which this phenomenon was referred to as "self-valence". It's hard-wired in the brain.

In other words, Orwell was right on target when he wrote "Animal Farm." g

I thought that book was more about how personality, in this case psychopathic personality, is more important in choosing who your comrades are than choosing on ideological purity.

That must be why it was on the list of "Forbidden Books" in the eastern bloc nations and the Soviet Union until 1989.

But, I never heard of your interpretation of the book. I don't personally see the book as having anything to do with how personality is more important in choosing who your comrades are than choosing on ideological purity. I'm not even sure what, exactly, you mean by that.

Purges and choice of comrades, cadres and mambers of vanguards within the far left have traditionally ( still are for trotskyists :eyeroll: ) been based on ideological purity, not on personal character.

You "eyeroll" "Trotskyists?" Not sure why. Trotskyists, moreover, did not engage in purges (maybe only because they weren't afforded the chance, who knows - the Stalinists beat them to the punch and the Trotskyists were purged).

What I meant by stating that I'm not sure what you mean by that is - I'm not sure how that in any way relates to Animal Farm. It seems to have nothing to do with symbolism of the characters or the plot. Can you link up what you're saying to Animal Farm?

It seems to me to be a critique of the Russian revolution and a retelling of the events during the development of Soviet Communism for it's first 30 years, and the rise of Stalin. The Farmer is the Czar, who is overthrown by the animals, and then there is a consolidation of power. The pigs (communists) establish themselves as the ruling class. Snowball and Napoleon represent Stalin and Trotsky.

<-------------- You mean these two psychopaths? The book itself is an indictment of the hypocrisy beneath the tyranny and despotism of ( machiavellian psychopaths )

Communism, as exemplified by the eroding away of the "Seven Commandments" through logical machinations of Squealor.

Can you explain what it is you mean?

Are you suggesting that Animal Farm means "beware of psychopaths and only allow communist leaders who are not psychopaths?" What point are you making?

It also seems to illustrate the natural tendency of humanity stratify itself into classes. And, it also shows that while classes may appear unified when they have a common enemy, when that enemy is removed (farmer/Czar) the power vacuum that remains is inevitably ( why inevitably? ) filled by a replacement oppressor.

I'm saying that's what Animal Farm illustrates. Whether you accept that or not is up to you.

It seems a fairly persuasive point, I would say, since it has rarely been otherwise, and the only places where it actually has occurred that the power vacuum has not been filled by a replacement oppressor seem to be liberal Enlightenment democracies (and even in those places it's a constant struggle). I've not seen a communist revolution result in anything other than oppressive despotism, have you?

Also the way the story is told, from the perspective of the oppressed animals, it shows that oppression comes not only from the nefarious acts of the oppressORS but also from the naivete' and ignorance of the oppressed ones. That is, it's Orwell's implicit call for an educated proletariat,

( doesn't work, hasn't worked because people don't make intelligent educated choices, they make choices based on emotion. The idea that people make rational choices is one of the worst aspects of the left I know and it drives me nuts. An idea that came from Marx himself. grrrr So it's a tough one to change other than through using scientific arguments. ) so that we can identify the oppressors ( psychopaths )

when they appear, whether people or animals.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

But, aren't you on the left?

But, again, that's what Orwell is illustrating in Animal Farm. You are free to take issue with it. But, somehow our exchange slipped from what Animal Farm meant, to whether the message Orwell sent in Animal Farm was the right one.

As to the latter, I see little to quarrel with in the Orwellian presentation of totalitarian communism in 1984 and Animal Farm, and it's indictment of the hypocrisy of the Soviet attempt(s).

Also - looking at the real world - we find that where the populace is most educated, the people are most free and secure.

People do make rational choices to some degree, and of course being human they are often driven by emotion as well.

Anyway - I don't at all catch whatever point you're trying to make here. But, maybe I'm just not smart enough.

[.Morticia.]

I am left, very far left.

and let's call what Orwell wrote about Stalinism.

[Coito ergo sum]

I am left, very far left.

So, what sort of political state of affairs do you advocate?

and let's call what Orwell wrote about Stalinism.

It depends what of his you're reading.

In Animal Farm, plainly, Napoleon represented Stalin.

[Seth]

In every socialist state I've heard of, there are those who are more equal than others and who take much more than their share. Socialism seems best suited to small tribes and villages. I don't see how it'll ever work once the workers and leaders become strangers. Strangers are less equal, and thus, expendable in the face of self-interest. I read a neuroscience report once in which this phenomenon was referred to as "self-valence". It's hard-wired in the brain.

As well it should be, from the evolutionary perspective.

Thus, the key to a stable society is one in which each person looks out for himself and his family, and is responsible for himself and his family, and any help or support that they offer to others is strictly based in natural human altruism and charity rather than by government coercion.

[.Morticia.]

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post

.

[Seth]

Yeah, that was the allusion. But it's also an indictment of any democratic system that claims its citizens are somehow "equal", however you define the term.

Correct. Which is why our system expressly denies that people are "equal." They have equal RIGHTS before the law, and they have equal OPPORTUNITY to provide for their own life, liberty and happiness, (which only means that no person may be denied the right to pursue happiness, life and liberty by others or the government except as a function of their own lawbreaking... it does not mean that others are obligated to provide for the life, liberty or happiness of anyone else) but they are not "equal" in any social or economic sense, since that sort of equality is a complex matter of individual behavior, capability and social function.

The best, and indeed the only legitimate thing any government can do is to keep the peace and make sure that every person receives both substantive and procedural due process of law. Beyond that, it's up to the individual to succeed or fail, and it's up to society, in it's altruistic and charitable mode, to provide for sustenance and support for those who are truly destitute, as a function of keeping society stable and operating smoothly.

[.Morticia.]

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post

.

[Seth]

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post

.

Yes, we get it, you're playing the passive-aggressive drama queen.

[.Morticia.]

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post

.

[Seth]

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post

.

[FBM]

Seth, I agree with you 100% about the equality thing. What I disagree with is the way patridiots distort it to make their propaganda.

[Hermit]

In every socialist state I've heard of, there are those who are more equal than others and who take much more than their share. Socialism seems best suited to small tribes and villages. I don't see how it'll ever work once the workers and leaders become strangers. Strangers are less equal, and thus, expendable in the face of self-interest. I read a neuroscience report once in which this phenomenon was referred to as "self-valence". It's hard-wired in the brain.

In other words, Orwell was right on target when he wrote "Animal Farm." g

I thought that book was more about how personality, in this case psychopathic personality, is more important in choosing who your comrades are than choosing on ideological purity.

On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood.

_____________

Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole.