Met police seeking reports of fascism?

Tara · 09-08-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paullotion

No,its designed to stop free thinking.

"All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction".

Adolf Hitler

True, you only have to watch our dumbed down emotionally charged daily news to see this. It's all part of the New World Order, everything is connected.

Tara · 09-08-2007, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceDragon

I think if George Orwell was alive he would have sued New Labour for plagiarism. A few years ago that would have been a satirical comment, now it's just a comment.

As far as I'm aware George Orwell was a part of the same stock New Labour are made out of, 1984 was written to condition (mind control) the masses into accepting a totalitarian police state.

John Carter · 10-08-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tara

As far as I'm aware George Orwell was a part of the same stock New Labour are made out of, 1984 was written to condition (mind control) the masses into accepting a totalitarian police state.

I'd have put him more as a Lib Dem - well-meaning but completely mental. You can observe this most easily in The Road To Wigan Pier. Most of the time, how he managed to come out with 1984 and Animal Farm is beyond my comprehension.

mark starr · 10-08-2007, 04:14 PM

Sorry ,John and Tara , for once I have to disagree with you

George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War on the Republican side as a Trotsky anarchist and very quickly became aware of how the Communist Party aimed to dominate the Republicans and eliminate any internal opposition, regular purges were carried out of anyone who had a different idea.. They used the approach which Orwell then used to great effect in both Animal Farm and 1984. Read his brilliant book "Homage to Catalonia" and you will appreciate that he was very pro the individual and hated the idea of the control that the State could have over you. HE disliked Communism and Fascism with equal loathing as both wanted the individual to be subordinate to the State.
He remained a left wing anarchist. I personally think he understood very well the dangers of the way in which the State controls people and conditions their mind.

g hall · 10-08-2007, 05:26 PM

Read everything you can by George Orwell he is one of the greatest authors this country has produced

John Carter · 10-08-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark starr

He remained a left wing anarchist.

There's no such thing as a left-wing anarchist. It's just another term for socialist.

Quote wiki:

Quote:

By 1943, his thinking had moved on. He joined the staff of Tribune as literary editor, and from then until his death was a left-wing (though hardly orthodox) Labour-supporting democratic socialist. He canvassed for the Labour Party in the 1945 general election and was broadly supportive of its actions in office, though he was sharply critical of its timidity on certain key questions and despised the pro-Soviet stance of many Labour left-wingers.

Basically, he was a mad middle-class bloke who felt ashamed of being born middle-class. And, like most of the people like that, he felt the need to romanticise the working class (i.e. how he looks at miners in Road To Wigan Pier). Thus, I place him at modern day Lib Dem (which is full of middle class folks ashamed that they weren't born working class).

1984 and Animal Farm might have been classics, but his personal politics were basically idiotic. How many similar lefties have you run into who you'd think would be libertarians if it wasn't for their inane support of the hive mind, the "we", in the form of financial punishing the better off to fund social programs for the poor? You know, those who don't see that their leftist politics eventually lead to the very thing that they hate?

Noam Chomsky springs to mind.

jim h · 11-08-2007, 05:25 AM

A socialist believes that the only way to achieve utopia is by empowering the State to reorganise society with the best of intentions.
A left wing anarchist really has no truck with the State and believes a state of constant revolution and anarchism achieves the aim of equality. The best example of this was Mao's cultural revolution.
Agree Orwell was lower middle class which coloured his view point as did his time in Burma but the period which really established his hatred of an all powerful State was the Spanish civil war which removed the scales from his eyes in terms of romanticising the working class and led to the writing of both 1984 and Animal Farm which should be on the list of must reads for anyone on the side of individual freedom

John Carter · 11-08-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim h

A socialist believes that the only way to achieve utopia is by empowering the State to reorganise society with the best of intentions.
A left wing anarchist really has no truck with the State and believes a state of constant revolution and anarchism achieves the aim of equality. The best example of this was Mao's cultural revolution.

There's no practical difference between left wing anarchists and communists. Both seek to establish a "classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production"*.

(* wiki definition of communism)

jim h · 11-08-2007, 04:18 PM

If that is the definition of Communism then whoever wrote it is living in an ivory tower where theory is totally different to reality. There is not one country in the world which has claimed/is claiming to be communist where the "state" has disappeared. In every example of a country which has become Communist the "state" has rapidly come to dominate/control the people. Whatever you can say about leftwing anarchism its objective is to destroy the "state". The objective of Communist has always been to destroy its opponents and left wing anarchists are regarded as one of the opponents which have to be crushed absolutely.
I suppose those who define Communism as aiming to establish a "stateless" organisation will argue that no "state" which claims to be communist ever was and ,therefore, the definition remains theoretically correct so Marx/Engels neednt start start turning over in their graves but frankly to argue this ignores history.

John Carter · 11-08-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim h

If that is the definition of Communism then whoever wrote it is living in an ivory tower where theory is totally different to reality.

Have you not noticed that what you've just said applies to every single leftie on the face of the planet?

10-08-2007, 05:26 PM	#15 (permalink)
g hall Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: erehwon Posts: 5,233	Read everything you can by George Orwell he is one of the greatest authors this country has produced __________________ "That government is best which governs least." "This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries". "To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-08-2007, 04:14 PM	#14 (permalink)
mark starr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 641	Sorry ,John and Tara , for once I have to disagree with you George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War on the Republican side as a Trotsky anarchist and very quickly became aware of how the Communist Party aimed to dominate the Republicans and eliminate any internal opposition, regular purges were carried out of anyone who had a different idea.. They used the approach which Orwell then used to great effect in both Animal Farm and 1984. Read his brilliant book "Homage to Catalonia" and you will appreciate that he was very pro the individual and hated the idea of the control that the State could have over you. HE disliked Communism and Fascism with equal loathing as both wanted the individual to be subordinate to the State. He remained a left wing anarchist. I personally think he understood very well the dangers of the way in which the State controls people and conditions their mind.

11-08-2007, 05:25 AM	#17 (permalink)
jim h Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 361	A socialist believes that the only way to achieve utopia is by empowering the State to reorganise society with the best of intentions. A left wing anarchist really has no truck with the State and believes a state of constant revolution and anarchism achieves the aim of equality. The best example of this was Mao's cultural revolution. Agree Orwell was lower middle class which coloured his view point as did his time in Burma but the period which really established his hatred of an all powerful State was the Spanish civil war which removed the scales from his eyes in terms of romanticising the working class and led to the writing of both 1984 and Animal Farm which should be on the list of must reads for anyone on the side of individual freedom

11-08-2007, 04:18 PM	#19 (permalink)
jim h Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 361	If that is the definition of Communism then whoever wrote it is living in an ivory tower where theory is totally different to reality. There is not one country in the world which has claimed/is claiming to be communist where the "state" has disappeared. In every example of a country which has become Communist the "state" has rapidly come to dominate/control the people. Whatever you can say about leftwing anarchism its objective is to destroy the "state". The objective of Communist has always been to destroy its opponents and left wing anarchists are regarded as one of the opponents which have to be crushed absolutely. I suppose those who define Communism as aiming to establish a "stateless" organisation will argue that no "state" which claims to be communist ever was and ,therefore, the definition remains theoretically correct so Marx/Engels neednt start start turning over in their graves but frankly to argue this ignores history.