What do you think?
Rate this book
Fascism and Democracy
'The feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world ... this prospect frightens me much more than bombs'On the 70th anniversary of George Orwell's death, a new collection of his brilliant essays written during the Second World WarFascism and Democracy collects five brilliant examples of Orwell's writing during the darkest days of World War Two. Grappling with the principles of democracy and the potential of reform, the meaning of literature and free speech in times of violence, and the sustainability of objective truth, Orwell offers a compelling portrayal of a nation where norms and ideals can no longer be taken for granted. Like the best of Orwell's writing, these essays also serve as timeless reminders of the fragility of freedom.
36 pages, Paperback
Published January 21, 2020
165 people are currently reading
2398 people want to read
About the author
George Orwell
1,559 books49.3k followersEric Arthur Blair was an English novelist, poet, essayist, journalist and critic who wrote under the pen name of George Orwell. His work is characterised by lucid prose, social criticism, opposition to all totalitarianism (both authoritarian communism and fascism), and support of democratic socialism.
Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), although his works also encompass literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting his experience of working-class life in the industrial north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences soldiering for the Republican faction of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), are as critically respected as his essays on politics, literature, language and culture.
Orwell's work remains influential in popular culture and in political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language, like many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother", "Thought Police", "Room 101", "Newspeak", "memory hole", "doublethink", and "thoughtcrime". In 2008, The Times named Orwell the second-greatest British writer since 1945.
Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), although his works also encompass literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting his experience of working-class life in the industrial north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences soldiering for the Republican faction of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), are as critically respected as his essays on politics, literature, language and culture.
Orwell's work remains influential in popular culture and in political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language, like many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother", "Thought Police", "Room 101", "Newspeak", "memory hole", "doublethink", and "thoughtcrime". In 2008, The Times named Orwell the second-greatest British writer since 1945.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 196 reviews
November 24, 2020
Maybe politics have always been an unhinged, dirty mess, a deadly game played by severely damaged egos? Maybe the thought that we are "heading in the wrong direction" or "losing a commitment to truth" is the equivalent of the eternal human condition per se?
At least that is the conclusion I reach when nodding my way through George Orwell's essays from the 1940s on the rise of post-truth history writing. It is all so familiar!
Democracy is vulnerable because it does not accept the killer propaganda weapon that demagogues and wannabe-dictators use without even a moment of hesitation. And the Catch-22 is that the moment democracy fights back with the same weapons that tyrants use it turns into a tyranny itself.
However, there is hope.
There is resilience and love and dignity. Orwell's writing would not be possible otherwise. It does exist, though, and therefore truth does too. It is just hidden under a thick layer of dirt.
We should all be cleaners!
At least that is the conclusion I reach when nodding my way through George Orwell's essays from the 1940s on the rise of post-truth history writing. It is all so familiar!
Democracy is vulnerable because it does not accept the killer propaganda weapon that demagogues and wannabe-dictators use without even a moment of hesitation. And the Catch-22 is that the moment democracy fights back with the same weapons that tyrants use it turns into a tyranny itself.
However, there is hope.
There is resilience and love and dignity. Orwell's writing would not be possible otherwise. It does exist, though, and therefore truth does too. It is just hidden under a thick layer of dirt.
We should all be cleaners!
July 27, 2025
In today’s challenging world – from climate change to the war in Ukraine and the rise of despotism, demagoguery, and nascent fascism from Russia to the US, not to forget our domestic issues and Boris Johnson’s degenerate Toryism – Orwell provides a powerful example of a moral compass and the importance of principle.
October 26, 2021
The writer who told the truth.
What is the use of political liberty, so called, to a man who works 12 hours a day for 3 pounds a week? Once in five years he may get the chance to vote for his favourite party, but for the rest of the time practically every detail of his life is dictated by his employer.
Even when by some mischance a government representing the poorer classes gets into power, the rich can usually blackmail it by threatening to export capital.
The citizen of a democratic country is 'conditioned' from birth onwards, less rigidly but not much less effectively than he would be in a totalitarian country.
and lastly
The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world
What is the use of political liberty, so called, to a man who works 12 hours a day for 3 pounds a week? Once in five years he may get the chance to vote for his favourite party, but for the rest of the time practically every detail of his life is dictated by his employer.
Even when by some mischance a government representing the poorer classes gets into power, the rich can usually blackmail it by threatening to export capital.
The citizen of a democratic country is 'conditioned' from birth onwards, less rigidly but not much less effectively than he would be in a totalitarian country.
and lastly
The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world
January 27, 2020
1984 is often praised as being relevant in any age, suggesting ideas that apply much more widely that the context in which Orwell was writing. The same is true of his non-fiction essays in this little collection. Though they often centre around events that happened at the time, Orwell's reactions and thoughts raise ideas that apply to the modern world equally well.
June 10, 2022
reading essays to up my goodreads goal seems like a cheat code haha
February 24, 2021
A lovely short read, featuring some hitherto unpublished work. Orwell's insight and strong argumentation, paired with an obvious talent for writing, will never cease to enchant me. The subject matter is as current as it was upon writing in the 1940's, with the discourses of nationalism and totalitarianism terrifyingly on the rise once more.
March 5, 2023
George Orwell'in 5 adet makalesinden oluşan bir kitapçık.
Makalelerden ilki 'Fascism and Democracy'. 'Burjuva' demokrasisine Faşist ve Komünistlerin makalenin yazıldığı zamanlarda(1941), zamanın modasına uygun olarak, çokça eleştiride bulunduklarını belirtiyor ve bunu aynı zeminde yaptıklarının önemine dikkat çekiyor. Bu eleştirilerde doğruluk payı olmakla birlikte, gözden kaçan noktalara değiniyor (ki bu kısımlar bana Tevfik Uyar'ın Safsatalar kitabını anımsattı. Safsatalar, ilk duyduğunuzda bazen doğru gibi görünebilen ancak dikkatli düşünüp analiz edince ne kadar manasız veya mantık hatası barındırdığını gördüğünüz argümanlar olarak anlatılmıştı - en azından benim kitaptan aldığım budur. Ve bunları gruplayarak neden hatalı olduğunu ve nasıl karşılanabileceğini anlatıyordu. O düzlemde çok "benzer" bir akışla Orwell'in bu argümanları karşıladığını düşünüyorum. Aynı değil benzer, çünkü kendisi bu argümanların doğruluğunu teslim ediyor).
"This is not altogether false, and still less is it obviously false; on the contrary, there is more to be said for it than against it. A sixteen-year-old schoolboy can attack Democracy much better than he can defend it. And one cannot answer him unless one knows the anti-democratic 'case' and is willing to admit the large measure of truth it contains". Bizlerin de sıkça duyduğu ve katılmadan edemediği karşı argümanlara da, destekleyici argümanlara da objektif şekilde yer vermiş. Birbirinin birebir karşı argümanı değil ancak şu iki örnek akılda kalanlardan;
"To begin with, it is always urged against 'bourgeois' Democracy that it is negatived by economic inequality. What is the use of political liberty, so called, to a man who works 12 hours a day for £3 week? Once in five years he may get the chance to vote for his favourite party, but for the rest of the time practically every detail of his life is dictated by his employer" ve
"During the years 1929-34 all orthodox Communists were committed to the belief that 'Social-fascism'(i.e. Socialism) was the real enemy of the workers and that capitalist Democracy was in no way whatever preferable to Fascism. Yet when Hitler came to power scores of thousands of German Communists - still uttering the same doctrine, which was not abandoned till some time later - fled to France, Switzarland, England, the USA or any other democratic country that would admit them."
Diğer makaleler için de tek tek notlar yazmak istiyorum ancak tembellik yaparak başka bir güne bırakacağım onları. Umarım devam edebilirim.
Makalelerden ilki 'Fascism and Democracy'. 'Burjuva' demokrasisine Faşist ve Komünistlerin makalenin yazıldığı zamanlarda(1941), zamanın modasına uygun olarak, çokça eleştiride bulunduklarını belirtiyor ve bunu aynı zeminde yaptıklarının önemine dikkat çekiyor. Bu eleştirilerde doğruluk payı olmakla birlikte, gözden kaçan noktalara değiniyor (ki bu kısımlar bana Tevfik Uyar'ın Safsatalar kitabını anımsattı. Safsatalar, ilk duyduğunuzda bazen doğru gibi görünebilen ancak dikkatli düşünüp analiz edince ne kadar manasız veya mantık hatası barındırdığını gördüğünüz argümanlar olarak anlatılmıştı - en azından benim kitaptan aldığım budur. Ve bunları gruplayarak neden hatalı olduğunu ve nasıl karşılanabileceğini anlatıyordu. O düzlemde çok "benzer" bir akışla Orwell'in bu argümanları karşıladığını düşünüyorum. Aynı değil benzer, çünkü kendisi bu argümanların doğruluğunu teslim ediyor).
"This is not altogether false, and still less is it obviously false; on the contrary, there is more to be said for it than against it. A sixteen-year-old schoolboy can attack Democracy much better than he can defend it. And one cannot answer him unless one knows the anti-democratic 'case' and is willing to admit the large measure of truth it contains". Bizlerin de sıkça duyduğu ve katılmadan edemediği karşı argümanlara da, destekleyici argümanlara da objektif şekilde yer vermiş. Birbirinin birebir karşı argümanı değil ancak şu iki örnek akılda kalanlardan;
"To begin with, it is always urged against 'bourgeois' Democracy that it is negatived by economic inequality. What is the use of political liberty, so called, to a man who works 12 hours a day for £3 week? Once in five years he may get the chance to vote for his favourite party, but for the rest of the time practically every detail of his life is dictated by his employer" ve
"During the years 1929-34 all orthodox Communists were committed to the belief that 'Social-fascism'(i.e. Socialism) was the real enemy of the workers and that capitalist Democracy was in no way whatever preferable to Fascism. Yet when Hitler came to power scores of thousands of German Communists - still uttering the same doctrine, which was not abandoned till some time later - fled to France, Switzarland, England, the USA or any other democratic country that would admit them."
Diğer makaleler için de tek tek notlar yazmak istiyorum ancak tembellik yaparak başka bir güne bırakacağım onları. Umarım devam edebilirim.
November 16, 2021
This book fortified for me that although Orwell is a revolutionary writer, he's not the last authority to be referred to. The warnings against totalitarianism are ever-present in his writing, understandably. But he has misplaced hope in western democracy, which today we know has failed just as hard to protect people.
Also, by virtue of being English, he's bound to be prejudiced.
In "On fascism and democracy", he stated that he admires Churchill much as he hates his politics. Such views could only be held by someone who's never really had to fight for their own freedom because those virtues can only be separable to the privileged.
I do agree that "to work against democracy (though it has defects) is to saw off the branch you're sitting on" (its failings notwithstanding).
Also, I disagree that freedom to express fascist opinions proves democratic liberty. Hateful opinions that obstruct other people's rights do not come under freedom of speech.
In "Literature and totalitarianism", he stated that the worst thing that could be said about a work of art is that it is insincere. I would argue that writing with half knowledge is harmful irrespective of if you really felt that that was the truth sincerely.
In "Review of The invasion of Mars", he stated that a survey found out most people not likely to check the veracity of things they heard were poor, ill-educated, economically insecure or unhappy in their private lives. But I know that level of education doesn't hinder the probability of being complicit in believing things as facts.
In "Visions of a totalitarian future", he stated that England believes the Right invariably triumphs in the last chapter but, this is why nationalism is so scary because obviously, every nation would think it is the right one even if it's not. (Just read UK's history textbooks)
The book still gave me a lot to think about.
3.5🌟
Also, by virtue of being English, he's bound to be prejudiced.
In "On fascism and democracy", he stated that he admires Churchill much as he hates his politics. Such views could only be held by someone who's never really had to fight for their own freedom because those virtues can only be separable to the privileged.
I do agree that "to work against democracy (though it has defects) is to saw off the branch you're sitting on" (its failings notwithstanding).
Also, I disagree that freedom to express fascist opinions proves democratic liberty. Hateful opinions that obstruct other people's rights do not come under freedom of speech.
In "Literature and totalitarianism", he stated that the worst thing that could be said about a work of art is that it is insincere. I would argue that writing with half knowledge is harmful irrespective of if you really felt that that was the truth sincerely.
In "Review of The invasion of Mars", he stated that a survey found out most people not likely to check the veracity of things they heard were poor, ill-educated, economically insecure or unhappy in their private lives. But I know that level of education doesn't hinder the probability of being complicit in believing things as facts.
In "Visions of a totalitarian future", he stated that England believes the Right invariably triumphs in the last chapter but, this is why nationalism is so scary because obviously, every nation would think it is the right one even if it's not. (Just read UK's history textbooks)
The book still gave me a lot to think about.
3.5🌟
January 26, 2020
These four short essays and a book review have been issued to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Orwell's death, and they were written between 1940 and 1945, mostly in 1941. They are an impassioned defence of democracy against fascism, but using arguments that reminded me of Churchill's remark that democracy is the worst form of govt except all the others that have been tried.
He is also equally sceptical about socialism, and he is writing at a time when the British communists were still looking to Russia as an example, and somehow trying to justify Stalin's excesses.
What gives the booklet a contemporary relevance however is his emphasis on the crucial importance of freedom of speech, and how it can be threatened by an angry, divided population. I am reading, at the same time, Jonathan Coe's remarkable 'Middle England', which explores Brexit Britain with withering accuracy and humour, and the two books tie together very neatly.
He is also equally sceptical about socialism, and he is writing at a time when the British communists were still looking to Russia as an example, and somehow trying to justify Stalin's excesses.
What gives the booklet a contemporary relevance however is his emphasis on the crucial importance of freedom of speech, and how it can be threatened by an angry, divided population. I am reading, at the same time, Jonathan Coe's remarkable 'Middle England', which explores Brexit Britain with withering accuracy and humour, and the two books tie together very neatly.
October 13, 2022
''And here one comes upon the best asset that capitalist democracy has to show. It is the comparative feeling of security enjoyed by the citizens of democratic countries, the knowledge that when you talk politics with your friends there is no Gestapo ear glued to the keyhole, the belief that 'they' cannot punish you unless you have broken the law, the belief that the law is above the State.
It does not matter that this belief is partly an illusion- as it is, of course.''
It does not matter that this belief is partly an illusion- as it is, of course.''
January 13, 2025
Brilliant and very very interesting. Orwell lays out things that can seem cynical at times, but it is really just hard truth. It's a bit depressing at times though-- especially when you consider modern-day America and its recent election and the world more broadly-- but I suppose 1941 wartime Britain is not the same as 2024 America.
March 28, 2021
'The degree of freedom of the press existing in this country [Britain] is often over-rated. Technically there is great freedom, but the fact that most of the press is owned by a few people operates in much the same way as State censorship . . .
The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them . . . The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecutued'.
- George Orwell, 'Freedom of the Park' (published in Tribune, December 1945)
The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them . . . The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecutued'.
- George Orwell, 'Freedom of the Park' (published in Tribune, December 1945)
June 7, 2021
Incrível como um livro escrito há mais de 50 anos pode tão perfeitamente se encaixar nos fatos que ocorrem atualmente. "A liberdade relativa que desfrutamos depende da opinião pública. A lei não é proteção. Os governos fazem leis, mas se elas são cumpridas, e como a polícia se comporta, depende do temperamento geral do país. Se um grande número de pessoas estiver interessado na liberdade de expressão, mesmo que a lei a proíba; se a opinião pública for preguiçosa, as minorias inconvenientes serão perseguidas, mesmo que existam leis que as protejam." Haverá mais reflexões do autor sobre uma realidade contemporânea à segunda grande guerra mundial que se encaixarão perfeitamente nesse mundo de hoje, e como isso é assustador. O livro é bilíngue, e permite aos interessados conferir o texto no original. Conta ainda com um bônus, um texto de Sêneca. Também muito interessante.
June 26, 2020
Should be essential reading for everyone in school - Like from 5th grade, everyone should just be taught this. Specifically loved the essays 'Literature and Totalitarianism' and 'Visions of a Totalitarian future'
May 13, 2022
Bastante perspicaz, Orwell analisa a situação corrente do seu país e nota como a história é mentirosa, como a imprensa é mentirosa e como a língua pode ser corrompida para perder significados além de 'gosto' ou 'não gosto' de tal coisa ou pessoa - como no caso da palavra 'fascismo'.
July 9, 2024
— ‘And here one comes upon the best asset that capitalist democracy has to show. It is the comparative feeling of security enjoyed by the citizens of democratic countries, the knowledge that when you talk politics with your friends there is no Gestapo ear glued to the keyhole, the belief that 'they' cannot punish you unless you have broken the law, the belief that the law is above the State. It does not matter that this belief is partly an illusion, as it is, of course.’
March 8, 2025
“The worst thing we can say about a work of art is that it is insincere. It is easy to pay lip service to the orthodoxy of the moment, but literature of true consequence can only be produced when a man feels the truth of what he is saying”
George never misses, a true king.
George never misses, a true king.
September 10, 2024
Kovin ajankohtainen taas kiitos Petteri Orpon ja Riikka Purran.
June 23, 2025
did I like it? yes. did I understand everything written in it? probably not. do I care? absolutely not.
June 24, 2025
Short little pamphlet of George Orwell’s thoughts on a variety of topics. Useful for understanding the author and also his works especially 1984
February 10, 2024
Ja hoef hier niet eens meer iets over kwijt behalve dat gewoon alle essays van George Orwell fire zijn.
June 26, 2020
Dit zijn vijf essays van Orwell uitgesmeerd over 36 bladzijden. Er staan zeker wat wijsheden in — een paar rake conclusies — maar het mist op veel punten scherpte, en de compositie is ook ietwat vreemd (waar Orwell natuurlijk niets aan kan doen, maar het boekje wel minder treffend maakt).
Het eerste essay (1941) gaat over de vraag waarom bourgeois democratie beter zou zijn dan fascisme. Dit is niet echt een discussie die in linkse milieus gevoerd wordt, maar ’t was een onderwerp waarmee de communisten in de jaren dertig graag aan de haal gingen: dat een liberale rechtstaat en het fascisme één pot nat zouden zijn. Orwell neemt het standpunt in van de democratisch socialisten, dat de liberale democratie best het verdedigen waard is. Hij hint er wel een paar keer naar dat er misschien nog wel ruimte voor verbetering is, maar zijn hoofdargument blijft dat ’t hoe dan ook beter dan fascisme is. Het is misschien de wijsheid van achteraf, maar een van de grootste teleurstellingen geuit door linkse lieden sinds de jaren ’60 is dat hun voorgangers in het interbellum en de jaren vijftig erin faalden fatsoenlijke democratische hervormingen voor te stellen. De boodschap van dit essay was misschien belangrijk in 1940, maar niet heel constructief in 2020.
Het tweede stuk (1941) gaat over literatuur. De conclusie is dat in feodale tijden er weinig persvrijheid was, maar dat mensen daarmee waren opgegroeid en ermee konden dealen, terwijl in de jaren dertig en veertig fascisten en communisten dicteerden wat de vrijheid van de dag was, en dat mensen daarvan emotioneel kapot werden gemaakt, omdat ze elke keer hun gevoelens moesten bijstellen. Dit essay is eigenlijk een studie voor Orwells 1984 .
“Freedom in the Park” (1945) gaat over censuur in het naoorlogse Engeland. Het is eigenlijk een klaagzang over het gebrek aan transparantie bij de nieuwe Labour-regering van toen. Er waren wat colporteurs opgepakt die linkse bladen verkochten in een park, en Orwell vraagt zich af in hoeverre een nieuwe overheid ambtelijke functionarissen moet vervangen. Als de politie even rechts blijft als onder alle Tory-regeringen van ervoor, moeten alle korpschefs dan worden ontslagen om dat te fixen? En hoe zit het met de geheime diensten en hoe met het bestuur de BBC enz. Tja, dat weet ik eigenlijk ook niet, George.
Het vierde verhaal (1940) gaat over The War of the Worlds, dat hoorspel over wezens van Mars die de Aarde komen genocideren, waarvan iedereen die de radio na de inleiding aanzette dacht dat het een nieuwsuitzending was en het Einde nabij was. Orwell reflecteert op een enquête die achteraf gehouden werd, waarin mensen gevraagd werd hoe ze reageerden toen ze dachten dat hun leven voorbij was. Blijkbaar vonden mensen die toch al niet zo’n boeiend leven hadden het eigenlijk wel prima, zolang de hele mensheid maar tegelijk met ze dood ging. Dat is het hele stuk; ik weet niet zo goed wat dat met fascisme of democratie te maken heeft. Als we samen hard zouden denken zouden we misschien wel tot iets interessants kunnen komen, maar Orwell doet ’t niet voor ons.
De laatste (1942) gaat over partijdige geschiedenis, fake news en de werkelijkheid. Het zijn conclusies over Orwells ervaringen in Catalonië tijdens de Spaanse Burgeroorlog en observaties over hoe er met de werkelijkheid om wordt gegaan. In dit essay staan zinnen die letterlijk in 1984 terug te vinden zijn, ook al vormt de basis voor dit essay zijn Homage to Catalonia . Daarnaast reflecteert hij op de mentaliteit in het VK ten opzichte van totalitaire regimes en de fascistische misdrijven die daar gepleegd worden. Hij schrijft: “We in England underrate the danger of this kind of thing, because our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the thing you most fear never really happens.”
Het eerste essay (1941) gaat over de vraag waarom bourgeois democratie beter zou zijn dan fascisme. Dit is niet echt een discussie die in linkse milieus gevoerd wordt, maar ’t was een onderwerp waarmee de communisten in de jaren dertig graag aan de haal gingen: dat een liberale rechtstaat en het fascisme één pot nat zouden zijn. Orwell neemt het standpunt in van de democratisch socialisten, dat de liberale democratie best het verdedigen waard is. Hij hint er wel een paar keer naar dat er misschien nog wel ruimte voor verbetering is, maar zijn hoofdargument blijft dat ’t hoe dan ook beter dan fascisme is. Het is misschien de wijsheid van achteraf, maar een van de grootste teleurstellingen geuit door linkse lieden sinds de jaren ’60 is dat hun voorgangers in het interbellum en de jaren vijftig erin faalden fatsoenlijke democratische hervormingen voor te stellen. De boodschap van dit essay was misschien belangrijk in 1940, maar niet heel constructief in 2020.
Het tweede stuk (1941) gaat over literatuur. De conclusie is dat in feodale tijden er weinig persvrijheid was, maar dat mensen daarmee waren opgegroeid en ermee konden dealen, terwijl in de jaren dertig en veertig fascisten en communisten dicteerden wat de vrijheid van de dag was, en dat mensen daarvan emotioneel kapot werden gemaakt, omdat ze elke keer hun gevoelens moesten bijstellen. Dit essay is eigenlijk een studie voor Orwells 1984 .
“Freedom in the Park” (1945) gaat over censuur in het naoorlogse Engeland. Het is eigenlijk een klaagzang over het gebrek aan transparantie bij de nieuwe Labour-regering van toen. Er waren wat colporteurs opgepakt die linkse bladen verkochten in een park, en Orwell vraagt zich af in hoeverre een nieuwe overheid ambtelijke functionarissen moet vervangen. Als de politie even rechts blijft als onder alle Tory-regeringen van ervoor, moeten alle korpschefs dan worden ontslagen om dat te fixen? En hoe zit het met de geheime diensten en hoe met het bestuur de BBC enz. Tja, dat weet ik eigenlijk ook niet, George.
Het vierde verhaal (1940) gaat over The War of the Worlds, dat hoorspel over wezens van Mars die de Aarde komen genocideren, waarvan iedereen die de radio na de inleiding aanzette dacht dat het een nieuwsuitzending was en het Einde nabij was. Orwell reflecteert op een enquête die achteraf gehouden werd, waarin mensen gevraagd werd hoe ze reageerden toen ze dachten dat hun leven voorbij was. Blijkbaar vonden mensen die toch al niet zo’n boeiend leven hadden het eigenlijk wel prima, zolang de hele mensheid maar tegelijk met ze dood ging. Dat is het hele stuk; ik weet niet zo goed wat dat met fascisme of democratie te maken heeft. Als we samen hard zouden denken zouden we misschien wel tot iets interessants kunnen komen, maar Orwell doet ’t niet voor ons.
De laatste (1942) gaat over partijdige geschiedenis, fake news en de werkelijkheid. Het zijn conclusies over Orwells ervaringen in Catalonië tijdens de Spaanse Burgeroorlog en observaties over hoe er met de werkelijkheid om wordt gegaan. In dit essay staan zinnen die letterlijk in 1984 terug te vinden zijn, ook al vormt de basis voor dit essay zijn Homage to Catalonia . Daarnaast reflecteert hij op de mentaliteit in het VK ten opzichte van totalitaire regimes en de fascistische misdrijven die daar gepleegd worden. Hij schrijft: “We in England underrate the danger of this kind of thing, because our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the thing you most fear never really happens.”
April 4, 2025
A short book of 5 essays by Orwell, discussing some notions of democracy, freedom, totalitarianism, freedom of speech. The overall conclusion is that we should not take our freedom for granted as it can change any minute. And given the circumstances of the current world, who can argue that we have freedom at all?
November 3, 2022
Em "Fascismo e Democracia", um compilado de artigos escritos em plena 2a. Guerra Mundial, George Orwell expõe, sem qualquer reserva, as entranhas do pensamento fascista. É a opinião de um homem de sua época, ainda sob a ameaça de uma Alemanha Nazista, no momento em que o fascismo era combatido dentro e fora das trincheiras. Enquanto homens se sacrificavam no front para deter o fascismo, as elites econômicas (controlando vários políticos) e parte da população iludida pelos discursos de extrema direita minavam os esforços democrático "dentro de casa", nos jornais e nas tribunas londrinas.
O mais assustador é encontrar os paralelos entre aquela época e hoje, como no trecho onde Orwell explica como a verdade é distorcida e manipulada pelos fascistas:
"[Para os fascistas] não existe, por exemplo, uma coisa como 'ciência'. Existe apenas a 'ciência alemã', a 'ciência judaica', etc. O objetivo implícito desta linha de pensamento é um mundo de pesadelo no qual o Líder, ou algum grupo governante, controla não apenas o futuro, mas o passado. Se o Líder diz acerca de tal evento, ‘Nunca aconteceu’ – bem, nunca aconteceu. Se ele diz que dois e dois são cinco – bem, dois e dois são cinco. Esta perspectiva me assusta muito mais do que as bombas – e depois de nossas experiências dos últimos anos isso, essa não é uma afirmação frívola."
Em outro momento, Orwell mostra como as elites sempre são coniventes com o fascismo, desde que seus interesses econômicos não sejam ameaçados. Nunca é pela democracia; sempre é pelo dinheiro!
"Naquela data, Hitler ainda era respeitável. Ele havia esmagado o movimento trabalhista alemão e por isso, as classes de proprietários estavam dispostas a perdoar-lhe quase tudo. (...) É fácil dizer que em certo estágio de sua carreira, ele foi financiado pelos industriais, que viram nele o homem que esmagaria o socialismo e o comunismo."
George Orwell ainda não havia escrito "1984", mas já podemos perceber os sentimentos antifascistas que mais tarde fariam com que ele escrevesse esta obra. Ler Orwell hoje é praticamente uma obrigação para qualquer democrata. Para entendermos o presente, precisamos entender o passado - e impedir que ele seja apagado.
O mais assustador é encontrar os paralelos entre aquela época e hoje, como no trecho onde Orwell explica como a verdade é distorcida e manipulada pelos fascistas:
"[Para os fascistas] não existe, por exemplo, uma coisa como 'ciência'. Existe apenas a 'ciência alemã', a 'ciência judaica', etc. O objetivo implícito desta linha de pensamento é um mundo de pesadelo no qual o Líder, ou algum grupo governante, controla não apenas o futuro, mas o passado. Se o Líder diz acerca de tal evento, ‘Nunca aconteceu’ – bem, nunca aconteceu. Se ele diz que dois e dois são cinco – bem, dois e dois são cinco. Esta perspectiva me assusta muito mais do que as bombas – e depois de nossas experiências dos últimos anos isso, essa não é uma afirmação frívola."
Em outro momento, Orwell mostra como as elites sempre são coniventes com o fascismo, desde que seus interesses econômicos não sejam ameaçados. Nunca é pela democracia; sempre é pelo dinheiro!
"Naquela data, Hitler ainda era respeitável. Ele havia esmagado o movimento trabalhista alemão e por isso, as classes de proprietários estavam dispostas a perdoar-lhe quase tudo. (...) É fácil dizer que em certo estágio de sua carreira, ele foi financiado pelos industriais, que viram nele o homem que esmagaria o socialismo e o comunismo."
George Orwell ainda não havia escrito "1984", mas já podemos perceber os sentimentos antifascistas que mais tarde fariam com que ele escrevesse esta obra. Ler Orwell hoje é praticamente uma obrigação para qualquer democrata. Para entendermos o presente, precisamos entender o passado - e impedir que ele seja apagado.
March 16, 2022
From the back cover: “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world… This prospect frightens me more than bombs.”
Incredibly short. More like a pamphlet than a book, but I found it in English and thought it looked interesting. It’s five essays on fascism, totalitarianism, and truth.
I think both modern leftists and modern conservatives would have a problem with his views for different reasons, but there is wisdom here if it’s something that interests you.
I particularly found the “Literature and Totalitarianism” essay interesting.
Incredibly short. More like a pamphlet than a book, but I found it in English and thought it looked interesting. It’s five essays on fascism, totalitarianism, and truth.
I think both modern leftists and modern conservatives would have a problem with his views for different reasons, but there is wisdom here if it’s something that interests you.
I particularly found the “Literature and Totalitarianism” essay interesting.
August 19, 2021
Incrível como um livro escrito há tanto tempo pode ter questões tão atuais.
February 9, 2023
This collection of articles serves as a debunking of the “debunkers” of Democracy, the sympathizers of totalitarian systems and the “all sides do bad things” brand of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. No passage sums up this book better than the following:
“During the years 1929-34 all orthodox Communists were committed to the belief that 'Social-fascism' (i.e. Socialism) was the real enemy of the workers and that capitalist Democracy was in no way whatever preferable to Fascism. Yet when Hitler came to power scores of thousands of German Communists - still uttering the same doctrine, which was not abandoned till some time later - fled to France, Switzerland, England, the USA or any other democratic country that would admit them. By their action they had belied their words; they had 'voted with their feet, as Lenin put it.
And here one comes upon the best asset that capitalist Democracy has to show. It is the comparative feeling of security enjoyed by the citizens of democratic countries, the knowledge that when you talk politics with your friend there is no Gestapo ear glued to the keyhole, the belief that 'they' cannot punish you unless you have broken the law, the belief that the law is above the State.”
The articles are full of clairvoyant assertions about the dangers of totalitarianism for Europe and its perverse effect on the quality of democratic political systems (he correctly points at fake news turned into political praxis by Communist and Fascist regimes as the beginning of the deterioration of the consensus around facts, even in democratic countries). Although I’m happy (and he’d be as well) to see that one of his assumptions didn’t hold even 50 years into the future:
“[W]hat instance is there of a modern industrialised state collapsing unless conquered from the outside by military force?”
“During the years 1929-34 all orthodox Communists were committed to the belief that 'Social-fascism' (i.e. Socialism) was the real enemy of the workers and that capitalist Democracy was in no way whatever preferable to Fascism. Yet when Hitler came to power scores of thousands of German Communists - still uttering the same doctrine, which was not abandoned till some time later - fled to France, Switzerland, England, the USA or any other democratic country that would admit them. By their action they had belied their words; they had 'voted with their feet, as Lenin put it.
And here one comes upon the best asset that capitalist Democracy has to show. It is the comparative feeling of security enjoyed by the citizens of democratic countries, the knowledge that when you talk politics with your friend there is no Gestapo ear glued to the keyhole, the belief that 'they' cannot punish you unless you have broken the law, the belief that the law is above the State.”
The articles are full of clairvoyant assertions about the dangers of totalitarianism for Europe and its perverse effect on the quality of democratic political systems (he correctly points at fake news turned into political praxis by Communist and Fascist regimes as the beginning of the deterioration of the consensus around facts, even in democratic countries). Although I’m happy (and he’d be as well) to see that one of his assumptions didn’t hold even 50 years into the future:
“[W]hat instance is there of a modern industrialised state collapsing unless conquered from the outside by military force?”
January 6, 2023
Orwell’s writing on the treacherousness of totalitarianism is extremely relevant, however I am not as accepting in my view of British Democracy as him. Just because democracy in Britain does not facilitate persecution of opinion at rates aa high as those in Nazi Germany, does not mean we should disregard rightful criticism of ‘bourgeois’ democracy.
Orwell is right about how the state can not facilitate any sort of freedom, and democracy can only survive when free and be ‘true’ when free from private property, the state and religion. Just as Orwell states, literature can only thrive when emancipated from these conditions.
The points he makes on freedom of expression are also important. We should allow freedom of expression for all, and we do not need the state to decide what we should think. Instead society and communities will decide. In Britain we can be said to have both freedom of expression, whilst having no freedom at the same time. We are free to express our opinions in places such as Hyde Park, but our press is owned by a select few, so how can our opinion be truly free from the influence of these few?
Furthermore, what is the use of a left-wing government if all other institutions, such as the police, are intent on persecuting left-wing activists? Freedom and self-expression can only be expressed when these institutions are extirpated. The state and private property are a hindrance to humans having autonomy over our lives.
Orwell is right about how the state can not facilitate any sort of freedom, and democracy can only survive when free and be ‘true’ when free from private property, the state and religion. Just as Orwell states, literature can only thrive when emancipated from these conditions.
The points he makes on freedom of expression are also important. We should allow freedom of expression for all, and we do not need the state to decide what we should think. Instead society and communities will decide. In Britain we can be said to have both freedom of expression, whilst having no freedom at the same time. We are free to express our opinions in places such as Hyde Park, but our press is owned by a select few, so how can our opinion be truly free from the influence of these few?
Furthermore, what is the use of a left-wing government if all other institutions, such as the police, are intent on persecuting left-wing activists? Freedom and self-expression can only be expressed when these institutions are extirpated. The state and private property are a hindrance to humans having autonomy over our lives.
December 4, 2023
Orwell shining his light on the totalitarian impulse and the correlated subjects of literature and freedom of speech.
"Totalitarianism has abolished freedom of thought to an extent unheard of in any previous age. And it is important to realise that its control of thought is not only negative, but positive. It not only forbids you to express – even to think – certain thoughts but it dictates what you shall think, it creates an ideology for you, it tries to govern your emotional life as well as setting up a code of conduct. And as far as possible it isolates you from the outside world, it shuts you up in an artificial universe in which you have no standards of comparison."
"The peculiarity of the totalitarian state is that though it controls thought, it doesn’t fix it. It sets up unquestionable dogmas, and it alters them from day to day. It needs the dogmas, because it needs absolute obedience from its subjects, but it can’t avoid the changes, which are dictated by the needs of power politics. It declares itself infallible, and at the same time it attacks the very concept of objective truth."
"If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them."
"Totalitarianism has abolished freedom of thought to an extent unheard of in any previous age. And it is important to realise that its control of thought is not only negative, but positive. It not only forbids you to express – even to think – certain thoughts but it dictates what you shall think, it creates an ideology for you, it tries to govern your emotional life as well as setting up a code of conduct. And as far as possible it isolates you from the outside world, it shuts you up in an artificial universe in which you have no standards of comparison."
"The peculiarity of the totalitarian state is that though it controls thought, it doesn’t fix it. It sets up unquestionable dogmas, and it alters them from day to day. It needs the dogmas, because it needs absolute obedience from its subjects, but it can’t avoid the changes, which are dictated by the needs of power politics. It declares itself infallible, and at the same time it attacks the very concept of objective truth."
"If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them."
June 30, 2025
Are you frightened of a totalitarian future? Of the total suppression of individuality? Perhaps you even feel that the conception of objective truth is being abandoned left and right but don’t know what the consequences of such move would be. Put simply, I’d be the end of reason and Truth. If you have those feelings, then pick up this book but especially the chapter named “Visions of a Totalitarian Future”.
One of Orwell’s rallying cry is the need to find common grounds, that is, an agreed upon “body of facts.” This being an outgrowth of the idea that there is an external world that is independent of us. I’ve heard Christopher Hitchens talk about a similar idea, namely, that we require a common pool of reference. I think they were talking about the same thing.
The totalitarian brought back slavery from the dead, in the form of concentration camps, and wielded it against the living. If its spreads globally, then we will enter an age of an unprecedented darkness.
One of Orwell’s rallying cry is the need to find common grounds, that is, an agreed upon “body of facts.” This being an outgrowth of the idea that there is an external world that is independent of us. I’ve heard Christopher Hitchens talk about a similar idea, namely, that we require a common pool of reference. I think they were talking about the same thing.
The totalitarian brought back slavery from the dead, in the form of concentration camps, and wielded it against the living. If its spreads globally, then we will enter an age of an unprecedented darkness.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 196 reviews