Was George Orwell BAD? Reviewing A TERRIBLE Hitpiece From Hakim
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- 🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
👕 MERCH - merch.whitefor...
😎 SIGN UP TO CANVASS! www.vaush.gg/map
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ 2nd Channel - / thevaushpit
👀 3rd Channel? - / @vaushvidya
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
Intro animation credit goes to / itismekyleg & / honeybunnbadger for the visuals, and / sound_sierra for the audio! Thank you!
#vaush #vaushpit
Orwell's two most successful works, Animal Farm and 1984, were banned in the USSR for being anti-communist, and banned in the US for being anti-capitalist. The more accurate analysis being, of course, that they are anti-authoritarian, and thus critical of both.
Animal Farm is not anti-authoritarian. The message of Animal Farm is that the masses are incapable of replacing an authoritarian state with a non-authoritarian state. This message is antithetical to those who now support Orwell's works. I personally believe that the masses are quite capable of forming better societies as they are, meaning that I disagree with Orwell and for good reason.
It is absolutely anti authoritarian . The animals overthrew the farmer, an authoritarian. The point was then about the nature of power and how it corrupts
@@stinky702 if you really believe that you missed a lot and might want to reread the book
@@stinky702 To my memory, the animals new society is doing just fine until co-opted by a faction of the revolutionary vanguard through corruption and violence.
That's the opposite of what Orwell wrote in Animal Farm. First of all, the pigs (rulers) after revolution don't end up as worse than humans (capitalist or monarchy) before revolution - the end quote is that "animals looked at pigs and humans and couldn't see any difference" - postrevolutionary goverment become reactionary.
Second of all, if anything, what Orwell wants to say is that the masses NEEDS to be in charge of revolution and after revolution, and that the masses needs to control postrevolutionary goverment in order to make revolutionary changes stable and that the masses needs to be careful in not giving anyone power that could lead to destruction of socialism by creating of new governing class.
So the moral is directed toward working class and its "don't give power to anyone who is not controlled by working class, because it will lead to loss of everything that we won in revolutionary struggle".
Julia wasn’t sexualized. Rather, she was asserting her sexuality in a world that told her she wasn’t allowed to, that sexual purity was good, and that any sex outside of procreation was wrong. Though she slept with a lot of men, it wasn’t portrayed as a bad thing, but rather as a sign that she was a free-thinker. Sounds just like feminism, if you think about it for a few seconds.
You think tankies can think?
@@mossystone584 there's a reason they're called tankies and not thinkies
It's more than that--- Julia was a real type of woman who existed within the socialist movement in those days, who would sleep around as a revolutionary act, not for hedonistic purposes.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 y-yeah that's why I do it too
Yeah, I mean I’ve always assumed Winston x Julia was a self-insert but it’s also kind of a feminist thing in the context of the book.
Also, I’m pretty sure George Orwell was one of the few Brits who vocally protested appeasement of Hitler during WW2, so Hakim’s framing of him as a Hitler apologist is utterly bizarre and ahistorical.
Yes, you are right and you are right. Orwell was always, consistently, anti-Fascist. This guy, Hakim, if he hadn't got an agenda you would assume he had a brain injury.
Wouldn't be the only lie in this video...
London was getting bombed daily by Germans. I don't see why anti-Hitler Brits would be in the minority.
The irony of someone who idolizes Lenin and Stalin calling George Orwell a bad person
"Orwell was a rapist" screams the Stalin (pedophile) defender
A very good judge of character lol
why was lenin bad?
Lenin was great…we need him now.
@@jonathanmccartney5809me when the secret police come to my house
Hakim's intrepretation of Animal Farm being "the working class is too dumb to have political autonomy" is borderline illiterate. Is there any proof this guy's a physician?
Well of course, he worships an illiterate.
Intelligence can be very compartmentalized. Also intelligence doesn’t mean you’re always correct, you can intelligently argue an incorrect position.
What really shocked me is that MLs believe this. It's no wonder they call themselves the vanguard. Yeah, thanks but no thanks. It's such a damn shame too because some of them are well read in Marxist theory.
Well, there's proof that Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon. That should tell you that you can be really really good at one thing and still be an idiot in other areas.
I mean… besides the pigs the animals were literally incapable of learning more than basic reading comprehension which let them be easily manipulated by the pigs
Ah yes George Orwell, the man everyone references to win political debates while never having read his work.
But we watched the movie.
Ok I read 1984. Give me a cookie
I actually got my cookie for reading 1984, but I ate it so I can't prove it right now.
But the Joe Orville 1895 animal crossing meme is funny
@@TheKiroshidown the memory hole the cookie went
... Orwell didn't criticize Spanish fascism? Like... The guy who wrote Homage to Catalonia? That guy? Hakim must be talking about some other guy, surely.
He didn't just criticize it, he literally flew down to Spain to try to help fight it. He was a Spanish Civil War vet.
Its funny, because if you look back at the beginning of the video, Hakim briefly flashes Homage to Catalonia on screen as examples of books he wrote
Nah hes talking about the guy who reported communists and gays and blacks to the secret brittish police (famous socialist force)
He literally got shot in the neck fighting fascism and the experience changed him forever. He then felt betrayed by Stalin’s support for crushing the anarchists in Spain. These are the autobiographical events that changed Orwell.
well Hakim is a tankie so he doesn't know anything he's referencing. It's just "i'm going to say anything that goes against the west is good and then completely ignore all historical evidence"
Only the pigs could read and write in Animal Farm and told the other animals to trust them to read and interpret everything for the other animals.
Hakim:
“I won’t show you any of the text from Animal Farm, trust me to interpret it for you!”
Omg he makes a great 'Squealer'.
Which proves Hakim’s point that the central theme of Animal Farm is that the working class is too stupid and incompetent to directly manage the affairs of society themselves.
The goat could read too, but instead of calling out the lies he just kept his head down.
@@неамериканец-н1в... Except Orwell was an anarchist... Who fought with the anarchists in Spain...
The point was that elevating people above yourself and trusting them to bring you freedom will only ever result in the same as before but under new management.
@@неамериканец-н1вThey weren’t stupid. The point the book was making with the uneducated animals was that the working class NEED to be educated to stand against people who try to take advantage of them (in this instance, Napoleon and Squealer who perverted the values the animals had originally agreed upon). The Donkey and the younger pigs were also part of the working class here, and they were intelligent, but were either murdered for challenging Napoleon’s rule or stayed quiet when they could’ve spoken up. The book is meant to serve as a cautionary tale for the working-class if anything.
Of course tankies wouldn't like Orwell because he was against authoritarianism. Orwell saw it firsthand when he fought in the Spanish civil war. Homage to Catalonia is an interesting book he wrote about it.
Also, the old war footage from when he "volunteered" is fun
Nazis and tankies are literally the same in their authoritarian views.
I actually ordered Homage to Catalonia after watching this segment on stream and I’m reading through it atm. I’m interested in getting to the political analysis and his perspective on the “spicier” parts of his time there.
Yeah he hung out and wanted to join the Anarchists, but Hakims an authoritarian so…
Homage is my favorite of his works. Everyone should read Orwell beyond just 1984 and Animal Farm -- some of his lesser known stuff is just as good if not better.
Gotta love tankies attacking the personal character of decent, but obviously flawed people, while also simping for authoritarian megalomaniacal brutes.
i very much wouldnt call Orwell a decent man...
They need "absolutely perfect" idols, so when someone disagrees with said idol they fabricate falsehoods to undermine the value of the critic as a person, the same way religious cult leaders make up pariahs for the cult to hate
@@esesel7831So do you have anything specific to say or are you only interested in vague gestures?
@@esesel7831 I understand what you mean, especially aftering watching the rest of the video and learning of some things I was unaware of. I think my point still stands. You could make your same comment about Gandhi. Was he decent? Certainly when it came to some things, certainly not when it comes to others. You can obviously find SOME good things when it comes to people like Stalin, but I'd say the bad overwhelmingly outweighs the good. I think you should absolutely discuss and acknowledge the horrible things about people like Orwell and Gandhi who we seem to act as if weren't flawed people who weren't entirely good but they also have plenty of good that can be learned from.
He was a police officer in a colony. Not a decent person. Vile trash.
George Orwell was a very flawed person, but his personal flaws don’t invalidate his critiques of authoritarianism. What’s funny to me is that the same people who over-analyze every bad thing Orwell ever said are willing to excuse literal genocides committed by Stalin and Mao. (Or just deny them)
Didnt mao "just" cause massive famines? Im not really knowledgeable on this
@@SmashingCapitalell Mao was an idiot who didn’t really know what he was as doing…Great Leap Forward ? More like Great Leap Backward
Stalin on the other hand did it to reach his end goal…He knew that Soviet Union needed rapid industrialisation and he would complete that goal at any “cost”…That cost came in the name of Gulags…
@@jasonbrody5270Mao's policies on collectivization and industrializing China ended centuries of famine, the so-called "Great Chinese Famine" deaths were 16 to 23 million not 70 million or whatever high score that lying Goebbels propagandists drunkenly made up.
He doubled life expectancy from 35 to 70 years and raised literacy resulting in 95% lifting 100s of millions of Chinese people out of mediaevalism and into the modern world.
@@SmashingCapitalI'm pretty certain I remember one of the famines he caused was brought about by him trying to wipe out birds that pecked at crops. Naturally, this allowed the insect population to balloon dramatically, which was much worse for crops.
@@SmashingCapitalah, Mao. Complicated. Is it better or worse to shoot / gas people or to starve them? I was thinking of some cutting reply but realised I can't really answer the question. Look him up, he's a fascinating read. My two take away points - 1) he wanted to be in charge. Really, really. 2) other people's lives meant less than nothing to him. Those two can't be argued. 😂👍
Calling Animal Farm Orwell's most important work and writing off 1984 entirely as bad and boring implies a level of reading comprehension and critical analysis that has not exceeded the 8th grade.
Animal Farm is short too, like 80-some pages? Its not diving deep into anything It's just stating its politics though the entire book. Be it character names or direct text or so on. (Not bad, it is what it is)
1984 is a bit under 400 pages, and obviously that characterization of Winston, or Oceania itself changes or pushes the books points and messages. You can find it boring, it is almost a modern "slice of life" in some respects with how it delivers those moments of world building.. but "bad"?
Personally, ive never found either of those books boring. But i especially loved reading 1984, yeah im heavy into science fiction as well as dystopian stories, but tbh i understood the book was describing a world setting for a large majority of the book. Yes, especially at the start, not too much happens, but that is the whole point. The point is they are in a grim bland depressing ass world, and hes explaining how exactly and why exactly it is the way it is. Winston realizing slowly whats going on.
Tbf, i grew up being raised and gaslit in a cult, so i can relate to the book on a personal level. And i understand my reading level is probably on the far higher end compared to the average tankie. But damn, its one thing to say you dont like something. I hate reading Shakespeare, but i can obviously tell its important and good writing
1984 does vary much feel like a dystopian slice of life novel, perhaps the first of its kind. It s a bit like the major of Philip K Dick's novels minus the sense the heavy science fiction and sense the writer is high. Also longer. PKD always had relatively nobodies, working Joes if you will living their shitty lives in a dystopian world like Winston in 1984 and often had the same melancholy feel. The major difference is Orwell makes you stay in the feeling and in that hellishly depressing world for like four hundred pages. The book is the cure to happiness. Read it and not even cute little puppy dogs and kittens will cheer you up.
@@stephennootens916 Brave New World is also pretty slice of life like and predates 1984 by over 15 years.
It's embarrassing that Jordan Peterson has a more accurate interpretation of Orwell's politics.
It’s very nice of Hakim to start his video by saying Orwell is a horrible writer. That makes it incredibly easy to disregard everything he is about to say.
I find it doubley weird that in the rare moments where he actually talks about the books themselves, he just reads someone else's review word for word. Instead of saying any of his own thoughts
Yeah i mean Orwell was pretty bad at character building and whatnot but everything else is great
@@antlerbraum2881 I’m personally more a fan of his nonfiction, but fair point.
@@tevenpowell8023tankies and fascists in general prefer to have thinking outlines made by other people to follow
Tankies and their fucking sources. Just go by vibes like a real progressive
Orwell was not a racist, "Shooting an Elephant" is a great essay, and has not a hint of racism, much the opposite. It's an essay about how imperialism destroys the moral fiber of both the perpetrators and the victims.
Okay, I don't care much on like, diefying people.
But what about that comment on making a list of Jewish people? Vaush brought that one up, seems pretty racey
@@TheKiroshii would say, antisemitism? pretty bad
@@kyro8559 I might go on a limb and say, no different than racism. Quite bad! We're all products of our time.
I loved shooting an elephant… wrote my high school senior final over it
@@TheKiroshi The lists contained notes on anything that could be used against them to discredit them, including if they might be gay or had affairs or were alcoholics or whatever. Writing "Jew" next to them is... an unfortunate choice, but is ultimately a fairly practical one if you're working for an intelligence agency in an incredibly anti-semitic time. It could be argued that this was in fact racism by Orwell in the modern sense, but in the classical sense of "Hatred of particular races" which was prevalent at the time, it wasn't. It's "I don't hate Jews. I'm just willing to use the fact they are Jewish to leverage societies hatred against them if they're pro-USSR.".
I think tankies are so brain dead they don't criticize the lists properly because there's definitely some sketchy stuff there in terms of tactics. To modern ears "Jokes on you I was just pretending to be an anti-semite" is a meme response. But conceptions of systemic racism rather than interpersonal racism only really became apparent after the failure of the latter approach. We can charitably call this list "Of its time" I think.
Actually, the Trotskyite and left socialist groups sided with the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, Orwell was in a Trot group at the time. This is presumably why figures representing Trotsky (Goldstein and Snowball) are sympathetic figures in Orwell's work.
Interesting! I’ve never looked into Troskyist theory because I was always under the impression that he was just the Stalinist that was t actually Stalin, but if that’s the case, I might as well at least give his theory a fair shake (though I still expect him to be authoritarian and thus disappointing)
@@Necroskull388 He had 80% the same views as Stalin but unlike Stalin, he was more passionate and aggressive. If he were in power, Russia would have gone through much worse but it'd have become what Nazi Germany dreamed off becoming/a more white supremacist America.
@@Necroskull388 Trotsky in his theories is definitely not authoritarian. The revolution betrayed is a very good book about how the Soviet union turned from a worker's democracy in the making into a bureaucratic authoritarian shithole.
Most of his theories are actually the opposite of Stalinism: permanent revolution (which means when there is a revolution, trying to pull through the revolutionary fervour until there is a socialist society, so that it doesn't stagnate) instead of socialism in one country and rejecting a strong state bureaucracy in favour of direct worker's control (just like Lenin agitated for). He mostly sees the role of the party as propagandistic and agitating to make the workers build socialism.
Also his history of the Russian Revolution is very interesting and received good critics from communists and many non Communists as well. The biggest critics came from the Stalinists, with Stalin even saying: this is why we censor (ie to be keep quiet about real socialist ideas, which would threaten the reactionary bureaucracy, just like in 1984, where the censor the real socialist Goldstein and use pseudo socialist propaganda to remain in power).
Also probably why Hakim has a searing hatred of him XD
@@Necroskull388 trotsky is an asshole with workers' blood on his hands, but trotskyists are fine for the most part, they just misunderstand him in good faith. People in the poum were genuine revolutionaries.
Woahhhhh, imagine reading Shooting an Elephant and not seeing any criticism of colonialism there.
Well he didn't actually read it
And the irony of him calling that quote about the Buddhist’s racist, well Hackim, let’s open your filthy quran and see what it says about Pagans
Ah yes Hakim and his logic of “don’t you dare criticise papa Stalin but this Orwell guy really liked mass murder and hated socialism”
Hakim is still upset about the drones 🤣🤣🤣
@@channel_no_longer_active I don't like Hakim, but cannot honestly fault him for being mad about his house being bombed. It seems like a very reasonable thing to be upset about.
@@channel_no_longer_activeDude. Not funny.
@@channel_no_longer_active Dude, didn't I just see you posting a reactionary comment on a reactionary video a second ago?🤔
@@channel_no_longer_active American moment
"Orwell was a bad writer" is the lefty RUclips essayist's version of the film criticism RUclipsr saying "The Godfather is garbage" or "Hitchcock was a hack." C'mon, we get it, dude, you're desperate for attention.
Who TF thinks Hitchcock was a hack? I've got issues with some of his stuff but the cinematography and the use of tension ain't them
Lenin, Stalin and Marx were also a bit racist. If you were white back than there was at least a 99.99% chance you were racist
Stalin was a bit more racist than the other two because he did literal genocides
The 0.01% were beat to death with rocks
@@inurokuwarz
Marx was slightly, Lenin and especially Stalin weren't.
@@grimm5155 Stalin was incredibly antisemitic.
@@augustmericle6776
No, no he wasn't.
It's kinda ironic that tankies will accuse Orwell of criticizing Stalinism while supposedly "not condemning fascism", since the main reason an anti-fascist like Orwell hated Soviets is they consistently betrayed the cause of anti-fascism, in Germany, Spain, Poland, etc.
Yeah he definitely condemned both, his whole criticism of Stalinism was that it was indistinguishable from fascism, so his focus was always on condemning fascism he just happened to include Stalinism in that category.
Of course, tankies have all the excuses in the world cooked up for Stalin being 100% cool with Hitler and aiding his war effort. “He had to do it,” etc etc. Antifascism and anti-imperialism is what leftism is all about, except when it’s difficult or personally inconvenient or I’m chewing bubblegum on a Tuesday I guess.
@@thecolorblue1635 you're really dumb if you didn't get the ending of the book and how it was pretty much "there's no difference between USSR and empire before it".
They sure forget the "pacifists are fascists" text and reasons for why it writen in the first place.
@@thecolorblue1635 What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Do you not realize that animal farm was a critique of fascism? How bad of an reader are you?
So ironic that Hakim claims to be a man of nuance, then just proceeds to quote-mine Orwell.
So, it just so happens that I had to read "Shooting an Elefant" for my English studies, meaning I can give some context to the quotes that Hakim cherry-picked. The whole point of the essay is that it was a bad thing for Orwell to have had these attitudes when he was younger and that the whole colonial system is both cruel and self-destructive. Orwell describes in the essay how his self-insert could very much feel the resentment of the locals and it infuriated him because, with the way he was raised as an Englishman in the British Raj, he thought that they owed him respect. Even so, he simultaniously questions why he's even there and doing this job, given that this system is obviously unfair and all the locals want nothing to do with him. Enter the elefant, who has just gone on a rampage in the market, prompting our narrator to investigate with his big gun to see if he has to put it down. Now suddenly the locals in the general vicinity follow him around, obey his orders and are very invested in what he's gonna do, given that some dude shooting an elefant is probably the most exciting thing that has happened in this town for a while. The elefant seems to have calmed down and the narrator doesn't want to shoot it, but he also craves the validation of the locals he despises and he's scared that they are gonna make fun of him again if he doesn't give them a show. He wants to be seen as the white hero who shot the elefant with the big gun, because that's what he's supposed to be, right? So he shoots, over and over until it's finally dead (turns out even a fatally wounded elefant takes a loooong time to die if the caliber of your gun isn't big enough) and he feels absolutely miserable. Well, turns out the elefant had actually killed a local, so the narrator is legally in the clear, but he didn't know that at the time. He also just ruined the livelihood of the elefant's native owner, who only gets a pittance payment as compensation from the colonial government. The story ends with a dispute between the older English colonists and the younger ones. While the older generation takes the paternalistic view that the officer was doing his duty by keeping the peace for the hapless natives, the younger generation feels like shooting a working elefant was a waste as it had "only" killed a kooli. Both are of course morally wrong for different reasons.
The lesson of the essay is how even the people who are supposed to be on top of the colonial order are just making themselves miserable and cruel by forcing themselves to fit the self-imposed mold of "superiors", which is why colonialism is not just morally wrong but also self-destructive. He basically shows the then popular idea of the "noble white saviour" for the farce that it is, taking himself as the example.
In short, Hakim is a fork-tongued snake of a man.
Edit: I already wrote this comment on the VOD, but I thought the context is pretty important so I copied it here.
Excellent summation.
It reminds me of when those Saagar took a quote out of context from Prince Harry's book about how he was taught to internally dehumanize enemy combatants and said that the book was promoting violent pro-war propaganda or some shit. Like do you not see the book's criticizing the very thing you claim its defending?
That's basically what Hakim says. Orwell's main concern in his pov is how he feels. Readers are led to make a deduction about the nature of colonialism. Hakim's point is that an anti imperialist should write about the pov of the colonized people.
That's not a lot to ask. Frederick Engels didn't dwell on his own feelings too much in Conditions of the Working Class.
This is like when people attacked Liam Neeson for admitting that as a young man 50 years ago during the Troubles he had wanted to kill a random black man because he heard a black man had raped his friend. His point was simply to demonstrate the dangers of racial essentialism, the zealotry of youth, etc. but people wanted him cancelled because he had ever felt that way AT ALL. No critical thinking abilities in this lot.
Leftists be like: I oppose black and white, highly moralistic thinking and analysis, unless it suits me at the moment, then fuck it
Asimov's critique of the book was from the aspect of a science fiction author, commenting on the quality of science ficition in it. He attacks the lack of imagination, technical advance, and vision of a future world. He also criticizes that it has no heroes or optimism. His criticism never really touches on the political aspect, nor does he appreciate that it is not supposed to be an optimistic science fiction futuristic tale, but a reflection of political realities in a gritty post apocalyptic noir. It's a fundamental mismatch between critique and art.
I love Asimov, but he also was the product of a very special time. The Global Plan was in full swing and an end of history was imagined, not too different from the one that was thought to follow the Cold War's end, before said Cold War had well kicked into gear. The state was vast and regulatory and efficient, and the United States would become more mighty as it became more so.
Reflect on how benevolent and powerful the state is, for all its inefficiencies and huramphing about the robots in his stories. How eager public officials are to protect the public. Compare that with our experience with emerging AI, say.
A different, and more optimistic vision, peculiar to the end of the 40's. Not, that it did not evolve, but it evolve largely by expanding from that point, rather than moving away from it, to my reading.
For the record the "even more negative and anti-communist" changed ending for the Animal Farm film is that the animals have a second revolution against the pigs, with the implication that they will actually establish proletarian self-rule this time.
Never saw the movie, that's hilarious
Good for them
Tankie fails to read literature correctly? Wake me up when something new happens
It's the brain damage he got when America bombed his house 🤣
The ideological flaw with tankies is they base their beliefs around ONE principle that must be absolute. So for example, the base principle for tankies is: "America is evil" This is absolute; and all the implications of it must also be true, right down to the idea that any opponents of the US must be good for no other reason than the US is evil.
So for Hakim, it's obvious. Only a fascist sympathizer would criticize Stalin. Orwell criticized Stalin. Therefore, Orwell is a fascist sympathizer.
Its scripture. Nobody really reads that. You just take parts of it and quote it out of context as a power move. /s
I’m not sure he read at all. He probably got these selective quotations from chat gpt
The proper time and place to criticize Stalin is always and everywhere.
just not while hes still alive....
i'll try that during my best friends wedding.
He will like his best mans speach!
Absolutely
Low-T beta male stalin v. based gigachad orwell 😤
My only criticism for Joseph Stalin is that he shouldn't stop in Berlin and headed West!
Orwell intentionally wrote with simple allegories and in simple language because he believed that the proletariat was capable of understanding complex topics if you didn’t gatekeep them the way tankies love to with their theory
In Kathleen Taylor's *excellent* book, "Brainwashing", she uses "1984" as a case study, because Orwell's insight into a subject that hadn't even been given a name yet (for another year) was *so* spot on and understood *so* well that academics in the field can use his fictional writing to spell out specifics within brainwashing and cult tactics.
this is why I hate what has become of satire. I knew blowhard that responded to a topic of mine regarding satire... and the pages of shit that that blowhard spewed was... very telling about how people forget that satire actually has a place and meaning.
Why can't I see your whole comment...
I feel like this is a scam or something.
I mean the idea is as old as time. Brainwashing is just the academic term given to the idea in the post war boom in psychology to understand mainly what happened in Germany. But the idea of influencing the thought of people is much older than that. I mean the Romans already had a propaganda machine. And you could probably go back a lot further than that for evidence. The only thing that is probably stopping you at some point is the lack of evidence that survived, since finding evidence on anything about history gets harder and harder the further you go back.
@harborwolf22 No, that's just YT stupid script losing lines on some OS. This OP comment is spot on, trolls coming out to contradict tgeir belived brainwashing seems to gave found this too.
something that bothers me about the way people talk about Animal Farm is how overlooked the exile of Snowball is.
The very tipping point at which everything is doomed because greed has siezed control of the situation, and the leader who had the best interest of others being labelled an enemy of the people while the rules are rewritten is left unmentioned in my experience.
I remember snowball after he was chased out of the farm he was made into the enemy of the farm. He was the outside threat and the one that took the blame for when things went wrong. It is he who Napoleon uses to keep the animals under his thump.
SAME.
Yeah, It’s not that communism was bad from the start but that because of certain people it got bad and betrayed it’s original meaning
Also betrayal of the horse.
Overlooked?? I was heartbroken at his exile because as a kid I kind of identified with him
I feel like 1984 kinda portrays a ‘worst case scenario’ from a left perspective that’s pretty valuable. Antifascist book good
It honestly features the best description I've ever seen of what right wing ideology looks like when taken to its logical extreme. I always thought that right wing ideology was just inherently incoherent, but in 1984 Orwell very succinctly explained how their ideology can actually be completely coherent, it just requires them to embrace the fact that their goal is to maximize human suffering.
Two legs baaaaaaad. ♡
@@snapgab To maximize tyranny, hierarchy and inequality. Very high suffering is a byproduct of that, but 1984 does not strike me as constructed to *maximize* suffering - they still adopt bread and circus policies when they need to.
Hakim is such a bad faith actor, especially considering that he pretents to be such a well educated and intellectually minded "marxist".
Here the full quote of Orwell and his thoughts of the "buddhist priest":
"I was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in
the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East. I did not even
know that the British Empire is dying, still less did I know that it is a great deal
better than the younger empires that are going to supplant it. All I knew was that I
was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-
spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my
mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something
clamped down, in saecula saeculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with an-
other part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet
into a Buddhist priest’s guts. Feelings like these are the normal byproducts of im-
perialism; ask any Anglo-Indian official, if you can catch him off duty."
I'm so glad I watched his debate with vaush back in the day because he was close to turning me into a tankie and in that timeline i don't even know what would've happen to me
@@wumbojet I still followed him on and off, tbh.
Weirdly I have become something of an anarchist in my journey to the left. Not entirely sure how that happened but maybe I’m even more antisocial than I thought lol
(That was a joke, before anyone jumps on me lol)
@@wumbojet Became a tankie and I am doing just fine.
@@kenansabic2901 genuinely wish the best for your recovery
@@kenansabic2901 being a tankie isnt fine bro
It's low key insulting for hakim to always preach to his audience to read the sources, then cherry picks quotes like no one has read the sources
Let's be honest, if someone can't say "Stalin bad" without being uncomfortable, they're just not a Leftist.
Stalin based
Ah yes No True Scotsman fallacy.
@@nicholassunderbruch7131 Ah the "I quote a fallacy so i win an argument." position, how very gamergate era anti-sjw of you. It's almost as if supporting an authoritarian who did little to nothing to actually support the working class and tainted the concept of communism globally for MINIMUM decades shouldn't be taken as a leftist icon, and lionising him shows a predisposition to authoritarian ideals and arguments that are fundamentally anti-worker, and therefor categorically cannot be considered leftist.
@nicholassunderbruch7131 stalin was categorically a fascist and a state capitalist, neither of which are leftist. Nice try, though
@@TheReddShinobi13 What are you talking about my brotha
Tankies getting mad at anti-tankie George Orwell? Imagine my shock 😲
Maybe Orwell had one or two missteps in his life but overall his novels, essays and nonfiction are great. Lots of pro worker stuff and he was openly a libertarian socialist. He's one of the most well-known authors of all time, so we should cherish him as an advocate for our values and not hyperfocus on some niche points about his life.
Calling snitching gay people to the colonial goverment a "misstep" lmao. He was a piece of sh*t who wrote a good book, stop defending awful people just because you *think* they would agree with you. (He would probably snitch you to a far-right group if you're gay or trans)
Well, of course he had because he was a human being noit a saint. But his critic of inhumane governments was on point.
Being a rapist is a bit more than a misstep, but I understand the larger point you're making
"Pro worker" and "libertarian socialist" that hates Henry Wallace, a guy that was literally more moderate than Bernie Sanders today?
Why would anyone want to critique my favourite anticommunist rapist he wrote such good books like "I think workers are approximately as capable of self governance as farm animals" and "I have never been to or read much of anything about the Soviet Union but the communist party people told me I should so instead of doing that I wrote a book about how I think they are an omnipotent evil"
"Was the man who wrote the most famous anti-authoritarian fiction novel in history bad?"
If you have to ask that question, you're the problem.
Here's the thing: Yes. Orwell actually was pretty bad at various parts of his life.
But when people raise it they do it as if it's some kind of defeater to his writing. It's not.
The point that Orwell has some horrific shit on his ledger is entirely correct but also entirely misses the point of what made his writing impactful. 1984 isn't an amazing anti-authoritarian novel because Orwell was a good person. It's an amazing anti-authoritarian novel because Orwell knows what it's like to be on the inside of an authoritarian regime.
Writing a famous book does not exempt you from criticism, thought.
@@dreamerthief2216 Not just famous. A famous good book.
@@RevolutionaryLoser Still, that does make you a God.
@@dreamerthief2216 Pretty much. As close as any human can get.
8:16 Oh my GOD! Orwell said that he would kill Hitler if he saw him but he acknowledged that Hitler was charismatic as well?! Gasp! Scandalous! I can't believe Orwell would say something so unreasonable! Clearly an unbiased person would conclude that Hitler wasn't charismatic at all! Somebody hold my pearls!
(God Hakim has already made me THIS angry)
Clearly all the people that fell for Hitler were inherently nazis, must've definitely been genetics or something.
@@Bobogdan258Everyone who supported Hitler probably fantasized about murdering six million Jews every day since they were born. There's no other way he could have persuaded anyone unless they were already firmly at that position.
Clearly, the only ones allowed to acknowledge and understand why *some* people liked Hitler are those who also like Hitler! 🤦
Apparently a person can only be evil and have no other traits traditionally considered beneficial to a person. Hitler being charismatic is literally the biggest part of what to fear in a person like him.
The first thing Vaush said was pretty much exactly what I had already pointed out in a comment under Hakim's video. And of course, some tankie immediately jumped me and tried to defend Hakim's stance.
Hakim's made an early contender for "Worst Video of the Year" here. To not even mention the Spanish Civil War to any specificity or length is such a failure, such a gigantic omission by itself.
I agree but I would also go further and say this might be the worst video essay of all time. It's between this and Dj Muel's xanderhal video
@@zenbear9952 dj was worse IMO
@@mossystone584 Interpersonally, DJ's was worse. doing a great amount of harm to a single person.
Hakim is using deliberately bad interpretation and omission to smear criticism of his entire ideology, the broad extent that such actions can affect is far worse on a systemic level.
@@zenbear9952 Hakim had the decency to keep it short. I ain't watching a fuckin 3 hour hitpiece on anything.
Yeah, so much of Orwell’s development in political opinion was influenced by when he fought in Spain and yet he never mentions it.
The way Hakim cherry-picked a couple of lines from that Mein Kampf review in order to "prove" Hitler admired Hitler, yet somehow _entirely_ missed the overriding tone of harsh articulate judgment Orwell was subjecting Hitler's character to. I'm struggling to contend with the fact that Hakim is literate enough to have read the essay (I have to assume he read the entire thing) and yet somehow not literate enough to grasp what Orwell was doing in it.
The most charitable I can be is to guess he's just copying talking points from someone else and never bothered to read it.
@@LimeyLassen It has to be. I can't fathom how anyone could read that essay and _not_ grasp how it artfully eviscerates Hitler's entire public image.
It's bad faith cherry picking. He's clearly capable of understanding the essay, but quotes a couple of phrases out of context because he wants to use them to prove his thesis. he hasn't "accidentally" misunderstood Orwell's argument, just like he didn't "accidently" manage not to mention that Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War *and* wrote a book about that just because it would be bad for his argument to acknowledge that.
That fact kinda makes me believe Hakim was just being actively dishonest. There's no way he could have cherry-picked that without reading a good portion of the review (which I've read).
HITLER ADMIRED HITLER?
Julia was a powerful character in the book not just as a self directed woman but she also represented the power of sex and sexuality as a radical, transformative and even revolutionary form of personal expression. She's truly sex positive not simply a hedonist. At least that's how I read her.
Yeah even as a horny completely out of touch with nuance teenager when I first read it twenty some years ago that's the take I got on it. Really have to take female sexuality as something negative to not get that kind of message on at least some level.
I really like this take and I still believe sex-positivity to be a revolutionary thing
@@Unquestionable I genuinely don't understand how someone could not get that message from Julia, especially if you already understand what the book is broadly about (which should be obvious to anyone who reads even a portion of it)
Honestly when Winston started explicitly fantasizing about wanting to torture/kill Julia I put the book down and never looked at it again
@@FishLunchy It is incredibly off putting yeah. I physically cringed IRL when reading that part. However, it is very explicitly shown that Winston feeling that way was bad and used by the State as a form of control over him.
Edit: Is anyone else seeing this Reply as fucked up as I am?
no rest for the dead, orwell really getting clip chimped 70 years after his death
By Hakim’s logic it’s actually really problematic™️ that he’d make a video criticizing Orwell instead of the various far-right figures that have been gaining prominence in the US and Europe.
Or on ruzzians who use USSR as cover for their fascists mindset.
Can't believe Hakim didn't criticize Trump once in his video criticizing Orwell. 😔 TIL Hakim is obviously a Trump supporter.
At the very least, he _obviously_ believes Orwell is much worse than Trump in every way. Time spent talking about how Orwell is bad? 100%. Time spent talking about how Trump is bad? ZERO!!
Even if Hakim wants to claim he doesn't actually think Trump is good...he clearly thinks Trump is at least 100 times *more* good than Orwell. His issue with Orwell far surpasses any issue he may claim to have with Trump...even though Trump & his MAGA cult are a current threat, while Orwell is dead.
Tsk Tsk! 😂
This video reinvigorated my respect for Orwell. When you consider that so many leftists back then were counter-revolutionary Stalinists, it puts into perspective his moral convictions that he continued to criticize them his entire life.
Amen to that.
But they weren’t, Orwell lived from 1903-1950. Does MLK Jr. Seem like Orwell to you. (Okay granted there are 10 years between Orwell and the civil rights movement, but the “left” couldn’t have changed their view that fast.
Not true,
@@haruhisuzumiya6650
anime pfp - opinion invalidated
@@Sneaker3719 you going to explain or use a thought termination clause?
Hi Vaush, Orwell was a socialist to his core and in one of his two introductions to Animal farm he says "For the past 10 years I have been convinced that the destruction of the soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement".
He viewed the Soviet Union much the same as you're describing here, as a betrayal of all the principles and ideas it claims to uphold.
Based. I just got into a flame war with the tankies in comments of Professor Wolff 's interview with Aaron Maté and they are all Ruzzia stans! It's absolutely maddening that these dipshits call themselves leftists 😤
And the Union is gone for over 30 years, capitalism is still going strong. History proved him wrong.
Why not just admit you guys love capitalism ?
@Hans Frankfurter and yet weaklings like you cling on futile idea that ruzzians or Chinese cared about socialism at all. The myth is still strong and you are the reason why.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 except it wasn't brought down by libertarian socialist movements like Orwell wished. It was a triumph of liberalism, so of course it's not gonna make socialism sudden happen.
@@TheGalaxyWings Read what the OP quoted. He didn't say he wanted it brought down by any specific faction, just that he wanted it down so socialism can have room to thrive.
In reality, what happened is capitalism triumphed.
Nobody:
Hakim: "Animal farm is a defense of totalitarianism actually."
I do love it when reactionaries list off all the sins of a prolific thinker, and that just leaves you there, scratching your head going "what the fuck does this actually have to do with any of the points this person made?"
I mean, a "libertarian socialist" that reports on guys like Henry Wallace, George Padmore, and Paul Robeson-the guys at the forefront of civil rights and working class politics in the U.S.-tells you all you need to know about said "socialist"
What would my favourite anticommunist writer being a racist rapist with rich parents have to do with his goodist politics?
@@yonathantaye1797 Cope
@@alfieshepherd6522 so cringe, orwell would label bernie a "soviet asset" and "jew" btw
@@yonathantaye1797 "Orwell wrote a list of names of people he considered sympathetic to Stalinism and therefore unsuitable as writers for the Department, and enclosed it in a letter to Kirwan." Like this wasn't a CIA blacklist this was literally just people he thought were stalinists.
Paul Robeson went to the USSR before and sent his son to study there to get away from American racism. So yeah he was probably sympathetic to the Soviet Union.
One of the most memorable (and strange) parts of Animal Farm is the way the propaganda pig, squealer, has a habit of hopping back and forth from side to side from one leg to the other, which was somehow supposed to be really persuasive to the other animals, the back and forth rhythm. I didn't understand that reference until I saw an old film clip of Stalin speaking, and as he spoke, he sort of hopped from side to side from one leg to the other, just like Orwell's description of squealer. I had an epiphane of recognition.
I think Goebbels used to do that too.
I noticed what Hakim noticed, that it seemed to be more a critique of the workers than it did of Stalin. And I remember reading this before I knew anything about what the working-class was, or who Stalin was. All I knew was that I felt insulted.
@@noname-bu1ux You should feel insulted, it's insulting you. The critique is of Leninism directly. The heroes among the workers are represented by Boxer, who isn't bright, but can work like a dozen animals, by Clover, who is one of the kindest-hearted characters in all of fiction, and by Benjamin, who can even read and is cleverer than any pig.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 that doesn't feel elitist you at all? I don't know, maybe I'm not the best person to critique it. I really disliked 1984 too. All of the things that seem to metaphorically criticize about the authority of the Soviet Union seemed to apply more to my life in America than to any mythologized USSR. But because of my immediate distaste of these books before I learned about the USSR, I don't really feel like I remember enough about these books to properly critique them. I just remember thinking that they were pretty shallow when I read them as a middle schooler.
@@noname-bu1ux It was honest about how the USSR operated in the 1940s, there was a small collection of "vanguard party" representatives that dictated how people would work and live from on high, and the workers were powerless to influence the decisions. The incredible democratic potential in the 1917 revolution was entirely squandered through Leninism. The reason Orwell wrote this is because it's a SOCIALIST critique, it is sympathetic to the workers, without making them out to be theoreticians, or lawyers. But Benjamin is an intelligent and capable worker, he just sees no hope in the revolution, he's disillusioned. It's a tragedy, and it mirrors the tragic story of the USSR. It is hard to overstate just how terrible the events in the USSR were for global socialism, the USSR destroyed the revolutionary worker parties in every Western nation, by tying it to the Moscow party and its anti-democratic regime.
Hakim has gone full tankie, at one time he even denied Saddam Hussein's genocide against the Kurds, such as the infamous Anfal massacre, in fact, Hakim tends to exhibit anti-Kurdish sentiment. You know, for a person who is supposed to hate Saddam and the Ba'ath party, Hakim sure does simp for them a lot, par for the course when it comes to Tankies - prejudice before solidarity.
The only thing consistent about tankies is their support for horrific authoritarians.
Communism in practice tends to be called red fascism for a reason. There is almost always a racial element. The USSR kicked ethnic minorities off their lands and seeded ethnic Russians throughout Eastern Europe. China blatantly favors the Han Chinese. Prick a tankie today and you'll find a racist.
when was this
crazy how you just made all that up and people are liking the comment lmfao
@@ven6556 Let's grant for a moment that isn't true of Hakim. Just for the sake of conversation. Would such sentiment be out of the question for people who exhibit tankie and pro-Russian/Chinese sentiments?
The answer, frankly, is no. "Communism" isn't called red fascism merely on account of historical authoritianism. There has generally been a racial component to these governments as the U.S.S.R. constantly attempted to displace native ethnic groups through Russification and China blatantly favors the Han while discriminating against the non-Han peoples.
Hakim is Iraqi. It would be entirely consistent of him, as a tankie, to view the violent suppression of native groups in order to elevate his own ethnic group in the structure of a Communist regime. It differs little from fascism except for preferring red to brown.
Hakim has a Lenin rantsona. Opinion immediately discarded.
Seriously though, Hakim's video is probably one of the most dishonest takedown videos I have ever seen. He is basically doing the equivalent of clip chimping to craft a false narrative while the subject is unable to defend themselves, because Orwell is, you know, long dead. One might say it is almost a kind of historical revisionism. Huh, I guess that is yet another thing that tankies have taken from Stalin's playbook.
However Hakim is probably right about one thing - that those who bring up 1984 most likely have never read it. Or failed to understand its underlying message, such as himself. 1984 has almost nothing to do with socialist ideals and almost entirely to do with authoritarian regimes and the power structures they hold over their people. It only seems anti-communist in so far that Oceania is based off Stalin's regime, which was indeed authoritarian. I read 1984 in middle school, and even I could understand that.
Well, the three superstates were supposedly based off of totalitarian systems.
Oceania under Ingsoc (English Socialism)
Eurasia under Neo-Bolshevism
Eastasia under Death Worship/“Obliteration of the Self”.
Oceania was supposed to be something akin to the Nazis (and Soviets) because of the lip-service of socialism (English Socialism) yet the ironic hatred of all things called socialist. Much like how the Nazi party was officially called the “National Socialist German Workers Party” which contradicted every statement in its name and shortened it to Nazi. Soviets did the same too, since they weren’t socialistic nor gave a damn about the workers, it was all about the Party.
I really think the worst part about Hakim is the subhuman levels of smugness he emanates with every fiber of his being. It’s like you can see the crossed arms and Dreamworks smile with every syllable.
This may sound a little weird, but Hakim gives me islamic or Christian apologists vibe. Replace socialism with Jesus and Allah, there you have it.
Took the words out of my mouth. His tone doesn't imply a conversation or curiosity but a kind of looking down on the subject from a position begging the viewer to take allegation presented as fact. The constant moving on without diving into even the most juicy of out of context quotes really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It reeks of working backwards from a conclusion and hoping the audience doesn't have enough independent thought to question any claims or do any research beyond what's being presented. Big Prager U energy going on here.
@@anonymousinfinido2540 Nah doesn't really sound weird. MLs are really just a cult.
@@Unquestionable exactly like religious apologists.
@@anonymousinfinido2540 A lot of "Marxists" give socialism an almost religious treatment if you pay attention.
Honestly I feel this has been one of the best segments you've done. Honestly, we should make it our solemn leftist duty to get Orwell's memoirs of the Spanish Civil War into the hands of every prospective leftist.
Hell, even just convincing people to read his famous works again would help. Those texts put into words the very ideas that make tankie ideology so dangerous, and once you hear what nations and actions those guys promote the connection becomes pretty obvious.
I completely agree, though you would've helped your case by naming the book.
For anyone interested, it's called "Homage to Catalonia" and is very easily downloaded. I also recommend "Road to Wigan Pier."
People generally should read up more on the Spanish Civil War. You learn pretty quickly that not only are anarchists correct about everything, but also the only effective arbiters of socialism in history, hence why everyone including the USSR had them killed and let fascism take over Spain.
Hakim is the true imbodiment of Orwellian double think.
Tankies like him always are, almost as if red fascism is just fascism with a coat of paint. Curious...
@@wumbojet yeah. They are so invested in their religion they become fanatics that might even kill ya
It's because Orwell had their number. He knew what Leninists were like and what their motivations were. He knew that Socialism was not their real goal, and that power was. So they slandered him as best they could.
"Why are you wrong? Because this guy said you were wrong and you dislike him for it. Checkmate redfash tankie"
@@man4437 more a case of him witnessing the sharp end of it first hand, and then saying no thank you very much.
Socialism is about many things. It is about economic Democracy. It is about global emancipation. It is about the removal of hierarchies. It is about people living their lives to the fullest.
It is not about replacing one self-serving elite with another self-serving elite.
@@marktaylor6491 I'm not going to defend the Soviet higher ups necessarily, but they objectively improved the lives of people in the Soviet Union, lots of whom had basically no economic rights during Tzarist rule. It's insanely naive to act as if A. the USSR wasn't a net positive for the people and provide much more equality and growth than similarly wealthy countries (compare the average Indian* today* to a Soviet citizen in the 1950s) and B. it wasn't necessary to consolidate power to defend the socialist project.
Need I remind you even after a rushed industrialization the Soviet Union still had millions die from both war and famine during the Nazi invasion. It's easy to criticize socialist projects that don't survive; when you want perfection, nothing is true socialism. But I haven't seen meaningful proof that what the Bolsheviks, or frankly any Soviet leaders outside of the ones who dismantled the Union against popular support, wanted "power".
People definitely lived much fuller lives after the revolution.
@@man4437 It's the Eric Hobsbawn Argument. How justified were the millions of deaths, mass terror, gulags, NKVD, etc? Considering the general and unquestionable rise in living standards that the USSR brought.
The bigger question is though. Were all those good things attainable without the mass terror? Is Vanguardism really that necessary? Or are its defenders merely being self-serving?
by their, do you mean jews?
I don't know Orwells position on this subject, but for what it's worth I think it is virtually impossible to feel "personal animosity" toward someone to whom you have no "personal" relationship.
I wouldn't ever describe my negative opinion of Hitler as a "personal animosity"
I have felt personal animosity towards people to whom I have no personal relationship.
“You can’t criticize Stalin while Hitler is alive, never mind the fact that the Allies are in Italy and France and Rokossovsky is steamrolling the Nazis during Operation Bagration in August 1944 and the outcome of the war is pretty much decided.”
Just out of curiosity, how would you pronounce Bagration?
The name, from what I presume, stems from the Georgian royal family surname - Bagrationi and is spelled as: buh-gruh-tee-oni
nah thats bs, the victory over the nazis was collaborative no party could have done it alone...
@@DrHotWarLove it's a _very_ common tankie line that the USSR basically won WW2 by themselves.
@@DrHotWarLove i know you didn't. The guy was just asking about it and I was describing the phenomenon to him. In fact you were saying the opposite. It's a complete non sequitor
Hakim talks a big game about Orwell's bad prose for a guy who writes essay scripts as bad as this.
Hakim: "NOOOOO why can't you let me believe that war is peace and freedom is slavery?!"
Orwell: "Hehe critical thinking go buurrrrr."
The "nothing on the Spanish" bit had me in pieces for hours good lord Hakim is one hell of a comedian
Homage to Catalonia is a must read. George Orwell's best work. It details his experience in the Spanish Civil War and talks about some of the politics that were happening at the time.
Hakim's intentions as to why he's attacking Orwell is so transparently obvious that even a blind person can see through it.
Same can be said for Vaush’s defense of him. Also why is attacking Orwell bad? He certainly deserves it. Most of what Hakim said in the video is just quoting professionals in the field. There’s a lot of ad hominem sure, but the evidence presented is very concrete. It IS propaganda, and Hakim is obviously making the video to BE Anti-Orwell, but if you ignore that Orwell still isn’t in a good light.
This isn’t so much as attacking Orwell as much as it is attempting to correct the divine interpretation so common of him.
@@Nightmare-pj4fg I would say misleading and outright lying isn't "attempting to correct the divine interpretation," it's simply bad faith propaganda from a person particularly interested in underplaying authoritarian rule. Also quoting "professionals" is rather vague and a simple appeal to authority that doesn't actually address the argument. If I told you Richard Wolf was wrong on something and your response was "but he has a PHD" does that actually address the point? Plenty of people who disagree with Richard Wolf have PHDs.
So ? Doesn't mean he's wrong.
@@hurtfeelings2002
Remind me again, why is Orwell such an authority for libs?
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Because he’s an actual socialist that wasn’t utilized to pump out propaganda for Moscow
Orwell: "I feel it is my duty to go to Spain and join the Socialists to fight Fascism"
Hakim: "Curious that Orwell didn't oppose Fascism"
Orwell was a socialist and a human being. He was a man who evolved out of his own prejudges and got shot in the neck fighting fascism in Spain.
Not a fan of that Vakim channel any time I've landed on it due to it's tankie vibes. His essays on Why I write are worth readings, all his essays really.
He was a real committed man of the left of that time, and indeed many of the quotes here are cherry picked to make him look bad.
Its just tankie propaganda.
Bloody Auth left.
Couldn't agree more, though at first I thought you were recommending Hakim's essays. I think this "Takedown" of Orwell proves how dishonest and authoritarian he is.
Also I wouldn't really call him auth left. I think of tankies as just Fascists with red colored book covers and badges.
Hakim is the human embodiment of Squealer the Pig from Animal Farm.
Separate fiction from reality kid.
@@UmQasaann Nobody told Hakim that.
@@britfox7766 Goerge Orwell is a terrible human being and a shitty writer. Liberals are taking so much copium lol
@@UmQasaann
It’s ironic to call George Orwell a terrible person when the people calling him a terrible person praise dictators like Stalin & Mao…
@@UmQasaann Lavrentiy Beria had a garden in his villa where he buried countless women he raped and murdered. Your Uncle Joe's second in command.
“I don’t like Hitler. Where’s my PhD?” 😂😂😂
Hakim doesn't seem to have any ability to critically read a text or to engage with irony or ambiguity. Or rather he does, but purposely chooses not to.
"I can't hear you over the sound of Hitler existing."
When people say "Read Orwell, it's good", that doesn't mean "We should see Orwell personally as a moral hero", it means "His writing is a useful component of how to see the world and construct your politics". Arguing that Orwell wasn't a moral hero just seems like a counterpoint to an argument that isn't there
Someones opinions do get influenced by their moral character.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 True, but you're making a counterpoint to an argument that isn't there. The point being made is that Orwell's writing provide a useful analysis and critique of authoritarianism, and on the basis of that, is therefore good writing.
@@ikhidealigbeh514 Then I'd say that what someone deems "useful" and "good analysis" is influenced by what their perception of the moral character of the person who wrote such literary "analysis" is.
Especially insofar as what Orwell wrote is a polemical fiction or a piece of metaphorical political commentary, not some rigorous Harvard level analysis of the neurocognitive biology of "authoritarianism" or whatever. It's a propaganda piece to put it bluntly, that doesn't mean its useless or even necessarily "bad" it just means it has to be viewed in the context of the imperial major power rivalries of the time between the western capitalist powers and the Soviet block. Finding out that Orwell was a British spook, a colonial officer and was privately not only anti-communist, but racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic is relevant. Context matters, and the world isn't so black and white as Orwell would have you believe!
You can't tell me with a straight face, that rereading Animal Farm or 1984 now, hasn't changed after finding out about all these things.
P.S I also don't even know what "authoritarianism" is, and why is it even a necessarily a bad thing. As far as I can grok it seems to be a place holder for anything not mapping to how western politics works.
One of the reasons "1984" is such a masterpiece is that it isn't just about totalitarian government, but it is also about the youthful rebellion against God. The character of "Big Brother" doesn't just represent the totalitarian leader, it also represents God and Church. There's a point where Winston looks out the window from his sex grotto where he's inbetween humping sessions, and sees a very fat woman, a meter in diameter, happily laying clothes on the clothesline and humming a machine-composed artificial tune to herself (another of the novel's prediction for late-stage totalitarian control that's drearily coming true). Winston looks at her and thinks or says "The future belongs to her, not to us." He means, she is part of the reproductive class, she is welcomed and loved by God/Big Brother, and she will be permanently adored, while we will be destroyed in time, and dropped into the memory hole.
The memory hole is so real, and it has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism. The process of collective forgetting is nearly frightening to behold as you grow older. People will assert 'historical' truths that are absolutely preposterous to those who were there and know the real story, truths that aren't even approximately true. This is especially true about the history of socialist and youth-rebellion movements. Try to find a good record of what happened in 1968, or in the youth-revolts of Orwell's time. It's next to impossible, because the people who leave good records are only those beloved of God.
There's a reason that the tortures in the book resemble the process of aging. His body is made sunken and hollow, and his teeth are made to fall out. When he looks in the mirror, he no longer recognizes himself. Yes, this is a description of the outcome of certain typs of torture, but it is ALSO a description of aging, and this is not a coincidence. Orwell is saying that the natural God, the God of nature, is a totalitarian dictator, in Erdos's terms, a "Fascist in the sky". And the worst part of it is that through this artificial aging, his love doesn't last, neither does hers. It finally falls victim to the torture, and he has betrayed the one person he couldn't stand to betray, and lost the last connection to life and vitality.
And what happens in his utter despair? He turns toward Big Brother, and begins to love him. This is exactly how people find religion in despair. This is a socialist analysis of the human condition, it isn't just about totalitarianism. It uses totalitarianism to make parallels with the ordinary world with it's ordinarily totalitarian institutions.
Very nice interpretation.
Not really convincing. The "learning to love big brother" thing is virtually a transparent quote of the statements that the victims of Stalin's show trials were made to give before they were executed.
@@paulhammond6978 No, that's not what happened in the show trials, you made it up because you don't understand the show trials. Those people on trial were so devoted to communism, they would lay down their lives AND give a lying confession if the party demanded it. And a lot of the show trial victims in effect committed suicide, confusing many observers, because they were obviously lying. None were asked to express "love for Big Brother", this is a quasi-religious notion which Orwell created to make the parallel with ordinary religion.
1984 is nothing but a weird self insert nymphomaniac fetish story. I can't believe people actually like it, because all it is is the too worst written characters in the world having sex for 70% of the book. It's really sexist too, because Julia is nothing but a sex object and she's like half of the main characters age.
@@kayakat1869 That's ridiculous. It's an honest love story describing exactly how revolutionary love is, between two intimately involved people. It is real as rocks, I lived it. It is a culture of the time, there is no "nymphomania" there, sluttiness isn't a disease, and revolutionary sex isn't hedonism or compulsion.
Saying Orwell was a bad writer after writing this script is hilarious. Even someone with no knowledge of these texts could tell that Hakim was cherry picking lines.
Here's the thing with Orwell and his works, he was a socialist, an anti-stalinist as stalin terrified him. His critiques aimed at capitalism and the idea of revolutionaries changing after getting power to reinforce the same systems they fought against in order to maintain power. He also used elements of nazi and stalinist revisionism and rhetoric to show how these movements can trick people into a delusion.
His biggest concern however was the spreading of totalitarian stalinism, overwhelming capitalism and the idea of the west taking up aspects of stalin's regime in order to counter him. In fact he even said in the day that the actions of Britain and the US to counter stalin often led to the same outcome in the west. Ie the purges and anti capitalist actions in the east and the red scare and its consequences in the west.
The most interesting aspect of Orwell was his ability first to feel something horrible - he had, undoubtedly, at various stages in his life, or at least espoused, views that were racist, antisemitic, misogynistic and, frankly, classist - but then to identify that feeling in himself and struggle against it. There is plenty to criticize about Orwell, but paradoxically, Orwell's weaknesses were the things that made him a profound thinker and gifted essayist (as a prose stylist, and consequently, as a novelist, he was pretty bad, and personally, I read and regard 1984 more as an essay than a novel). In fact, his early antisemitism made him early on acutely sensitive to the appeal of Hitler in Germany. In short, Orwell is always worth going back to, as most writers are; honestly, it's peak anti-intellectual just to say "this writer bad." Lastly, I'll also say that though 1984 is an attack on authoritarianism, at the time of its writing, little was actually known about the internal workings of the USSR, and so much of 1984 is actually based on Orwell's work at the BBC (as well as his experiences in Spain: for example, his experience with the U.K. opening and censoring [? I think they did, need a fact check for that] the mail he sent back to his family from Spain).
My two cents. Good video. Fuck tankies.
Who is better, the one born good or the one who overcame the evil inside of him?
"little was known" damn. Better make up shit to be mad about then. If only there were like millions of people at the time going to the USSR who could've told Orwell what was going on, then he wouldn't have had to make his self insert fight against the British communists who he considered insufficiently critical of the USSR he didn't know anything about. I mean vague authoritarians who authoritated authoritatively
It really makes Orwell that much more impressive, that he so vehemently opposed the USSR even before many of the atrocities they committed became known to most leftists in Europe & the US.
He was able to recognize the warning signs and inherent flaws in their worldview, instead of totally agreeing with them and only being shocked out of it when hearing about their genocides and ethnic displacements.
I would also add that 1984 is critique of "managerial revolution" idea that was popular at that time and today it has some kind of revival. In letter concerning 1984 Orwell wrote that if he could, he would change the name of ideology from "IngSoc/AngSoc" to "americanism" because he see that people missed the point of his novel.
Orwell was a good novelist. In 1984, he effectively destabilises the presumed objectivity of free indirect discourse in representing a character's thoughts, i.e. the source of his revulsion and simultaneous hope for the 'proles' is ambiguous; does it germinate from revolutionary impulses, or is it latent, internalised propaganda?
There are also some relatively potent uses of imagery, such as the fleeting thrush that Winston and Julia encounter on their first rendezvous; 'For whom, for what, was that bird singing? No mate, no rival was watching it. What made it sit at the edge of the lonely wood and pour its music into nothingness?' This is another instance Orwell's interesting use of free indirect discourse. The answer lies within the English Romantic tradition, with the songbird being a ubiquitous symbol of artistic creativity, and, more specifically, the exalting and transformative nature wrought by the artistic process. If we live in a society that values art, Winston's question is fundamentally bizarre, but because Orwell has skilfully inured the reader into the world has he created, the question almost becomes are own. In an essay, the question 'What made it sit at the edge of the lonely wood and pour its music into nothingness?' would be entirely out of place; it is the novel that can make use value such a question.
Hakim says that a benchmark for evaluating people is whether they have a burning hatred for fascism. Orwell put his life on the line (he was actually shot through the neck) fighting in combat against fascists in Spain. Read "Homage to Catalonia". Ugh.
Hot takes:
- The USSR was fascists largely pretending to communists
- Mainland France may have fallen but De Gaulle gathered what remained of French forces and territories that were not occupied & did the chad-move of saying "I'm in charge now & we're still fighting"; Anyone ever wonder the other Allies would let France have part of Germany after the war, when the phrase is "to the victor goes the spoils"
About the fascism point, can you elaborate? How did they betray communism?
The stance that the USSR, at least under Stalin, was fascist has the formalized name "Red Fascism"; This term that's been around since the 1920s and applied to the USSR although like most terms that have been around that long it has also been co-opted for propaganda. Admittedly I was unaware of term "Red Fascism" when I wrote my initial comment.
I will also admit that I'm using a more colloquial than riquorously defined definition of "fascism". This definition operates under looking at similarities with other groups that I consider to have been (or are) fascist; My list includes but is not limited to: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, North Korea, certain far right groups in the US such as the Proud Boys, China, and of discussion here the USSR.
Now considering my colloquial definition of fascism, my reasoning for considering the USSR, at least under Stalin, fascist is also follows:
1) Stalin had & has today an enduring cult of personality within Russia of being a national hero, despite how many people he has killed - This reminiscent of Hilter & Mussolini
2) The KGB, its predecessors, and other secret police organizations that existed in USSR where there to help maintain power - The Nazi's has the SS & Gestapo filling similar roles is their time in power
3) The gulags and mass killings under Stalin which have been compared Hitler's killings in works such as Stalin's Geoncides by Norman M. Naimark.
4) The USSR was allied with Nazi Germany & it was Hilter who broke their pact not Stalin, the fact that they even had an agreement in the first place & that Stalin didn't expect Hitler to break it leads me to believe that Stalin was not ideologically opposed to Hitler and thought that they could continue the relationship that allowed them to split Poland between them
Now if you want a more academic justification of the USSR being fascist, I will take Second thoughts definition of fascism as "palingenetic, populist, ultranationalism" from the end of Second Thought's Nebula exclusive The First Fascism: Mussolini's Italy, Palingenetic in this context meaning: Rebirth in a new order. The definition ultimately serving as a shorthand for the rebirth of a nation under policies with mass appeal,and encouraging extreme nationalism;
This definition fits the USSR rather well with its 5 year plans & rapid industrialization. Additionally the USSR it provided aide to other "Communist" groups around the world that it agreed with to further its influence & spread it's ideology. Also, Mussolini was at least for a time a communist; From additional research on my part according to Wikipedia page 102 of Gaudens Megaro's "Mussolini in the Making" says that Mussolini considered himself an "authorization communist".
I feel that, at least for RUclips comment this is sufficiently rigorous to justify my opinion, I don't really intend nor expect this to sway anyone else's opinion
@@ObiJohnKenobi67 The TL;DR US' claimed ideals = good, the US as a country = bad & kinda fascist during the Red Scare & McCarthism
The USSR was a US during WW2 the time in which I consider the USSR fascist under Stalin. Also, the US has gone towards fascism a number of times for example The Red Scare & McCarthism. I don't view the US always the good guy in fact I generally regard it as having failed & continuing to fail to up hold the last major phrase of it's own pledge of allegiance "with liberate & justice for all", the US has overthrown democracies and committed crimes against it's own citizens. I can understand those that are proud the US's claimed ideals, but those who are proud of the country itself are baffling to you as it is a country with a long & continuing track record of being awful, though generally better than what I am aware of when it comes to Russia & the USSR
Further addendum the US certainly allies with Fascists whenever they serve its purpose or are friendly, see the South Korean dictatorships as an example
I saw a video by hakim where he said H.P Lovecraft is one of his favorite writers. Ironic
If Hakim had a cat too, he would call it "Kurd"
haha can't believe i use to watch him at one point @@Blackgriffonphoenixg
I had said something so factually incorrect. I had deleted the post. This is a sorry for being stupid.
Just read "Shooting an Elephant" in my english class and now I'm watching Vaush take down a bad faith interpreation of it? The algorithm is crazy.
I read the whole thing too, and agree.
It definitely wasn't an anti-colonial piece, rather it sounded like excuse and a rationalization for British colonialism, in times where its beginning to be challenged by decolonial movements.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 What? He absolutely wasn't apologizing for colonialism. The whole point of the essay was that colonials do everything they do because they're insecure and pathetic people who want to look strong in front of a group of perceived lesser peoples, and if they have to abuse and murder to force a modicum of respect out of those they're oppressing, they will. Orwell did not excuse himself for shooting the elephant, he all but called himself pathetic for killing an innocent creature to soothe his ego.
@@saucevc8353 all of what you said is the excuse itself. Think about it a bit, I wasnt saying he was directly saying “colonialism is good” lets not be silly , rather that he was making a subtle rationalization.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 No crime is committed without a motivation. But the presence of the motivation does not justify the crime. All Orwell did was explain the motivation based on his own experiences, but that only makes colonials look worse because while their STATED justification was some bullshit about "civilizing inferior cultures" the REAL reason that Orwell knows PERSONALLY is a lethal inferiority complex.
@@saucevc8353 Well, there's a lot to say here. I agree that no crime is unmotivated, I just disagree that what Orwell wrote is the actual motivation for colonialism. I think the real motives are about economics and political control. Resource extraction, cheap labor, political influence are all "rational" motives in the neoclassical econ sense. Perhaps that's part of the reason why I thought this piece as a rationalization/whitewashing rather than an honest "coming to terms with" as it were.
I also disagree that he was saying that the Brits had a "an inferiority complex", it seems he was saying that all humanity had a psychological flaw of wanting to "save face and not be embarrassed" which is the reason for empire and all political evils. Quote " *One day something happened which in a roundabout way was enlightening. It was a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism - the real motives for which despotic governments act* "
So he's not singling the Brits out, he's saying they're human beings, with human flaws just like everyone else. He’s humanizing them. Moreover, Orwell didn't specifically repudiate the " civilizing the savages" excuse as you seem to imply.
The other thing is, he didn't just make such a claim for himself, but for ALL colonial Brits in the colonies. I could quote you the part if you don't believe me. Suffice it to say, there's a difference between saying "this is how I Orwell personally felt" and speaking on behalf of the psychology of thousands if not millions of colonial Brits in the colonized countries. That smacks of propaganda, because for one, you'd be hard pressed to find two ppl having the same motivation for doing the same thing, and for two all this does is humanize the colonizer and make him seem relatable.
Orwell also states that he thought the British empire was "respectable" (in a different piece) and "better than what's going to replace it". That's about as clear cut a rationalization for imperialism as you could get, without saying directly "I support it". But you could split hairs if you want..
Quote " *I did not even know that the British Empire is dying, still less did I know that it is a great deal better than the younger empires that are going to supplant it* "
There's also a whiff of "I was doing my duty" Nuremberg style defense in the piece. I trust I don't need to tell you why this not a good defense. Quote " *was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East* "
The other issue is, this piece was written in retrospective in the 1930s (no evidence he actually opposed colonialism in the 20s when in Burma) , after a few anti-colonial uprisings occurring in the empire (including Burma), and after the rise of the USSR which helped decolonial movements all over the world AND after WW2 when the empire was severely weakened. So he was writing in a world, where colonialism and the empire was already declining, losing support and being challenged. The British/anglo-western public, esp the left, was obviously going to lose faith in colonialism if it's "not working" which makes them more receptive to moral arguments against it, but that's not really the point of the piece (meaning not to make a moral argument for or against). The point of the piece is simply damage control, I.e try to save whatever shred of decency for the declining British empire ,its colonial practices and soften blows they've gotten. In other words, he's trying to present a now increasingly discredited practice (colonialism) and empire in the best light possible for the anglo-western public, esp to the left leaning parts of it, whom are maybe having 2nd thoughts about the empire.
In addition, Orwell not only humanizes himself and his co-colonials but he dehumanizes the other as "petty" and "aimless" not to mention the racial slurs (which I assume you're going to excuse as "everyone was racist" at the time). You could say, that he wasn't writing for a non-western audience so it doesn't matter, but that actually strengthens the point. it is *precisely* that he was writing to an anglo audience that he needed to humanize the other as much as possible. What's the point of anti-colonialism, if it ignores the most relevant POV, that is of the colonized ppl themselves?
Orwell also finishes the essay by saying he's glad that the Coolie was killed so he could get off easy. Now you could say that actually makes him look worse which is an even stronger argument that this piece was "anti-colonial" but hold your horses. Either 1- The audience already doesn't care all that much about the lives of Burmese ppl, so he's audacious enough to say that OR 2- if the audience really thought it a horrific thing, then he'd totally discredit himself as a psychopath and lose the trust of the audience. There's not much room for in-betweens here. I actually think it was more 1 than 2, why? Simply look at the responses here in 2023, no one seems to care that he said that. It's amazing how not much has actually changed..
Finally, I'd point out that Orwell denies the agency of the imperialist colonial officers/soldiers and places the blame on an invisible abstraction called "Imperialism" as if that exists separate from the people that enforce it. Imagine if someone excused all Nazi soldiers (quasi Nuremberg defense actually) on the pretext that it is Nazism to be blamed but not the Nazi war machine itself. Pretty absurd imo.
To summarize, the point isn't that Orwell isn't saying negative things about colonialism, he obviously is, but that's a ridiculously low bar. The point is, what is the overall tenor of this piece and what was it supposed to accomplish for its intended audience within that historical context? And I think the answer is obvious, damage control.
For someone so open to the rejection of hierarchical systems as Hakim, he is being incredibly rigid here. The point of how Orwell writes is to use himself as an example of how authoritarian logic operates, and why it is so effective. Guess what? There WAS something deeply appealing about Hitler to many people. That's how he was able to do what he did. Just to use an example.
Hakim's criticisms make it seem like he believes people are either born with an innate knowledge of Marxism-Leninist theory or they're forever tainted. There is no process of discovery, and there can be none. That just isn't rooted at all on reality. In reality, the racist, colonial, imperialist, capitalist, fascist (I could go on) systems are the ones upon which societies run, and they're the ones people are born into. So OF COURSE some people will hold those beliefs. What matters is what you do once you become aware that those beliefs cause harm. Orwell chose to reject them.
I don't know why but "I can't hear you over the sound of Hitler existing." is such a funny line to me.
Zizek's point about ideology rings true for Hakim in particular
Yup, so many contradictions
@@antlerbraum2881 you'll never find more contradictions then if you were to give a bread-tuber 5 minutes to explain their ideology lmao. you guys are incoherent
@@bot-ni8usi wouldn't call Hakim a breadtuber at all, but yes, his whole ideology is by default contradictory
@@wumbojet Of course he isnt, im talking about you
@@bot-ni8us oh look at that, i didn't know i was a breadtuber, i hope my check comes in the mail this week!
I'd just like to point out that the USSR Twice attempted to create an alliance with britain and france against hitler in 1938 and 1939 and was twice rejected leading stalin to try and work out something with the Nazis. Yes they did work together but at no point was either side under the impression that this was not simply just buying time. Hitler wanted to make sure he only fought on one front at time dealing with the west then the east. So he secured the eastern front first. Hitler had also constantly mentioned his intention to move east, take the land, "remove" the people there and replace them with germans. Stalin knew that they would fight but also knew that the Red Army was significantly weaker after his purges which killed most of the experienced senior military generals and officers. So on both sides it's about buying time. Its fairly obvious from the attempt to secure alliances with the allies prior to the war that the soviets understood what was happening, that germany would attack. And when they were rejected the best option to secure their position when war did break out was to buy time. I just hate the framing of this as an "alliance" they had a non aggression pact which became their best option after being rejected by the allies.
Vaush admitted history is not his strong suit the man just skims through Wikipedia at best.
@@user-ze1ej5zb6z I know it’s not it’s just something he’s brought up before and it always bothers me. I have no other big issues with the video though
That is not true. Nazis and Communists were working together going back to the Weimar Republic.
@@Kai-tn4yx ok substantiate that?
@silencer1286 there was the Kama German Soviet tank school and
The Lipetsk German Soviet fighter school, to name the 2 that come to mind off the top of my head. Both of those were closed by the Germams once the Nazis came to power because the Germans were done rearming in secret
The real take:
Orwell is way overhyped, did some bad things, and had many bad opinions. Also, the only reason tankies don't like him is because he criticized Stalin.
His best work was Homage to Catalonia, without a doubt, but people prefer to talk more about his fiction writing instead. It's annoying. This is why we need some non-tankies criticizing him, like is already done with every author and theorist ever.
You should react to Finnish Bolshevik who is a worse version of Hakim. He actually believes Stalin did no wrong. Tankies are messed up people.
How can a Finn like Stalin? Don't they shoot you for that?
Being Finnish and a Stalinist is a sure sign of mental illness
The fact they're buddies is wholy unsurprising.
Is he really Finnish? I have a hard time believing any Finn would simp for Stalin.
@@KateeAngel Maybe an "ethnically finnish" american or canadian would be more understandable. Although in that case he wouldn't be finnish
Hakim: Why are you criticizing Stalin when Hitler exists?
Sounds like: Why are you arresting me for speeding and driving without a license when there are shoplifters and robbers?
Answer: Because you aren't robbing stores as far as I can tell. Is there something you want to confess?
Fun fact: In the 3-day gap between WW2 and Cold War, there was this Soviet guy called Ianivsky Kochinskowyich, who called Stalin a meanie bobeanie and a poopiehead. Criticising Stalin during this profound era of upheaval would be improper.
I mean in Animal Farm Napoleon isn't Lenin, Napoleon is Stalin. Old Major was the pig who led the revolution and was described as genuinely fighting for the animals. Snowball was his second in command who was also described as genuinely fighting for the animals and wrote the original set of rules for the farm which actually called for equality before Napoleon killed him with a pack of dogs and then slowly changed the rules to allow himself more and more luxury and power (for example Snowball wrote "No animal shall kill another animal" which Napoleon changed to "No animal shall kill another animal without cause").
Old Major was Lenin, Snowball was Trotsky, Napoleon was Stalin.
1984 is amazing. Yeah it's an allegory, not a psychological novel. But how many people who namedrop it have read it? I've read it once and I'm always hesitant to use it because 1) It's usually terribly hyperbolic to do so and 2) I feel I don't remember the nuances well enough.
Honestly same lol
I feel like I’m way too dumb to namedrop any of Orwell’s works lol
Yeah most people who bring up 1984 to support either haven't read the book since they slept through it in sophomore year of high school or haven't read it at all.
Tbh, its probably best not too, because however YOU may feel like you dont understand, the other person probably wont understand the book if you feel the need to whip it out in an arguement.
1984 is a super straightforward book, like its not at all a high reading level book. Highkey the Ork warhammer 40k books are more instense reads in general than 1984, and half of them are written in childish broken english.
If youre a socialist you probably can understand what the book is about fairly easily, the fact you doubt yourself means you probably are selfaware enough to go look for secondary sources for information.
That being said, 1984 is far better used in conversations about cults and high control groups than politics. If someone is at a high enough intelligence to understand said book, and be a right wing person, they probably arent a honest human being
I chose to read it years ago and I remember a few thinks about the book and politics. I remember more how afterwards (I was high school no more than 15 at the time) how I was sure that I could not trust any political party or ideology because their true goals in the end was to gain absolute power and exterminate everyone who they could not bend to their will.
It should be noted I read Animal Farm and the first volume of Main Kampf during my high school years.
Same man.
I was actually shocked when I asked a few Americans and they have not even heard of it
Vaush bad 😡
Vaush rad 😎
Yes
Vreaush*
Voosh bad
Vaush lad?
i read animal farm in 10th grade (wayy back in 2011) because my english teacher was a tea party republican (this is why the yr was relevant lmao) who thought the book was an indictment of revolutionary thought. i was a weird anarchist 16-yo and i never got the impression that it was anti-worker. it was distinctly pro-worker & anti-ruling class. anyone with critical reading skills can figure this out. it actually motivated me to read 1984
Yeah, it is pretty explicit in its veneration of the worker. The critique is in trading in one ruling class for another, and the strategies that attend to such a phenomenon.
@@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos By the end of the book, the pigs are trying to walk on their hind legs like the humans, take to wearing clothes, living in the farmhouse, and smoking the old farmers cigars and drinking his wine. I mean, "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" couldn't be more clearly illustrated!
Its amazing to me how many people just focus on the conflicts inside 'Animal Farm' as a critique of socialism while ignoring 'People Farm' and its repeated attempts to take over and murder all the residents of 'animal farm'.
Vaush going over Orwell's account of the Spanish civil war and all I could think is the quote, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Isn't that from GTA San Andreas
@@prajwaljayaraj5887 They may say it in a video game, but it pre-dates video games. It has a documented English use in the 1950s. And it credited to a French writer in the 1850s.
Vaush clearly has never read Michael Parenti the man wasn't sympathetic to Stalin and in fact denounced his autocratic way of ruling as he puts it.
Shhhhh, you're making too much sense. All MLs have to agree on everything!
I prefer animal farm tbh. As a side note: IT IS NOT TROTSKYIST!!!! Actually read the book; is Snowball a good person? NO! ALL pigs agreed the pigs should get more food, and the windmill ended up killing boxer. Why are ppl idiots
Not gonna lie, I think the one thing that kept me from becoming a socialist more than anything else was the propaganda that Animal Farm and 1984 were critiques of socialism/communism broadly by being made to think that the USSR was a good faith example of socialism.
And one of the things that made me most sympathetic to socialism was finally realizing “no wait, Orwell just hated Stalin and Lenin”.
I always read animal farm as a revolution gone wrong and took from it the idea that you needed to constantly check for corruption if a revolution is to succeed.
@@rowbot5555A permanent revolution, one might say?
On the Hitler's appeal thing, when Trump said "Only Rosie O'Donnell" in the Republican 2016 debates, that was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on live television.
As an educator, I can safely say that Hakim composed an essay that would completely fail as both a literary critique *and* a historical analysis. Holy shit, that was bad - barely cites any text he take umbrage with, the miniscule amount of text he does look at he instantly misinterprets, his "analysis" is limited to quotes from articles written by people he's predisposed to ideologically align with, and his attempt to utilize historical arguments amounts to "Well, the CIA liked it, so take THAT!" with no mention whatsoever of western attempts to ban Orwell's work for being anti-capitalist. Like, good god, his inability to read past a surface level interpretation of Shooting An Elephant is fascist-levels of being unable to process art and literature beyond a fourth grade level and demanding that writing strip itself of all subtext or room for interpretation. It's a failure on every level, and would likely only receive points for probably being written in an acceptable formatting style.
I want to offer some excuse for the guy given that English isn't his first language, but this is inexcusably terrible.
as an spanish anarchist it was funny to see vaush reacting about the civil war.
Btw in spain republic just means a non-monarchic country, can be confusing for americans.
Oh wow, that’s actually really cool to hear. I haven’t met any Spanish Vaush fans yet so it’s pretty cool to see your comment. Did you have any ancestors or family who fought with the CNT during the civil war?
@@BlueTyphoon2017 sadly almost all my family fought in the fascist side, the onlly family member that didnt was a member of the red cross, so at least he did some good.
Vaush: *reads mein kaumpf*
Hakim: is vaush Hitler?
How the fuck are peoples understanding of literature so bad that people are like “character in book did or thought something bad eww how could they” and then just like stop there?
I am from Burma, and I'll tell you the amount of tourists that show up in Katha (a town George orwell stayed at), a tourism company from England tried to buy the house he stayed at and want to turn it into an Orwell museum, it didn't happen. Now it's abandoned like most colonial era houses are. It's in Saging state and it's now a battle ground between the military and freedom fighters. It's really messed up that the wiki page for that town have more informations about George Orwell than the town itself. It's a beautiful town on the ayeyarwaddy riverbank with rich history and amazing people.
Hakim Logic:
Orwell: "I would shoot Hitler if I had the chance but he was a good orator"
Also Orwell: "I think people should criticize Stalin"
Hakim: "See, he loves Hitler but hates Stalin! What a fascist!"
Horrible writer? Was he confusing Orwell with Ayn Rand?