Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "James F. Miller" <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: Orwell


   Rahul said:

>Orwell had a deep love of England and things English, from the point of
>view, I think, of the working class, not of the upper-middle class, as Jon
>Flanders says. I can't think of too many upper-middle-class vague leftists
>from England who would say, "When I see a worker fighting with a policeman,
>I don't need to ask myself which side I'm on." He was in a strange
>position, a man who identified completely with the working class, yet
>remained enamored of general bourgeois values. He placed a great deal of
>importance on the English people' inbred resistance to absolutism of any
>kind, which was and is deeply rooted in their fundamentally bourgeois
>nature -- this was not in itself a mistake, but led to many others. He
>understood the deep-rooted hypocrisy inherent in their abhorrence of
>violence and militarism, simultaneous with their support for Empire. He did
>not understand that he shared it.

   Here Rahul seems to get a little carried away in trying to
paint a picture of the "English people." First, I would say that
Orwell was a radicalized middle-class writer who passionately
defended the interests of the working class, as he understood
them. He put his life on the line in Spain. He was honest in
his political life, and in his writing.
   He was not really enamored of "bourgeois values," although
I'll grant you that this is a murky point. He had a personality
forged on the anvil of middle-class respectability, but then
at a certain point he rebelled against the stuffiness and
hypocrisy. You can see this in _Keep the Aspidistra Flying_
and in _A Clergyman's Daughter_, among others.
   But as I said before, he didn't radicalize completely,
and he retained a bit of the bourgeois in him--in spite of
himself.
   I don't know what Rahul is saying about the "inbred
resistance to absolutism." You have that, or course, and
you also have the tradition of sucking up to the monarchy.
I don't think that Rahul has put his finger on the key
characteristics of the historical British personality,
but I believe that he could probably do so, given a bit
more reflection on the topic.

   I agree with Jon Flanders's assessment:

>  Orwell was honest, honest enought to admit his inner conflict about the
>desirability of socialism, and the conflict he felt that put him in with his
>love of "British" civilization. I maintain that his class position must be
>taken into account. He was for the workers but not of them, and he freely
>admitted it. The argument that the end justifies the means resonates much
>differently for someone like him than it would for a worker tempted to snitch
>on a workmate.
Jim Miller
Seattle
jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---