George Orwells 'The Lion and the Unicorn'.
'The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius' was written in 1940 for Searchlight, a series of books produced during the war for left wing writers to state their 'war aims for a better future'.(Obviously not revolutionary defeatist then..)[1]
My version came with the penguin series of books called 'Great Ideas', and this little pamphlet also contains 'Why I Write', and 'A Hanging'. I want to get my hands on his Essays, especially the stuff he wrote on James Burnham, whose works had influenced 1984. But lets examine 'The Lion and the Unicorn' a little bit:
Orwell starts by identifying what is Britishness, by basically comparing so-called British traits with those of Europeans. For instance, he suggests that the UK is not a particularly intellectual country, having not produced composers such as Mozart, artists as those found throughout French history, etc. But to be British (although he uses the term 'English' more than 'British'...sorry Scotland and Wales) is to like flowers, stamp collecting, pigeons and hobbies. It is customary to place great emphasis on defeats, and remember events such as Mons, Gallipoli, Ypres through poems and literature, but nothing really memorable celebrating Waterloo or Trafalger.
Orwell's Socialism does shine through sometimes, recognising the Government is corrupt and that the nation is divided between rich and poor, but underlying this is a sense of 'cultural solidarity'; Patriotism is stronger than class hatred, which is seen in the lack of Internationalism in the working-class, and Orwell brings up the total lack of support for the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War: "For two and half years they watched their comrades in Spain slowly strangled, and never aided them by a single strike."
He does briefly mention the 'Hands of Russia' campaign after the 1917 Revolution, but other than that he appears quite pessimistic about the Internationalist capability of the British Working Class; xenophobia (and therefore racism) is stronger in the working class than it is amongst the Bourgeoisie, he goes on to claim. Despite this, Orwell does say that Britain is the most class ridden country 'under the sun', but then claims that it has a kind of 'emotional unity', that its inhabitants act together in moments of national crises. England 'resembles a family, a rather stuffy Victorian family..' and when faced with an enemy, it closes ranks. "A family with the wrong members in control - that, perhaps, is a near as one can come to describing England in a phrase".
Next on Orwell's list, is the left-wing intelligentsia. These come under attack for a lot of things; for instance he blames them for the 'weakening of imperialism' and the stagnation of morale the UK suffered during the 1930's (of course this has nothing to do with the depression and mass unemployment...tut..as if they were responsible for the wall st. crash). He attacks the intelligentsia for not being patriotic enough, and that their defeatist attitude is caused from their divorce from 'common life' and severance from the 'common culture'. That the fact that Fascism plunged into war because it saw countries as being 'decadent' partly lies at the door of the left-wing intelligentsia!
Orwell sees 'traditional' class distinctions breaking down, with the traditional heavy industry workers being slowly marginalised (which is true), and the growth of a middle-class of lawyers, doctors, artists etc. He sees middle-class ideas permeating through to the working-class, and that conditions of life for the working-class have improved, recognising the role Trade Unions have played, but also with the advance of science. Rich and poor read the same books, listen to the same radio shows, etc. Council housing has led the working-class to grow up with a middle-class outlook rather than someone brought up in slum (which again were slowly decreasing).
'The Lion and the Unicorn' was written in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. France had been conquered, the remnants of the British Army had been evacuated from Dunkirk, and Hitler had started his air-warfare over the UK. Orwell's case for Socialism is quite bizarre at this stage of his pamphlet; he sees private capitalism has being partly the cause of the defeat in France, because despite everyones knowledge after 1936 that war was imminent, the moneyed class still produced private commodities (motor cars, silk stockings, chocolate etc) as there was more profit involved in these goods than in re-armament. The capitalists were still selling raw materials to Germany right up until the outbreak of war (rather reminiscent of the Soviet Union exporting to Germany up until the invasion in 1941...anything to make money). The Dunkirk evacuation was again an example of the nation 'pulling together', and what I think is completely naive is that Orwell thinks that this exposed the bankruptcy of private capitalism, or in his words, the 'rotteness' of the system. The case against capitalism has been proved, and all classes can see this!
He goes on to say that to defeat Hitler Socialism would have to be established. Orwell is not so reformist as to suggest that this can only come through parliament, but he still thinks it has to be a peculiarly 'English' thing:
"It is only by revolution that the native genius of the English people can be set free. Revolution does not mean red flags and street fighting, it means a fundamental shift of power. Whether it happens with or without bloodshed is largely an accident of time and place. Nor does it mean the dictatorship of a single class. The people in England who grasp what changes are needed and are capable of carrying them through are not confined to any single class, though it is true that very few people with over £2000 a year are among them...."
Is it me, or is Orwell just incredibly naive?? He obviously is appealing to the middle-classes here, or at least lower-middle class. Later on, he attacks Communists for alienating the middle-classes from Socialism, and goes on to say that the Marxist idea of class-antagonism (warfare) is based in the 19th Century and has no relevance for today. The thing he seems to recognise is the importance of the middle-classes to society at the time he was writing, but, and what I think he still fundamentally believes in is: "We cannot look to this or any similar government to put through the necessary changes of its own accord. The initiative will have to come from below". And this he sees as not coming through the Labour Party which stands for 'timid reformism.' The rest of 'The Lion and Unicorn' goes on to state a case for Socialism, how it would liberate the colonies, and so on.
What Orwell was arguing was for a 'third way' to achieve Socialism, recognising the importance of the middle-classes and therefore moving away from both Marxism and Labourism, one for alienating the middle-class (but I also think was based on his opinion of Stalinism and the Nazi-Soviet pact), the other for its 'timidity' and being tied to capitalism. He still sees that to achieve Socialism it has to 'come from below', and also recognises the bankruptcy of Capitalism, sees the corruption of the ruling class etc. I guess really the pamphlet really exposes Orwell's own class prejudices, but I am no expert. What is important (to refute those on the right that like to claim Orwell for themselves), is that his belief in Socialism was still very bright, even though it was not of the Marxist variety. He would have been disillusioned with most Marxist-Stalinist organisations from his experiences in Spain though, and of course from that he went on to produce the best literary criticisms of Stalinism and Totalitarianism in the form of his last two novels, Animal Farm and 1984.
Notes:
[1] http://www.isj1text.ble.org.uk/pubs/isj85/chen.htm
My version came with the penguin series of books called 'Great Ideas', and this little pamphlet also contains 'Why I Write', and 'A Hanging'. I want to get my hands on his Essays, especially the stuff he wrote on James Burnham, whose works had influenced 1984. But lets examine 'The Lion and the Unicorn' a little bit:
Orwell starts by identifying what is Britishness, by basically comparing so-called British traits with those of Europeans. For instance, he suggests that the UK is not a particularly intellectual country, having not produced composers such as Mozart, artists as those found throughout French history, etc. But to be British (although he uses the term 'English' more than 'British'...sorry Scotland and Wales) is to like flowers, stamp collecting, pigeons and hobbies. It is customary to place great emphasis on defeats, and remember events such as Mons, Gallipoli, Ypres through poems and literature, but nothing really memorable celebrating Waterloo or Trafalger.
Orwell's Socialism does shine through sometimes, recognising the Government is corrupt and that the nation is divided between rich and poor, but underlying this is a sense of 'cultural solidarity'; Patriotism is stronger than class hatred, which is seen in the lack of Internationalism in the working-class, and Orwell brings up the total lack of support for the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War: "For two and half years they watched their comrades in Spain slowly strangled, and never aided them by a single strike."
He does briefly mention the 'Hands of Russia' campaign after the 1917 Revolution, but other than that he appears quite pessimistic about the Internationalist capability of the British Working Class; xenophobia (and therefore racism) is stronger in the working class than it is amongst the Bourgeoisie, he goes on to claim. Despite this, Orwell does say that Britain is the most class ridden country 'under the sun', but then claims that it has a kind of 'emotional unity', that its inhabitants act together in moments of national crises. England 'resembles a family, a rather stuffy Victorian family..' and when faced with an enemy, it closes ranks. "A family with the wrong members in control - that, perhaps, is a near as one can come to describing England in a phrase".
Next on Orwell's list, is the left-wing intelligentsia. These come under attack for a lot of things; for instance he blames them for the 'weakening of imperialism' and the stagnation of morale the UK suffered during the 1930's (of course this has nothing to do with the depression and mass unemployment...tut..as if they were responsible for the wall st. crash). He attacks the intelligentsia for not being patriotic enough, and that their defeatist attitude is caused from their divorce from 'common life' and severance from the 'common culture'. That the fact that Fascism plunged into war because it saw countries as being 'decadent' partly lies at the door of the left-wing intelligentsia!
Orwell sees 'traditional' class distinctions breaking down, with the traditional heavy industry workers being slowly marginalised (which is true), and the growth of a middle-class of lawyers, doctors, artists etc. He sees middle-class ideas permeating through to the working-class, and that conditions of life for the working-class have improved, recognising the role Trade Unions have played, but also with the advance of science. Rich and poor read the same books, listen to the same radio shows, etc. Council housing has led the working-class to grow up with a middle-class outlook rather than someone brought up in slum (which again were slowly decreasing).
'The Lion and the Unicorn' was written in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. France had been conquered, the remnants of the British Army had been evacuated from Dunkirk, and Hitler had started his air-warfare over the UK. Orwell's case for Socialism is quite bizarre at this stage of his pamphlet; he sees private capitalism has being partly the cause of the defeat in France, because despite everyones knowledge after 1936 that war was imminent, the moneyed class still produced private commodities (motor cars, silk stockings, chocolate etc) as there was more profit involved in these goods than in re-armament. The capitalists were still selling raw materials to Germany right up until the outbreak of war (rather reminiscent of the Soviet Union exporting to Germany up until the invasion in 1941...anything to make money). The Dunkirk evacuation was again an example of the nation 'pulling together', and what I think is completely naive is that Orwell thinks that this exposed the bankruptcy of private capitalism, or in his words, the 'rotteness' of the system. The case against capitalism has been proved, and all classes can see this!
He goes on to say that to defeat Hitler Socialism would have to be established. Orwell is not so reformist as to suggest that this can only come through parliament, but he still thinks it has to be a peculiarly 'English' thing:
"It is only by revolution that the native genius of the English people can be set free. Revolution does not mean red flags and street fighting, it means a fundamental shift of power. Whether it happens with or without bloodshed is largely an accident of time and place. Nor does it mean the dictatorship of a single class. The people in England who grasp what changes are needed and are capable of carrying them through are not confined to any single class, though it is true that very few people with over £2000 a year are among them...."
Is it me, or is Orwell just incredibly naive?? He obviously is appealing to the middle-classes here, or at least lower-middle class. Later on, he attacks Communists for alienating the middle-classes from Socialism, and goes on to say that the Marxist idea of class-antagonism (warfare) is based in the 19th Century and has no relevance for today. The thing he seems to recognise is the importance of the middle-classes to society at the time he was writing, but, and what I think he still fundamentally believes in is: "We cannot look to this or any similar government to put through the necessary changes of its own accord. The initiative will have to come from below". And this he sees as not coming through the Labour Party which stands for 'timid reformism.' The rest of 'The Lion and Unicorn' goes on to state a case for Socialism, how it would liberate the colonies, and so on.
What Orwell was arguing was for a 'third way' to achieve Socialism, recognising the importance of the middle-classes and therefore moving away from both Marxism and Labourism, one for alienating the middle-class (but I also think was based on his opinion of Stalinism and the Nazi-Soviet pact), the other for its 'timidity' and being tied to capitalism. He still sees that to achieve Socialism it has to 'come from below', and also recognises the bankruptcy of Capitalism, sees the corruption of the ruling class etc. I guess really the pamphlet really exposes Orwell's own class prejudices, but I am no expert. What is important (to refute those on the right that like to claim Orwell for themselves), is that his belief in Socialism was still very bright, even though it was not of the Marxist variety. He would have been disillusioned with most Marxist-Stalinist organisations from his experiences in Spain though, and of course from that he went on to produce the best literary criticisms of Stalinism and Totalitarianism in the form of his last two novels, Animal Farm and 1984.
Notes:
[1] http://www.isj1text.ble.org.uk/pubs/isj85/chen.htm
posted by Kevin Sparrow at 3:58 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home