The hope lies in the little animals

moyehoist.DeleteThis@aol.com (Moyehoist) wrote in message ...
  > >Moral: We don't need lions or violent monkeys that become lions. The
  > >hope lies in the little animals. No Lion No Problem!
  > >
 >
 > Nice story - Mother Goose Marxism at its Best.- I understand the lions and the
 > monkeys, but where are the vermin - you know the, the ones that take over the
 > press and the intelligentsia and kill 80 million in the last century.
 >
 > bmp

The vermin can stay with the lion. I mean, we don't need the lion.

Marxism was very different: They had a communist lion expected to save
them from the capitalist lion.

If you can't still see the diff between Animalism and Marxism, here it
is...

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2074/orwell.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2074/orwell.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The hope lies in the little animals 

I read the book, went to the [play, etc.

Without invoking Orwell, I thought I could comment on your Fable which seems to
be a critique of third world countries that amass enough bile and capital to
attack the US or one of the other super powers.

My concept for vermin was the creeping tide of leftist ideology that seems to
have done the most damage to human biomass since the beginning of time.

Also, I think Snowball is the character that represents the Trosky/Marx ideal
that you aspire to.

But are you sure that Marx was just another social democrat. Read of the Young
Hegelians and how they came to despise ideals and embrace material dialectic.
Orwell is critical of this and it is manifested in his concept of Newspeak, etc
- where reality is created.

bmp
 >> Stay informed about: The hope lies in the little animals 

moyehoist.RemoveThis@aol.com (Moyehoist) wrote in message ...
 > I read the book, went to the [play, etc.
 >
 > Without invoking Orwell, I thought I could comment on your Fable which seems to
 > be a critique of third world countries that amass enough bile and capital to
 > attack the US or one of the other super powers.
 >
 > My concept for vermin was the creeping tide of leftist ideology that seems to
 > have done the most damage to human biomass since the beginning of time.
 >
 > Also, I think Snowball is the character that represents the Trosky/Marx ideal
 > that you aspire to.
 >
 > But are you sure that Marx was just another social democrat. Read of the Young
 > Hegelians and how they came to despise ideals and embrace material dialectic.
 > Orwell is critical of this and it is manifested in his concept of Newspeak, etc
 > - where reality is created.
 >
 > bmp

I don't mean it to be a critique of the Thirld World, but of the whole
world. I suspect there's symbiotic relationship among all vermins.
Sometimes COMPETITION appears, but it's quickly crushed by the big
lions in the game.

But if you say the left has done so much damage, why you read Orwell?
Do you read his books without analyzing what HE was?

Every line I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or
indirectly, against totalitarianism," quotes George Orwell in the
preface to the 1956 Signet Classic edition of Animal Farm. The
edition, which sold several millions copies, however, omitted the rest
of the sentence: "and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it.

***

I don't like the word "left" itself, and I prefer "humanism" or even
better "Banana Revolution," and I even think we ought to make room for
so called "libertarians" (right wings) in society, but we need
something, don't we?

Now, in saying: "We don't need lions or violent monkeys that become
lions. The hope lies in the little animals. No Lion No Problem!"...
you don't see the safeguards in place against a new class of pigs ever
rising again? Well, how about this other one?

THE PIGS' REVOLUTION

(Characters in this story: lion #1, the USA; lion #2, the former USSR;
and #3, the EU and others. The Little and the Big Pigs are always the
same... The action takes place in Cuba.)

(This story shouldn't be taken too literally. However, it has its
moral...)

Once upon a time there were some little pigs who decided to carry out
a revolution and established a utopia called "socialism," in which
everything was supposed to be shared equally. And, of course, soon
enough they were attacked by some lions. Then it turned out that the
Big Pigs (by now some of the pigs got big and fat) allied themselves
with some other lions. They petted them and told the Little Pigs
(these remained little due to lack of freedom and food) that these
lions were indeed peace-loving creatures. And they even sent the
Little Pigs into wars in order to free the other farms from the old
lions and secure them for the newer ones. Down the road, these lions
decided that the pigs ate too much and banded together with their
former competitors, who only fed on juicy prey. The Big Pigs now chose
the only lions left. They felt that they could hang on to power and
keep living high on the hog if they struck a deal with the new lions:
The Big Pigs get to feed their power appetite; the new lions get to
fill their piggy banks thanks to cheap labor, and get to enjoy
lions-only tourist attractions. The Little Pigs, in the meantime,
receive promises: The Big Pigs tell them that if the put up with the
new lions, they'll be safe from the old ones; the new lions tell them
that if they work hard enough, they'll soon have plenty; and the old
lions tell them that if they rebel, they'll get to live in a brand new
pigsty called "democracy," just like before. And they lived happily
ever after...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The hope lies in the little animals 

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is
granted all else follows."

Here I'll like to quote the conclusion to an article. Orwell is
warning us what NOT to do. More than one road is possible: socialism,
anarchism, or the mix of the two, or perhaps NOTHING DOGMATIC. And, of
course, he was anti-lion...

"Orwell's anti-authoritarianism became more pronounced as he came
closer to Nineteen Eighty-Four, where we see Orwell as a fairly
consistent anarchist who saw the dangers of the State and leaders in
general."

But first and foremost, he's warning us: "Beware of the pigs out
there!"

Conclusion

On the surface Orwell's political development may seem filled with
contradictions. After his time as a policeman in Burma he was an
anarchist; a superficial one perhaps and not very consistent but that
was how he felt. In the early 1930s he became more critical of
society, and in The Road to Wigan Pier we see him as a socialist. But
he is an undogmatic socialist who does not care much for the theories
and who criticises the doctrinaire socialists, who precisely because
of their theories, have forgotten that socialism first and foremost is
about liberty and justice. After Spain he was very sympathetic to
anarchism and was even more undogmatic after having seen what
dogmatism can lead to. The membership of the ILP therefore seems
inconsistent, since party membership will always to some extent result
in dogmatism. But this must be seen in relation to the war, which at
that time was just around the corner. Orwell was against the war and
he felt that the ILP was the only party that would adopt the right
attitude to the war, most likely because of the party's pacifism. With
the war a drastic change in Orwell took place. Having been against the
war he was now for it; he criticised the pacifists for views that he
himself had held just a few years before; and he left the ILP. With
Animal Farm he took up the themes from Spain and Homage to Catalonia
and elaborated on them. Orwell's anti-authoritarianism became more
pronounced as he came closer to Nineteen Eighty-Four, where we see
Orwell as a fairly consistent anarchist who saw the dangers of the
State and leaders in general.

As said, this development may seem contradictory, but this is because
Orwell lived in the present. His views were always to some extent
shaped by the situation he at any given time was in. Perhaps he only
had one view. In 1936 Orwell said that to him socialism first and
foremost meant liberty and justice, and this view he never left. The
contradictions were in many ways a consequence of this basic belief.

It is difficult to put a political label on Orwell, precisely because
he was undogmatic. Unlike the doctrinaire socialists Orwell saw
socialism as the social aspect of an all-encompassing moral attitude;
a view that undoubtedly was caused by meeting the Spanish anarchists
to whom anarchism was a moral attitude with political consequences.

It would, however, be an exaggeration to say that anarchism was
Orwell's all-encompassing moral attitude, although there are many
anarchist traits in Orwell's criticism of society, of the communists,
the professional politicians and the elitist socialists, who believed
they were the vanguard of the working class. But one of the most basic
tenets of anarchism, the rejection of the State, Orwell could not
accept. Orwell meant that some form of state was necessary to maintain
freedom. In his view, the stateless society of anarchism contained
totalitarian tendencies. In Politics vs Literature from 1946 he says:

"This illustrates well the totalitarian tendency which is implicit in
the Anarchist or pacifist vision of society. In a society in which
there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of
behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the
tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant
than any system of law. When human beings are governed by 'thou shalt
not', the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity:
when they are supposedly governed by 'love' or 'reason', he is under
continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same
way as everyone else." [CEJL vol. 4 p. 252]

Although rejecting the alternative society of anarchism Orwell did not
have anything better to put instead. He was against the society of the
day but had no ideas about how and to what it should change. The
importance of Orwell as a political writer is not as a theoretician
but as a critic, the guilty conscience and loyal opposition of the
Left. To Orwell socialism was the only solution. It would not lead to
a perfect world but at least to a better world, but in order for that
to happen constant criticism was necessary.

We cannot really put a political label on Orwell. We can call him an
undogmatic socialist but that is a rather vague description. He had so
many facets and aspects that he escapes any unequivocal definition.
And since he himself tried to maintain his individuality and avoid the
dogmas with their unresolved contradictions, this seems only fair. At
one point, Winston in Nineteen Eighty-Four writes in his diary:

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is
granted all else follows." [NEF p. 68]

Let these words in their seductive simplicity be the conclusion of
Orwell's political development.

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/opin...d1.html#Chap2_3
 >> Stay informed about: The hope lies in the little animals 

Re: Label for Orwell

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bader
How about a Social Cynic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It doesn't sound like a bad chap to me. And he certainly wasn't a lion
though he could have lived as one...

"Most writers, after struggling for fifteen years to achieve literary
success, would have remained in London to be lionized and enjoy their
celebrity. But Orwell, immune to the effects of wealth and fame,
couldn't endure his success: it didn't match his idea of himself.
Desperately tired and jaded in the spring of 1946, he complained to
Koestler that 'everyone keeps coming at me wanting me to lecture, to
write commissioned booklets, to join this and that, etc. - you don't
know how I pine to get free of it all and have time to think again'.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was beginning to take shape in his mind, and he
wanted to rest for two months and allow the idea to germinate. Quite
unexpectedly, the man who hated Scotland took off for the remote
island iof Jura in the Inner Hebrides..."

And even though he was sick he felt he had a mission...

"Michel Kopp visited Jura in the summer of 1947 and found the
farmhouse 'rather dilapidated'. Orwell was driving himself hard,
'working day and night at his book with perhaps the premonition that
Nineteen Eighty-Four would be the last one and that death was lurking
in the background...I used to see him mainly at supper-time. He was
looking in poor health, eating little, chainsmoking and drinking a lot
of coffee.'"

http://www.orwelltoday.com/juraorwell'slife.shtml

And best of all, he inspired me. Thank you, Eric Blair...
 >> Stay informed about: The hope lies in the little animals 

(DonQuijote1954) wrote in message ...
 > Re: Label for Orwell
 >
 > quote:
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Originally posted by Bader
 > How about a Social Cynic?
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 >
 >
 > It doesn't sound like a bad chap to me. And he certainly wasn't a lion
 > though he could have lived as one...
 >
 > "Most writers, after struggling for fifteen years to achieve literary
 > success, would have remained in London to be lionized and enjoy their
 > celebrity. But Orwell, immune to the effects of wealth and fame,
 > couldn't endure his success: it didn't match his idea of himself.
 > Desperately tired and jaded in the spring of 1946, he complained to
 > Koestler that 'everyone keeps coming at me wanting me to lecture, to
 > write commissioned booklets, to join this and that, etc. - you don't
 > know how I pine to get free of it all and have time to think again'.
 > Nineteen Eighty-Four was beginning to take shape in his mind, and he
 > wanted to rest for two months and allow the idea to germinate. Quite
 > unexpectedly, the man who hated Scotland took off for the remote
 > island iof Jura in the Inner Hebrides..."
 >
 > And even though he was sick he felt he had a mission...
 >
 > "Michel Kopp visited Jura in the summer of 1947 and found the
 > farmhouse 'rather dilapidated'. Orwell was driving himself hard,
 > 'working day and night at his book with perhaps the premonition that
 > Nineteen Eighty-Four would be the last one and that death was lurking
 > in the background...I used to see him mainly at supper-time. He was
 > looking in poor health, eating little, chainsmoking and drinking a lot
 > of coffee.'"
 >
 > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.orwelltoday.com/juraorwell" target="_blank">http://www.orwelltoday.com/juraorwell</a>'slife.shtml
 >
 > And best of all, he inspired me. Thank you, Eric Blair...

And lets add that GO spent his last days cultivating his list of back
stabbing communists and their usefull idot friends.

But then again, that was his brand of "democratic socialism".
Oink!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The hope lies in the little animals 

<Originally posted by Bader
Accepting on face value Orwells motive in writing I find it a little
puzzling that he was primarily anti-authority yet believed in
socialism which is a classic model of submission to authority/rigid
organisation.

Was he simply the same as those who still believe in communism
claiming the ugly mess (that 1984 points to) was a diversion
from the true path, but he could see it coming? Although of course it
had already started before he started writing.

There are many who wrote to expose and warn, C.H. Douglas was one of
them and they used the real world not fantacy to draw pictures that
could be taken as fiction and entertainment. But warnings and
exposures were all
treated as "conspiracy theories" so from the first world war on
the lies and "sensorship" was well established and for many they are
only starting to wake up now since Sept 11 and see it a little too
late, with sovereignty thrown out of each nest by the cuckoo.>

Well, you could say our lion is "fictional" too, and yet we suffer him
every day. I just tried to launch my kayak and leave the jungle
behind, but was prevented by the park guard. He didn't prevent though
a homeless couple near me from encroaching on my right to a clean
park, and asked me how I was bothered by them... I demanded the police
be called, but, of course, lion helps lion, and I was roared at--and
almost swallowed. I asked them why they don't take care of the
homeless in the park, and they told me that was a different issue. And
then I asked, "where's the law that prevents me from launching a kayak
at this park?" He said there's no law, only the law of the guard. And
I'd add, I know that law, THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE...

You may think whatever you want about Orwell, but he foretold
everything and upon reading his novels you can only think of resisting
the lion. Little animals' rebellion is in order.
 >> Stay informed about: The hope lies in the little animals 

moyehoist.DeleteThis@aol.com (Black Minorca Pullets) wrote in message ...
> > http://www.orwelltoday.com/juraorwell'slife.shtml
> >
> > And best of all, he inspired me. Thank you, Eric Blair...
>
> And lets add that GO spent his last days cultivating his list of back
> stabbing communists and their usefull idot friends.
>
> But then again, that was his brand of "democratic socialism".
> Oink!

He's used by the right too: I even heard in the Charlie Rose program
on PBS that he would have approved the Vietnam War. And, sure why not,
the Iraqi war as well...

Tell me, are you on the side of Mr. Jones?
 >> Stay informed about: The hope lies in the little animals 

"Long live Oceania!"

<Originally posted by Bader
Thats a bit rich, some thought H G Wells predicted everything as well.
I have yet to hear anyone say they had any answers.
Then there is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, perhaps a little more
extreme than 1984 but I think that Wells and Huxley knew a few things
the general public didnt, there are many people in various occultic
bodies who know things about the future because they either have their
own in positions of power or control those who arent. Orwell may have
been one of them.

Webspawner.com political platform is a bunch of policies (good things)
to chose from, like pushing a trundler around a supermarket and select
the things you want.
There is no philosophical aspect outside of good intentions and
the nature of humanity doesnt allow things to just happen for the good
of all, so there needs to be some structure- legal and political to
give some indication that it can stand up and walk.
Only creatures with some form of skeleton can stand up and walk,
there is none evident.
Another major question is how is it going to be financed.
From someone who is moved by Orwell it seems very contradictory that
you make no provision for what he predicted
outside of good intentions.>


Well, we have coops starting from scratch if need be, as they all have
and we have, and then we have...you and your theories that represent
the theories of many out there. I hope they work though...

I'm not saying that Orwell is the greatest man that even lived and
that we should make him a symbol, just like the communists made of
Marx, but he's probably the writer that better explains the world
today: Big Brother, eternal war, betrayal of the revolution...

He didn't explain though the economics of it.

But I'd put it another way: the more famous people we can gather on
our side the better. And that list includes:

Jesus, Gandhi, M.L. King, Orwell, Tolstoy, Kropotkin and many others.

Locked in an Orwellian eternal war
By Robert Fisk

In George Orwell's 1984, Oceania vv in which Britain is "Airstrip One"
vv is engaged in eternal war with Eastasia. Victories are constantly
announced by the British government. Our battle with Eastasia, over
the years, has become routine. In George Bush's 2001, the West is
engaged in eternal war with Iraq. The "degrading" of Iraq's forces is
constantly announced by the American and British governments. And on
Friday, the mission of the planes, which have been bombing Iraq for 10
years, was officially announced by the American President as
"routine".

As in 1984, the characters in 2001 do not change. In 1991, defence
secretary Dick Cheney and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Colin
Powell were urging the bombers on to Baghdad with the backing of
President George Bush. In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney and
secretary of state Colin Powell are urging the bombers on to Baghdad
with the backing of President George Bush Jr. In 1991, the Beast of
Baghdad was Saddam Hussein. In 2001, the Beast of Baghdad is Saddam
Hussein.

And woe betide us if we feel like Winston Smith, eternally feeding old
newspaper cuttings into the oven. Bin those clippings about how we
"defanged" Saddam in 1991. Forget the UN arms inspectors who would
eliminate forever Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction". Make no
complaint about the half-million Iraqi children who have died under UN
sanctions. Destroy all reference to the New World Order.

We are engaging vv an Orwellian cracker this, from the Pentagon on
Friday night vv in "protective retaliation". And by yesterday morning,
a military "expert" was on our very own BBC vv its defence
correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, no less vv to announce that Iraq had
acquired 30 surface-to-air missiles from Serbia and Ukraine to boost
its military might. Really? Is this true? We in the West impose
sanctions on Iraq so strict that we prevent the import of lead for
schoolchildren's pencils lest it be put to military use; yet we cannot
stop the Iraqis lugging anti-aircraft missiles over their border.

When we started bombing in the no-fly-zones in the aftermath of the
Gulf War 10 years ago, we did so in retaliation because the Iraqis
shot at our planes, just as we supposedly did this weekend. When we
fired 200 cruise missiles into Iraq just over two years ago, President
Clinton vv a brief interlude in the war between the Saddam and Bush
families vv told us that Saddam has "disarmed the (UN) inspectors".
Tony Blair, agonising about the lives of British forces involved (all
14 pilots) told us vv a real Orwell masterpiece vv "we must act
because we must".

So what Newspeak do our masters produce for us this weekend? Why, our
own Foreign Secretary Robin Cook tells us that Saddam vv not sanctions
vv are to blame for all those Iraqi deaths. It was the same Mr Cook
who has repeatedly and truthfully told us during this eternal war that
Saddam has used gas "against his own people" vv without mentioning the
other truth: that he did so during an aggressive war with Iran in
which we enthusiastically supported Saddam. So tell Winston Smith to
burn all articles about a village called Halabja if they
inconveniently mention Iran. Iraq's state television yesterday
announces "an attack by American aggressors". The forces of Oceania,
it seems, killed a woman and wounded 11 civilians in the Eastasian
capital of Baghdad. Oceania insists the attacks were aimed at "sites
well away from civilian areas". The planes were "well within the 33rd
parallel" vv the limit of the self-appointed Oceanian no-fly zones --
and used "standoff" missiles to hit their targets.

When President Clinton faced the worst of the Lewinsky scandal, he
bombed Afghanistan and Sudan. When he faced impeachment in 1998, he
bombed Iraq. Faced with an explosion between Israelis and
Palestinians, George Bush Jr bombs vv why, Baghdad. And still Mr Cook
tells the Iraqi people Saddam is their "problem". Note to Winston
Smith: burn at once all references to George Bush Sr's 1991 call to
the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam and his subsequent willingness
to let Saddam massacre the lot.

Then there's that $29m aid package about to be handed over by
Washington to the so-called opposition "Iraqi National Congress". Note
to Winston Smith: place into the incinerator all newspaper reports
about the Jordanian conviction for massive fraud of one of the INC's
most prominent leaders. Let's keep it simple: Down with the brutal
regime of Eastasia! Long live Oceania!
 >> Stay informed about: The hope lies in the little animals