Can Socialists be Happy?

by George Orwell

Here is the influential article written, under a pseudonym, in 1948 in which Orwell explores the issue of how personal happiness may or may not conflict with the political philosophy of socialism, by sharing his own timeless views and looking at English literature.

Genres: Nonfiction, Classics, Politics, Essays, Philosophy, British Literature, History

6 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 29, 2012

About the author

Eric Arthur Blair was an English novelist, poet, essayist, journalist and critic who wrote under the pen name of George Orwell. His work is characterised by lucid prose, social criticism, opposition to all totalitarianism (both fascism and stalinism), and support of democratic socialism.

Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), although his works also encompass literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting his experience of working-class life in the industrial north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences soldiering for the Republican faction of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), are as critically respected as his essays on politics, literature, language and culture.

Orwell's work remains influential in popular culture and in political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language, like many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother", "Thought Police", "Room 101", "Newspeak", "memory hole", "doublethink", and "thoughtcrime". In 2008, The Times named Orwell the second-greatest British writer since 1945.

Reviews

[James Grimditch · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am once again asking people to actually read George Orwell rather than invoking him whenever they’re losing an argument

[Lilly.Whr · Rating 5 out of 5]

“It would seem that human beings are not able to describe, nor perhaps imagine, happiness except in terms of contrast.”

“The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood.”

“They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary.”

“Whoever tried to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.”

[Tanya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent set of essays that hold many observations even truer today than half a century ago. Didn't know Orwell was so based.

[Julia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Favs:
Writers and Leviathan
Can socialists be happy?
In Defence of English Cooking

En nu heb ik wel genoeg Orwell gelezen, houdoe en bedankt

[Orsolya · Rating 4 out of 5]

otroligt relevant idag!! gillade speciellt essäen "Writers and Leviathan" och sista delen av "Looking back on the Spanish War"

[Esra · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,8

[Jana · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 ⭐️

[David Halada · Rating 5 out of 5]

So, I've known Orwell is a great novelist, having read both the Animal Farm and 1984, but I had no idea how good of an essayist he was. His observations are sharp, which is most notable in his short essay "You and the Atom Bomb". Here he predicts the coming atomic age, not as an age of liberation but an age of further entrenchment of power. Correctly he assumes that the great powers will only use this weapon to further their own goals at the expense of smaller nations. You don't need to be especially politically literate to see this in the present political climate.

So to answer the question in the title. Can Socialists be Happy? Yes and no, I think. The state of the world we find ourselves in leaves much to be desired. We are not inching towards fascism, we are running head first towards it. On the other hand, the opposition is becoming organised, grassroots movements are more and more visible, and overall, the next generation sees clearly the dangers of fascism and authoritarianism. So care about your fellow human beings, analyse the material conditions we find ourselves in, and believe, that a better world is possible.

[Max O'Sullivan · Rating 5 out of 5]

absolutely banger collection — a must read for anyone who wants to better understand orwell’s political ideals and the events that formed them
as ever, his wittiness shines through and the open criticisms illuminate the powerful moral questions that gnaw at him — the final essay in particular shines a novel light into the world of 1984

[blume4000 · Rating 4 out of 5]

idk but george could get it 😝😝😝😝😝

[Shiwam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can socialists be happy?
Yes, and no.

We do spend most of our time chasing/dreaming about/aspiring to build or yearn for a form of utopia to rid all of our grievances.
And however terrible it may seem, or is, we can’t afford to forget the fact that people, are all we have. And, of all the ideals that one could fantasise about, this is possibly, the only tangible one.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good collection of essays from Orwell. Some are better than others, therefore 4/5 stars. Also, it would’ve been nice if they added the publication years of each essay. All the reader knows is that they’ve been written between 1931 and 1948, which is a broad span for themes like the atomic bomb.

[Emilie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bad news for socialists: Hell is just so much easier to imagine than Heaven!

When designing a utopia, one runs into the problem that happiness is only convincing so long as it as incomplete. Utopia, meaning both ‘the good place’ and ‘no place’, signifies a place which does not, cannot, and, perhaps, should not exist. Built as a negation of society’s problems, the utopia is a fantastic thought experiment but a tediously simple place to live. “Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has a toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having a toothache.” Trying to imagine utopia, Orwell argues, only betrays the architect’s emptiness. Instead, he says, we must only concern ourselves with the direction of travel.

So, the answer to the titular question? Socialists may be happy so long as they are also simple. A great win for members of the Socialist Workers Party ;)

[Thijs Jenneskens · Rating 4 out of 5]

quite interesting essays. I recommend checking out the titular essay and Writers And Leviathan. You can probably find them somewhere online

[Darcy]

I have not rated this collection as it seems inappropriate to give Orwell less than 5 stars. However, as much as these small format collections are good ideas, why is there no reference to the original publications? Not even the year published!

[Rachel Tobin · Rating 3 out of 5]

no

[Maximilian · Rating 4 out of 5]

A seried of essays. For two or so, I did not really care, some were interesting, some outright fantastic. It did give me new perspectives and I find many of the presented thoughts still applicable today.

[Luke Glasspool · Rating 4 out of 5]

A question SOAS students ask themselves every day frfr

[Natali · Rating 4 out of 5]

How are these man’s thoughts still relevant even in today’s political climate? 😦

[Oriol Frigolé Llorà · Rating 3 out of 5]

(2,8/5)

It's not bad per se, and there are some nice thoughts and anecdotes; but it's not what I was expecting. I guess I am also not a big fan of essays (or reading a book that's just a compilation of essays from an author). I quite prefer George Orwell when writing novels. The essayist feels too snobbish.

"Whoever tried to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness"

[Helena Rodrigues · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este é o ensaio cujo título provocador dá nome à mais recente coletânea de textos de George Orwell editada pela Penguin Books. Nele, discute-se o problema do estabelecimento de regimes políticos cujas linhas de ação coincidem com aquilo que, antes, era apenas arquitetado pelos sonhadores, para a manutenção do conceito de utopia. O socialismo, quando eficazmente aplicado, coloca uma questão de peso ao imaginário utópico: como impedir que o patamar de progresso finalmente alcançado não redunde no seu oposto – como impedir que o aperfeiçoamento social se traduza numa obra de Aldous Huxley?

Se é sabido que, sem experienciar grandes tristezas, é impossível ter consciência do valimento das grandes alegrias, é também certo que uma projeção utópica só existe na medida em que supera a imperfeição da realidade vivida. Assim, uma utopia só existe enquanto tal se houver um elemento de contraste entre o real e o imaginário, o efetivo e o possível, o agora e o algures no tempo. Num universo hipotético em que os princípios da esquerda moderada encontram a sua concretização plena e temporalmente ilimitada, a utopia concretizada está destinada a esvair-se no ideal coletivo. Ou seja:

"these pictures of 'eternal bliss' always failed because as soon as the bliss became eternal (eternity being thought of as endless time), the contrast ceased to operate."

Será, então, uma falácia a ilusão de que, uma vez atingido o ápice da civilização, as pessoas viverão mais harmoniosa e alegremente? Não será sensato esperar que a natureza humana abandone a sua característica insatisfação – mas isso é um risco para o projeto sociopolítico socialista alcançado a tanto custo. Constituirá um fim em si mesma a construção de uma realidade de acordo com as diretrizes de um determinado quadrante ideológico? Talvez, mas não é esta a principal preocupação de Orwell – é, em vez disso, a da dificuldade da manutenção do equilíbrio frágil entre a conquista da utopia e a racionalização extrema das potencialidades humanas. Retirando a insatisfação do quadro de possibilidades, resta-nos uma população estagnada no planalto da civilização: desenvolvida e igualitária, mas infeliz.

"All 'favourable' Utopias seem to be alike in postulating perfection while being unable to suggest happiness."

Oitenta e dois anos depois da publicação de Can Socialists Be Happy?, no jornal Tribune, caminhamos no sentido oposto àquele que poderia assegurar-nos uma concretização harmoniosa e alegre de uma hipotética utopia: um desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico acompanhado de forma sustentada pelo fomento da componente humanística da formação do indivíduo. Em vez disso, aprofunda-se o desequilíbrio evidente entre o apoio ao raciocínio matemático e o incentivo à produção artística, filosófica e literária. Insiste-se num investimento voltado para o futuro, sem uma consciência consolidada do passado. O próprio futuro é arquitetado sobre alicerces utilitários, orgulho maior da sociedade digital, racional, mecanizada e automatizada em que o indivíduo ideal é uma unidade de produtividade.

Em suma, será que os socialistas podem ser felizes? Podem - se incluirmos na nossa utopia, paralelamente aos ideais de democracia, progresso científico e igualdade social, uma matriz cultural que permita às pessoas reconhecer em si mesmas o potencial para a criação de felicidade e plenitude.

[Z · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps the most instructive lesson I took from this collection of essays is that there is nothing like the past to illuminate the present’s progress. And I do mean illuminate. It is one thing to read about medical progress, and quite another to read anecdotes about early 20th century European public hospitals. What struck me most is how Orwell preaches dignity for the poor while also sometimes sneering at them. This is most prominent towards the global, non-Western poor, where Orwell’s analysis is superficial and often racist.

Still, I resonated with some of the essays, particularly the ones about writers. I also found his writing about his own personal experiences to be the most impactful, such as his essays on war and the spike. As for the title, there is wisdom in his line, “The wiser course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.” And I agree with him about socialism’s objective: not total happiness, which is unattainable and results in dystopia that dilutes humanity’s essence, but human brotherhood.

[Arvis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Orwell brings up some interesting talking points and tells some telling stories but most of it really is just not that interesting to me.

I wasn’t expecting much from a collection of essays and I honestly didn’t get much.

Possibly wasn’t really the best read for me at the moment as it didn’t help the struggle to read more but I guess that’s life for me.

[Thisuri · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting and compelling series of essays - I didn’t like the one about sports that much.

“The question only arises because in exploring the physical universe man has made no attempt to explore himself. Much of what goes by the name of pleasure is simply an effort to destroy consciousness.”

[Harshita Vyas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nearly all creators of utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary.

[Hayden Fisher · Rating 4 out of 5]

The answer to the question is “no but we should try it anyway”

[Weronika · Rating 5 out of 5]

„man is in danger of destroying himself with his own weapons, leaving the ants to take over”

[stephanie · Rating 5 out of 5]

1. based
2. based
3. based
4. based
5. based
6. based
7. based
8. based
9. based
10. based
11. cringe
12. based
13. based

[Marina Kiesling · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes we can!

[Patrick Stuntebeck · Rating 3 out of 5]

nice little selection of essays from Orwell. I've read Down and Out in Paris and My Catalonia from him already, so some parts were very familiar here.
My favorite was the last chapter, You and the Atom Bomb