 |
| Orwell's classic novel: Animal Farm |
I imagine that just about everyone gets as annoyed as I do when people start having political discussions, especially when said discussions are, like most, unproductive and acerbic in tone. The truth is when most people talk politics they resort to hyperbole. They attempt to make their point by appealing to extremes that are both irrational and illogical.
Honestly, I do not fashion myself as an overtly political person. I couldn’t describe or explain the ins and outs of the various processes our elected leaders work through on a daily bases. Nor could I articulate how bills are written or passed, who is directly involved, and what the immediate implications of such changes do or do not mean. Yet, what I can do is offer a broader, philosophical explanation of the basic tenets of different political belief structures.
Some may disagree, but my feelings are that when it comes to politics in our country… most people have lost sight of the bigger picture. They use a lot of tag lines they’ve heard on television, they make outlandish accusations, and/or they may discuss certain ‘hot topics’ or ‘key issues,’ but they rarely address how their political position fits in the grander scheme of things.
Sticking with poplar convention, let’s begin by exploring extremes and then work our way back to more practical discussions. In America, people tend to talk about their political position by evoking the terms ‘right’ or ‘left.’ What they tend to mean by this is that they lean towards a conservative position if they identify with the ‘right,’ or they lean towards a liberal position of they identify with the ‘left.’ However, the more important issue, which requires exploration, is: what does the political ‘right’ and the political ‘left’ look like on a grander, global scale, and how does that relate to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ in America’s current political climate?
Simply put, the most extreme position one can adopt on the political ‘right’ is fascism and/or totalitarianism. In both cases, the ruling elite are a small minority. It may be a select group of individuals or it may be one person, such as a king or dictator, who controls everything and everyone. This is what ‘small government’ would look like at its most extreme. Many people get confused by this. Most modern Americans I interact with seem to think that ‘small government’ means less government. This is not necessarily true, however. ‘Small government’ actually means the government is ruled by a very small group of people. It does not guarantee that the government's power and control will actually be any less; it just means that the people wielding the power and control will be fewer in number. In short, it means less people with more power.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the most extreme position one can adopt on the ‘left’ is communism. Unlike fascism or totalitarianism, communism’s goal is to distribute the power to as many people as possible, so no one person or group of people holds more power than others. At its most extreme, communism’s aim would be to eradicate government altogether, as all people would have equal power and everyone would rule themselves. Accordingly, ‘big government’ actually means a government controlled or run by a large group of diverse people… the larger and more diverse the better. Again, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the government will have more power or less power; it just means that the power is distributed on a greater scale to a greater number of people.
These two positions represent the hyperbolic extremes that many Americans toss around in coffee shop conversations. Not only are such comparisons extreme, they are also typically very misguided.
Since the election of President Obama and the advent of many of his policies (such as his healthcare initiative), many Americans (particularly those who identify with organizations on the ‘right,’ such as The Tea Party) have started throwing around the phrase ‘Orwellian.’ The premise of such language is grounded in the literary works of British author George Orwell. Orwell wrote allegorical novels about the fascism that often develops out of failed socialist governments. The nuances of this point are however often overlooked by the general public, and they will therefore require some unpacking.
For starters, it may be helpful to address where the American political system sets in the broader spectrum of political extremes. As we all know, America is a democratic country founded on the principles that all men are created equal and that all people deserve equal rights under the ruling court of law. America is also a capitalist country that believes in a free market economy, where all people can buy, sell, and trade goods equally regardless of race, gender, or social status.
What this means is that America is a liberal country. Its government falls on the left end of the political spectrum, as its basic premise and underlying ideologies are founded on the supposition that power should be distributed equally to all citizens. In short, if you are an American and you believe in democracy you are a ‘leftist’ or political liberal.
However, when Americans use such terms they typically operate from a much narrow frame of mind. Americans are known elsewhere for being xenophobes and their concept of politics rarely moves beyond America, itself. Accordingly, when they speak about the political ‘right’ and ‘left’ they typically do so in terms of the narrow margin that exists between the two primary political parties that exist within their own democratic government. Yet, as noted, even the most ‘right winged’ of conservatives in America still falls on the liberal or ‘left’ end of the greater political spectrum.
Now that we’ve clarified that, let’s take a look at the writings of George Orwell so that we can explore what the phrase ‘Orwellian’ actually means.
 |
| George Orwell |
As alluded to above, Orwell’s writings were written as allegories for the socialist government of the Soviet Union. As a result many readers assume that the conclusions that Orwell reaches and the criticisms he raises throughout his books are reflective of socialist governments, in general. Unfortunately, this is a gross over simplification and complete misunderstanding of his texts.
Socialism is a governmental system that operates on the left end of the spectrum. The basic concept behind socialism is that communism is a difficult governmental system to achieve when power has already been limited to certain governmental parties. Accordingly, in a properly functioning socialist system the government, which would and should be compiled of a large body of diverse people, would distribute power to the masses as equally as possible so that equality would exist on a greater scale.
The end goal would of course be to distribute power so well that all people are equally provided for and then the government, itself, could dissolve. In short the goal of socialism is to eventually develop into a perfectly functioning communist government. There is of course no guarantee that this would ever happen. Truthfully it is unlikely that it ever would, but it is important to understand the guiding trajectory nonetheless.
If you’ve read Orwell’s books then you will remember that the distribution of power is a central theme. Let’s use his book Animal Farm as our example.
In Animal Farm you have a farm filled with various types of animals, all of whom are in the service of the family who runs and owes the farm. In this allegory, the farmers represent the government in control of the masses. The masses are of course represented by the animals. What we have at the onset of the book is an example of a fascist system of government, which is on the far ‘right’ of the political spectrum. In short, we have a small group of individuals (human farmers) controlling the masses (the animals) and wielding power as they so choose.
As a result of this totalitarianism, the animals become dissatisfied. Unrest develops, and the animals revolt. The animals decide that power should be shared by all, and therefore the farmers need to be removed from power so that the animals can distribute the power among themselves. This is the movement away from fascism (‘right’) to socialism (‘left’). Yet, what people seem to miss is that the story doesn’t end here. What makes Orwell's literary world ‘Orwellian’ is his critique of ‘human’ nature (displayed in both humans and animals in Animal Farm), which is manifested through the misuse of power once it is obtained.
Truthfully, a socialist government never develops in Animal Farm, in the same way that a socialist government never truly develops in the Soviet Union. Instead, what you have is the hope or promise of a socialist government. While those wielding the power may refer to their government as 'socialist,' it clearly is not as power is never distributed to the masses. It instead continues to be a fascist government because those who are given the responsibility to distribute the wealth and power never do so; they keep it for themselves. This is clearly portrayed in Animal Farm when the pigs take power of the farm and start to behave just like the farmers. By the time the book reaches its conclusion the pigs are no different than the farmers and the farm is in an equally miserable state. In short, nothing has changed. The 'government' ruling the farm has not changed... only the people (or pigs) in power have changed. Fascism still rules supreme on Animal Farm.
In short, the dystopian societies at the heart of Orwell’s writings are fascist governments (the extreme ‘right’), not socialist governments (the ‘left’). It is true that the fascism found in both Orwell’s novels and in the actual Soviet Union resulted from the collapse, failure, and misuse of socialism. This however is not necessarily the fault of socialism itself, but it is rather a very clear example of how individuals in power misuse power for their own person gain. It could be argued that Orwell believes that socialist systems will inevitably collapse into fascism as a result of ‘human’ corruption. That is to say, it could be argued that in Orwell’s world all government officials will inevitably misuse the power they have. This seems to be the message found in Animal Farm as the pigs become as corrupt with power as did the human farmers. Nevertheless, attempting to compare the democratic government of America and its decisions to provide social programs to its citizens to the hyperbolic collapse of a socialist system, which results in the fascism of Orwell’s dystopian writings, is not only to misunderstand the political spectrum, it is also to misunderstanding the writings of Mr. Orwell.
Now, for the sake of argumentation and clarity, if people really wanted to use the term Orwellian correctly in reference to the current administration in office, the recent scandals involving surveillance and the collection of personal data would be an excellent place to start. Recent reports suggest that the FBI has been using surveillance drones on U.S. soil and that the NSA has been compiling 'meta-data' from people's emails and computers to track terrorism. In such instances the government is removing people's freedoms, i.e. the right to personal privacy, for their own agenda. It could correctly be argued that this recent development is 'Orwellian' in nature. But to use the term Orwellian in reference to things like socialized medicine, etc. is entirely incorrect.
No comments:
Post a Comment