What do you think?
Rate this book
Fascism and Democracy
'The feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world ... this prospect frightens me much more than bombs'On the 70th anniversary of George Orwell's death, a new collection of his brilliant essays written during the Second World WarFascism and Democracy collects five brilliant examples of Orwell's writing during the darkest days of World War Two. Grappling with the principles of democracy and the potential of reform, the meaning of literature and free speech in times of violence, and the sustainability of objective truth, Orwell offers a compelling portrayal of a nation where norms and ideals can no longer be taken for granted. Like the best of Orwell's writing, these essays also serve as timeless reminders of the fragility of freedom.
40 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 21, 2020
192 people are currently reading
2853 people want to read
About the author
George Orwell
1,280 books50.9k followersEric Arthur Blair was an English novelist, poet, essayist, journalist and critic who wrote under the pen name of George Orwell. His work is characterised by lucid prose, social criticism, opposition to all totalitarianism (both 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.
Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), although his works also encompass literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting his experience of working-class life in the industrial north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences soldiering for the Republican faction of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), are as critically respected as his essays on politics, literature, language and culture.
Orwell's work remains influential in popular culture and in political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language, like many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother", "Thought Police", "Room 101", "Newspeak", "memory hole", "doublethink", and "thoughtcrime". In 2008, The Times named Orwell the second-greatest British writer since 1945.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 245 reviews
November 24, 2020
Maybe politics have always been an unhinged, dirty mess, a deadly game played by severely damaged egos? Maybe the thought that we are "heading in the wrong direction" or "losing a commitment to truth" is the equivalent of the eternal human condition per se?
At least that is the conclusion I reach when nodding my way through George Orwell's essays from the 1940s on the rise of post-truth history writing. It is all so familiar!
Democracy is vulnerable because it does not accept the killer propaganda weapon that demagogues and wannabe-dictators use without even a moment of hesitation. And the Catch-22 is that the moment democracy fights back with the same weapons that tyrants use it turns into a tyranny itself.
However, there is hope.
There is resilience and love and dignity. Orwell's writing would not be possible otherwise. It does exist, though, and therefore truth does too. It is just hidden under a thick layer of dirt.
We should all be cleaners!
At least that is the conclusion I reach when nodding my way through George Orwell's essays from the 1940s on the rise of post-truth history writing. It is all so familiar!
Democracy is vulnerable because it does not accept the killer propaganda weapon that demagogues and wannabe-dictators use without even a moment of hesitation. And the Catch-22 is that the moment democracy fights back with the same weapons that tyrants use it turns into a tyranny itself.
However, there is hope.
There is resilience and love and dignity. Orwell's writing would not be possible otherwise. It does exist, though, and therefore truth does too. It is just hidden under a thick layer of dirt.
We should all be cleaners!
July 27, 2025
In today’s challenging world – from climate change to the war in Ukraine and the rise of despotism, demagoguery, and nascent fascism from Russia to the US, not to forget our domestic issues and Boris Johnson’s degenerate Toryism – Orwell provides a powerful example of a moral compass and the importance of principle.
October 26, 2021
The writer who told the truth.
What is the use of political liberty, so called, to a man who works 12 hours a day for 3 pounds a week? Once in five years he may get the chance to vote for his favourite party, but for the rest of the time practically every detail of his life is dictated by his employer.
Even when by some mischance a government representing the poorer classes gets into power, the rich can usually blackmail it by threatening to export capital.
The citizen of a democratic country is 'conditioned' from birth onwards, less rigidly but not much less effectively than he would be in a totalitarian country.
and lastly
The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world
What is the use of political liberty, so called, to a man who works 12 hours a day for 3 pounds a week? Once in five years he may get the chance to vote for his favourite party, but for the rest of the time practically every detail of his life is dictated by his employer.
Even when by some mischance a government representing the poorer classes gets into power, the rich can usually blackmail it by threatening to export capital.
The citizen of a democratic country is 'conditioned' from birth onwards, less rigidly but not much less effectively than he would be in a totalitarian country.
and lastly
The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world
January 27, 2020
1984 is often praised as being relevant in any age, suggesting ideas that apply much more widely that the context in which Orwell was writing. The same is true of his non-fiction essays in this little collection. Though they often centre around events that happened at the time, Orwell's reactions and thoughts raise ideas that apply to the modern world equally well.
June 10, 2022
reading essays to up my goodreads goal seems like a cheat code haha
February 24, 2021
A lovely short read, featuring some hitherto unpublished work. Orwell's insight and strong argumentation, paired with an obvious talent for writing, will never cease to enchant me. The subject matter is as current as it was upon writing in the 1940's, with the discourses of nationalism and totalitarianism terrifyingly on the rise once more.
March 5, 2023
George Orwell'in 5 adet makalesinden oluşan bir kitapçık.
Makalelerden ilki 'Fascism and Democracy'. 'Burjuva' demokrasisine Faşist ve Komünistlerin makalenin yazıldığı zamanlarda(1941), zamanın modasına uygun olarak, çokça eleştiride bulunduklarını belirtiyor ve bunu aynı zeminde yaptıklarının önemine dikkat çekiyor. Bu eleştirilerde doğruluk payı olmakla birlikte, gözden kaçan noktalara değiniyor (ki bu kısımlar bana Tevfik Uyar'ın Safsatalar kitabını anımsattı. Safsatalar, ilk duyduğunuzda bazen doğru gibi görünebilen ancak dikkatli düşünüp analiz edince ne kadar manasız veya mantık hatası barındırdığını gördüğünüz argümanlar olarak anlatılmıştı - en azından benim kitaptan aldığım budur. Ve bunları gruplayarak neden hatalı olduğunu ve nasıl karşılanabileceğini anlatıyordu. O düzlemde çok "benzer" bir akışla Orwell'in bu argümanları karşıladığını düşünüyorum. Aynı değil benzer, çünkü kendisi bu argümanların doğruluğunu teslim ediyor).
"This is not altogether false, and still less is it obviously false; on the contrary, there is more to be said for it than against it. A sixteen-year-old schoolboy can attack Democracy much better than he can defend it. And one cannot answer him unless one knows the anti-democratic 'case' and is willing to admit the large measure of truth it contains". Bizlerin de sıkça duyduğu ve katılmadan edemediği karşı argümanlara da, destekleyici argümanlara da objektif şekilde yer vermiş. Birbirinin birebir karşı argümanı değil ancak şu iki örnek akılda kalanlardan;
"To begin with, it is always urged against 'bourgeois' Democracy that it is negatived by economic inequality. What is the use of political liberty, so called, to a man who works 12 hours a day for £3 week? Once in five years he may get the chance to vote for his favourite party, but for the rest of the time practically every detail of his life is dictated by his employer" ve
"During the years 1929-34 all orthodox Communists were committed to the belief that 'Social-fascism'(i.e. Socialism) was the real enemy of the workers and that capitalist Democracy was in no way whatever preferable to Fascism. Yet when Hitler came to power scores of thousands of German Communists - still uttering the same doctrine, which was not abandoned till some time later - fled to France, Switzarland, England, the USA or any other democratic country that would admit them."
Diğer makaleler için de tek tek notlar yazmak istiyorum ancak tembellik yaparak başka bir güne bırakacağım onları. Umarım devam edebilirim.
Makalelerden ilki 'Fascism and Democracy'. 'Burjuva' demokrasisine Faşist ve Komünistlerin makalenin yazıldığı zamanlarda(1941), zamanın modasına uygun olarak, çokça eleştiride bulunduklarını belirtiyor ve bunu aynı zeminde yaptıklarının önemine dikkat çekiyor. Bu eleştirilerde doğruluk payı olmakla birlikte, gözden kaçan noktalara değiniyor (ki bu kısımlar bana Tevfik Uyar'ın Safsatalar kitabını anımsattı. Safsatalar, ilk duyduğunuzda bazen doğru gibi görünebilen ancak dikkatli düşünüp analiz edince ne kadar manasız veya mantık hatası barındırdığını gördüğünüz argümanlar olarak anlatılmıştı - en azından benim kitaptan aldığım budur. Ve bunları gruplayarak neden hatalı olduğunu ve nasıl karşılanabileceğini anlatıyordu. O düzlemde çok "benzer" bir akışla Orwell'in bu argümanları karşıladığını düşünüyorum. Aynı değil benzer, çünkü kendisi bu argümanların doğruluğunu teslim ediyor).
"This is not altogether false, and still less is it obviously false; on the contrary, there is more to be said for it than against it. A sixteen-year-old schoolboy can attack Democracy much better than he can defend it. And one cannot answer him unless one knows the anti-democratic 'case' and is willing to admit the large measure of truth it contains". Bizlerin de sıkça duyduğu ve katılmadan edemediği karşı argümanlara da, destekleyici argümanlara da objektif şekilde yer vermiş. Birbirinin birebir karşı argümanı değil ancak şu iki örnek akılda kalanlardan;
"To begin with, it is always urged against 'bourgeois' Democracy that it is negatived by economic inequality. What is the use of political liberty, so called, to a man who works 12 hours a day for £3 week? Once in five years he may get the chance to vote for his favourite party, but for the rest of the time practically every detail of his life is dictated by his employer" ve
"During the years 1929-34 all orthodox Communists were committed to the belief that 'Social-fascism'(i.e. Socialism) was the real enemy of the workers and that capitalist Democracy was in no way whatever preferable to Fascism. Yet when Hitler came to power scores of thousands of German Communists - still uttering the same doctrine, which was not abandoned till some time later - fled to France, Switzarland, England, the USA or any other democratic country that would admit them."
Diğer makaleler için de tek tek notlar yazmak istiyorum ancak tembellik yaparak başka bir güne bırakacağım onları. Umarım devam edebilirim.
November 16, 2021
This book fortified for me that although Orwell is a revolutionary writer, he's not the last authority to be referred to. The warnings against totalitarianism are ever-present in his writing, understandably. But he has misplaced hope in western democracy, which today we know has failed just as hard to protect people.
Also, by virtue of being English, he's bound to be prejudiced.
In "On fascism and democracy", he stated that he admires Churchill much as he hates his politics. Such views could only be held by someone who's never really had to fight for their own freedom because those virtues can only be separable to the privileged.
I do agree that "to work against democracy (though it has defects) is to saw off the branch you're sitting on" (its failings notwithstanding).
Also, I disagree that freedom to express fascist opinions proves democratic liberty. Hateful opinions that obstruct other people's rights do not come under freedom of speech.
In "Literature and totalitarianism", he stated that the worst thing that could be said about a work of art is that it is insincere. I would argue that writing with half knowledge is harmful irrespective of if you really felt that that was the truth sincerely.
In "Review of The invasion of Mars", he stated that a survey found out most people not likely to check the veracity of things they heard were poor, ill-educated, economically insecure or unhappy in their private lives. But I know that level of education doesn't hinder the probability of being complicit in believing things as facts.
In "Visions of a totalitarian future", he stated that England believes the Right invariably triumphs in the last chapter but, this is why nationalism is so scary because obviously, every nation would think it is the right one even if it's not. (Just read UK's history textbooks)
The book still gave me a lot to think about.
3.5🌟
Also, by virtue of being English, he's bound to be prejudiced.
In "On fascism and democracy", he stated that he admires Churchill much as he hates his politics. Such views could only be held by someone who's never really had to fight for their own freedom because those virtues can only be separable to the privileged.
I do agree that "to work against democracy (though it has defects) is to saw off the branch you're sitting on" (its failings notwithstanding).
Also, I disagree that freedom to express fascist opinions proves democratic liberty. Hateful opinions that obstruct other people's rights do not come under freedom of speech.
In "Literature and totalitarianism", he stated that the worst thing that could be said about a work of art is that it is insincere. I would argue that writing with half knowledge is harmful irrespective of if you really felt that that was the truth sincerely.
In "Review of The invasion of Mars", he stated that a survey found out most people not likely to check the veracity of things they heard were poor, ill-educated, economically insecure or unhappy in their private lives. But I know that level of education doesn't hinder the probability of being complicit in believing things as facts.
In "Visions of a totalitarian future", he stated that England believes the Right invariably triumphs in the last chapter but, this is why nationalism is so scary because obviously, every nation would think it is the right one even if it's not. (Just read UK's history textbooks)
The book still gave me a lot to think about.
3.5🌟
January 26, 2020
These four short essays and a book review have been issued to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Orwell's death, and they were written between 1940 and 1945, mostly in 1941. They are an impassioned defence of democracy against fascism, but using arguments that reminded me of Churchill's remark that democracy is the worst form of govt except all the others that have been tried.
He is also equally sceptical about socialism, and he is writing at a time when the British communists were still looking to Russia as an example, and somehow trying to justify Stalin's excesses.
What gives the booklet a contemporary relevance however is his emphasis on the crucial importance of freedom of speech, and how it can be threatened by an angry, divided population. I am reading, at the same time, Jonathan Coe's remarkable 'Middle England', which explores Brexit Britain with withering accuracy and humour, and the two books tie together very neatly.
He is also equally sceptical about socialism, and he is writing at a time when the British communists were still looking to Russia as an example, and somehow trying to justify Stalin's excesses.
What gives the booklet a contemporary relevance however is his emphasis on the crucial importance of freedom of speech, and how it can be threatened by an angry, divided population. I am reading, at the same time, Jonathan Coe's remarkable 'Middle England', which explores Brexit Britain with withering accuracy and humour, and the two books tie together very neatly.
October 26, 2025
This is a short collection of 5 essays written during and just after WW2. Some good stuff here on the importance of free speech, on the merits of democracy and on the death of “truth” being a key aspect of totalitarian governments.
Orwell is a great writer through and through and these essays are not any different from his other work. He writes in a clear style, communicates his ideas and perspectives thoroughly and makes compelling arguments. I disagree with some of these arguments, and I even think that he might be flat out wrong with some of his observations but that’s easy for me / us to say since we have the advantage of looking through 80+ years of history.
This collection may be a very short read, but it provides people with a lot to think about (consider how long my “review” is lmao). Would strongly recommend! If I were to summarize the whole thing with my own two cents added on, I would write the following:
Worsening socioeconomic factors and material conditions for the working class contribute to a moral apathy within the public. Incessant infighting, horrible focus and reliance on corporate and billionaire funding contribute to an incompetent opposition force.
A defeatist public with poor leadership enables the state to continuously step over boundaries and break laws and democratic values to establish a fascistic regime. Regardless of what justifications may be made and regardless of their validity, the regime is free to act without consequence and will become further entrenched in its power.
Focused leadership and radical empathy are foundational to any progressive movement in breaking fascism.
And finally, one of my favourite lines from these works:
“There is no strong reason for thinking that any really fundamental change can ever be achieved peacefully.”
// (See below for more detailed thoughts on the five essays in this collection)
Fascism & Democracy (Feb 1941) 4.5/5
Orwell discusses the merits of democracy in the first essay, contrasting it with the other powerful organizations of government of the time. It’s really interesting to assess how these merits have faded in the neoliberal, capitalistic democracies of today. Consider the rampant inequalities in wealth and power, censorship and surveillance, breaking up of protests, the lack of due process and on and on and on.
Sure, there still remains a world of difference between a fascist state and one that is sliding into fascism, but it is important to keep in mind how quickly the neoliberals and capitalists will secede to, or even partner with, fascists. The same system of oppression they have targeted towards minorities and the third world will simply be turned inwards to the working class at home once the socioeconomic conditions are dire enough. While Orwell sings the just praises of democracy here, he still leaves space for honest critique.
The other main point Orwell focuses on in this essay is on the uselessness of the self-proclaimed “true revolutionaries”. He comments on their inability to make progress and on their stubbornness to criticize and learn from mistakes made by communists in the USSR. He calls for a “real” English socialist movement, that must be both democratic and revolutionary, one with an emphasis on the struggles and realities of the working class. I love his comment here that “The common people know this, even if the intellectuals do not.” Amidst all the non-sensical leftist infighting and perfectionism you see today (and in the 40s), the “intellectuals” fail to really communicate and understand what real, common people are experiencing. These are the kinds of failures that allow charismatic demagogues to win power – regardless of whether it is 1941 or 2025. You can see some change, if you squint your eyes and focus on the progressives, – like Zohran in New York’s mayoral race for example. From the start of his campaign, he has emphasized a razor-sharp focus on affordability for all peoples. This isn’t to say that discourse on identity politics or more extreme leftist interests is harmful (this topic has probably an essay’s worth of thoughts on its own but I will halt my own rambling), but rather that the focus of progressives should be on the wealth inequality and exploitation that we as all workers face. This is the kind of messaging that will resonate with all peoples and will allow us to build a serious and competent coalition.
Literature & Totalitarianism (May 1941) 4/5
This essay is directed towards writers and artists, especially those who might harbor a belief that fascism can be ignored if you’re privileged or non-combative. I think it can apply to anyone who isn’t being targeted currently, to anyone who thinks they might get out on top in a totalitarian state. Orwell writes on the necessity to resist totalitarianism, regardless of your position, for the sake of objectivity / the truth / your own creative liberty & freedom of thought.
Freedom of the park (Dec 1945) 5/5
I remember hearing a quote in a human rights class I took during undergrad that went something like “the power of the west has always been the power to define”. It refers to the idea that those in positions of authority - whether it be on a global stage, or domestically, can act freely with this power to define. By defining which groups are “terrorists” and which groups are “freedom fighters”, they can manufacture the consent to drop bombs on weddings and shrug their shoulders, or to spy on and detain their own civilians with impunity.
In this commentary, Orwell discusses the power of the police force to arrest those who are committing “obstruction” in Hyde park in London. He explains how the police can pick and choose who they arrest regardless of the technicalities of the law. When they deliberately arrest leftist newspaper vendors on a crime that many others commit, and a crime that the public typically ignores, they highlight the fragility of the law. As he writes: “The law is no protection”. It is meaningless to continuously point at a rulebook that is ever changing or left in the hands of biased and greedy groups in power to decide whether or not a rule has been broken. Every week you see incompetent Democrats point to the rulebook and shout, “Trump can’t do x!” and then we get to sit and watch Trump do x. Orwell’s larger point here is on what matters more than the law – public opinion. Student movements, protests, social media campaigns are incredibly valuable for the work they do on highlighting injustices, spreading awareness and educating people on a basis of morality rather than the law. The power of the public to resist, to continuously demonstrate opposition is what forces those in authority to actually follow the rulebook.
It is further concerning then, that in a time of rising wealth inequality and material wellbeing (major factors in exacerbating apathy), the typical attitude that liberals across the world have taken is also one of indifference. They either mirror the policy plans of right wingers (consider Harris’s stance on immigration, for example), or they ignore serious yet controversial issues which allow for public opinion to shift or to dissolve completely into apathy. This is the social environment that enables the state to oppress those it wants to and allows them to break rules without any consequences.
It is imperative that liberals / leftists / any opposition speak out for the destitute, for the various minority groups that are targeted and scapegoated by the right. If we are to erase the apathy, we must replace it with an equally radical amount of care and empathy - only then can the laws we wrote mean anything.
Review of The Invasion from Mars (Oct 1940) 3.75/5
Orwell typically has a very concise prose, but it is always great when you see some of his emotion slip out in the writing (“…horrible dialect of an American psychologist…”). He generally trashes the radio play and those reporting on the hysteria that followed but he makes a great point on how it is typically disadvantaged peoples (poor, uneducated & desperate) that are susceptible to “fake news” (and further radicalization).
Visions of a totalitarian future (1942) 5/5
A fantastic essay on Orwell’s most base fear in a totalitarian future – the death of an objective truth. It reminds me of a great line from Andor (like I know it’s a disney star wars show but it is seriously so on the money when it comes to this theme of oppression): “The death of truth is the ultimate victory of evil.” No doubt, the show was likely inspired by Orwell’s work, and you can see traces of the main themes and fears in his yet-to-be written novel 1984 being highlighted in this piece. His writing resonates strongly today in an increasingly extremist world with a destitute populace, too eager to believe in comforting lies and propaganda.
(ok 1400+ words of a review for a ~20 page essay collection is insane, I might need to start a substack or something)
Orwell is a great writer through and through and these essays are not any different from his other work. He writes in a clear style, communicates his ideas and perspectives thoroughly and makes compelling arguments. I disagree with some of these arguments, and I even think that he might be flat out wrong with some of his observations but that’s easy for me / us to say since we have the advantage of looking through 80+ years of history.
This collection may be a very short read, but it provides people with a lot to think about (consider how long my “review” is lmao). Would strongly recommend! If I were to summarize the whole thing with my own two cents added on, I would write the following:
Worsening socioeconomic factors and material conditions for the working class contribute to a moral apathy within the public. Incessant infighting, horrible focus and reliance on corporate and billionaire funding contribute to an incompetent opposition force.
A defeatist public with poor leadership enables the state to continuously step over boundaries and break laws and democratic values to establish a fascistic regime. Regardless of what justifications may be made and regardless of their validity, the regime is free to act without consequence and will become further entrenched in its power.
Focused leadership and radical empathy are foundational to any progressive movement in breaking fascism.
And finally, one of my favourite lines from these works:
“There is no strong reason for thinking that any really fundamental change can ever be achieved peacefully.”
// (See below for more detailed thoughts on the five essays in this collection)
Fascism & Democracy (Feb 1941) 4.5/5
Orwell discusses the merits of democracy in the first essay, contrasting it with the other powerful organizations of government of the time. It’s really interesting to assess how these merits have faded in the neoliberal, capitalistic democracies of today. Consider the rampant inequalities in wealth and power, censorship and surveillance, breaking up of protests, the lack of due process and on and on and on.
Sure, there still remains a world of difference between a fascist state and one that is sliding into fascism, but it is important to keep in mind how quickly the neoliberals and capitalists will secede to, or even partner with, fascists. The same system of oppression they have targeted towards minorities and the third world will simply be turned inwards to the working class at home once the socioeconomic conditions are dire enough. While Orwell sings the just praises of democracy here, he still leaves space for honest critique.
The other main point Orwell focuses on in this essay is on the uselessness of the self-proclaimed “true revolutionaries”. He comments on their inability to make progress and on their stubbornness to criticize and learn from mistakes made by communists in the USSR. He calls for a “real” English socialist movement, that must be both democratic and revolutionary, one with an emphasis on the struggles and realities of the working class. I love his comment here that “The common people know this, even if the intellectuals do not.” Amidst all the non-sensical leftist infighting and perfectionism you see today (and in the 40s), the “intellectuals” fail to really communicate and understand what real, common people are experiencing. These are the kinds of failures that allow charismatic demagogues to win power – regardless of whether it is 1941 or 2025. You can see some change, if you squint your eyes and focus on the progressives, – like Zohran in New York’s mayoral race for example. From the start of his campaign, he has emphasized a razor-sharp focus on affordability for all peoples. This isn’t to say that discourse on identity politics or more extreme leftist interests is harmful (this topic has probably an essay’s worth of thoughts on its own but I will halt my own rambling), but rather that the focus of progressives should be on the wealth inequality and exploitation that we as all workers face. This is the kind of messaging that will resonate with all peoples and will allow us to build a serious and competent coalition.
Literature & Totalitarianism (May 1941) 4/5
This essay is directed towards writers and artists, especially those who might harbor a belief that fascism can be ignored if you’re privileged or non-combative. I think it can apply to anyone who isn’t being targeted currently, to anyone who thinks they might get out on top in a totalitarian state. Orwell writes on the necessity to resist totalitarianism, regardless of your position, for the sake of objectivity / the truth / your own creative liberty & freedom of thought.
Freedom of the park (Dec 1945) 5/5
I remember hearing a quote in a human rights class I took during undergrad that went something like “the power of the west has always been the power to define”. It refers to the idea that those in positions of authority - whether it be on a global stage, or domestically, can act freely with this power to define. By defining which groups are “terrorists” and which groups are “freedom fighters”, they can manufacture the consent to drop bombs on weddings and shrug their shoulders, or to spy on and detain their own civilians with impunity.
In this commentary, Orwell discusses the power of the police force to arrest those who are committing “obstruction” in Hyde park in London. He explains how the police can pick and choose who they arrest regardless of the technicalities of the law. When they deliberately arrest leftist newspaper vendors on a crime that many others commit, and a crime that the public typically ignores, they highlight the fragility of the law. As he writes: “The law is no protection”. It is meaningless to continuously point at a rulebook that is ever changing or left in the hands of biased and greedy groups in power to decide whether or not a rule has been broken. Every week you see incompetent Democrats point to the rulebook and shout, “Trump can’t do x!” and then we get to sit and watch Trump do x. Orwell’s larger point here is on what matters more than the law – public opinion. Student movements, protests, social media campaigns are incredibly valuable for the work they do on highlighting injustices, spreading awareness and educating people on a basis of morality rather than the law. The power of the public to resist, to continuously demonstrate opposition is what forces those in authority to actually follow the rulebook.
It is further concerning then, that in a time of rising wealth inequality and material wellbeing (major factors in exacerbating apathy), the typical attitude that liberals across the world have taken is also one of indifference. They either mirror the policy plans of right wingers (consider Harris’s stance on immigration, for example), or they ignore serious yet controversial issues which allow for public opinion to shift or to dissolve completely into apathy. This is the social environment that enables the state to oppress those it wants to and allows them to break rules without any consequences.
It is imperative that liberals / leftists / any opposition speak out for the destitute, for the various minority groups that are targeted and scapegoated by the right. If we are to erase the apathy, we must replace it with an equally radical amount of care and empathy - only then can the laws we wrote mean anything.
Review of The Invasion from Mars (Oct 1940) 3.75/5
Orwell typically has a very concise prose, but it is always great when you see some of his emotion slip out in the writing (“…horrible dialect of an American psychologist…”). He generally trashes the radio play and those reporting on the hysteria that followed but he makes a great point on how it is typically disadvantaged peoples (poor, uneducated & desperate) that are susceptible to “fake news” (and further radicalization).
Visions of a totalitarian future (1942) 5/5
A fantastic essay on Orwell’s most base fear in a totalitarian future – the death of an objective truth. It reminds me of a great line from Andor (like I know it’s a disney star wars show but it is seriously so on the money when it comes to this theme of oppression): “The death of truth is the ultimate victory of evil.” No doubt, the show was likely inspired by Orwell’s work, and you can see traces of the main themes and fears in his yet-to-be written novel 1984 being highlighted in this piece. His writing resonates strongly today in an increasingly extremist world with a destitute populace, too eager to believe in comforting lies and propaganda.
(ok 1400+ words of a review for a ~20 page essay collection is insane, I might need to start a substack or something)
October 13, 2022
''And here one comes upon the best asset that capitalist democracy has to show. It is the comparative feeling of security enjoyed by the citizens of democratic countries, the knowledge that when you talk politics with your friends there is no Gestapo ear glued to the keyhole, the belief that 'they' cannot punish you unless you have broken the law, the belief that the law is above the State.
It does not matter that this belief is partly an illusion- as it is, of course.''
It does not matter that this belief is partly an illusion- as it is, of course.''
January 13, 2025
Brilliant and very very interesting. Orwell lays out things that can seem cynical at times, but it is really just hard truth. It's a bit depressing at times though-- especially when you consider modern-day America and its recent election and the world more broadly-- but I suppose 1941 wartime Britain is not the same as 2024 America.
March 28, 2021
'The degree of freedom of the press existing in this country [Britain] is often over-rated. Technically there is great freedom, but the fact that most of the press is owned by a few people operates in much the same way as State censorship . . .
The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them . . . The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecutued'.
- George Orwell, 'Freedom of the Park' (published in Tribune, December 1945)
The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them . . . The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecutued'.
- George Orwell, 'Freedom of the Park' (published in Tribune, December 1945)
June 7, 2021
Incrível como um livro escrito há mais de 50 anos pode tão perfeitamente se encaixar nos fatos que ocorrem atualmente. "A liberdade relativa que desfrutamos depende da opinião pública. A lei não é proteção. Os governos fazem leis, mas se elas são cumpridas, e como a polícia se comporta, depende do temperamento geral do país. Se um grande número de pessoas estiver interessado na liberdade de expressão, mesmo que a lei a proíba; se a opinião pública for preguiçosa, as minorias inconvenientes serão perseguidas, mesmo que existam leis que as protejam." Haverá mais reflexões do autor sobre uma realidade contemporânea à segunda grande guerra mundial que se encaixarão perfeitamente nesse mundo de hoje, e como isso é assustador. O livro é bilíngue, e permite aos interessados conferir o texto no original. Conta ainda com um bônus, um texto de Sêneca. Também muito interessante.
June 26, 2020
Should be essential reading for everyone in school - Like from 5th grade, everyone should just be taught this. Specifically loved the essays 'Literature and Totalitarianism' and 'Visions of a Totalitarian future'
May 13, 2022
Bastante perspicaz, Orwell analisa a situação corrente do seu país e nota como a história é mentirosa, como a imprensa é mentirosa e como a língua pode ser corrompida para perder significados além de 'gosto' ou 'não gosto' de tal coisa ou pessoa - como no caso da palavra 'fascismo'.
July 9, 2024
— ‘And here one comes upon the best asset that capitalist democracy has to show. It is the comparative feeling of security enjoyed by the citizens of democratic countries, the knowledge that when you talk politics with your friends there is no Gestapo ear glued to the keyhole, the belief that 'they' cannot punish you unless you have broken the law, the belief that the law is above the State. It does not matter that this belief is partly an illusion, as it is, of course.’
September 25, 2025
i love reading orwell, but right now everything churns my stomach
March 8, 2025
“The worst thing we can say about a work of art is that it is insincere. It is easy to pay lip service to the orthodoxy of the moment, but literature of true consequence can only be produced when a man feels the truth of what he is saying”
George never misses, a true king.
George never misses, a true king.
September 10, 2024
Kovin ajankohtainen taas kiitos Petteri Orpon ja Riikka Purran.
June 23, 2025
did I like it? yes. did I understand everything written in it? probably not. do I care? absolutely not.
June 24, 2025
Short little pamphlet of George Orwell’s thoughts on a variety of topics. Useful for understanding the author and also his works especially 1984
February 10, 2024
Ja hoef hier niet eens meer iets over kwijt behalve dat gewoon alle essays van George Orwell fire zijn.
June 26, 2020
Dit zijn vijf essays van Orwell uitgesmeerd over 36 bladzijden. Er staan zeker wat wijsheden in — een paar rake conclusies — maar het mist op veel punten scherpte, en de compositie is ook ietwat vreemd (waar Orwell natuurlijk niets aan kan doen, maar het boekje wel minder treffend maakt).
Het eerste essay (1941) gaat over de vraag waarom bourgeois democratie beter zou zijn dan fascisme. Dit is niet echt een discussie die in linkse milieus gevoerd wordt, maar ’t was een onderwerp waarmee de communisten in de jaren dertig graag aan de haal gingen: dat een liberale rechtstaat en het fascisme één pot nat zouden zijn. Orwell neemt het standpunt in van de democratisch socialisten, dat de liberale democratie best het verdedigen waard is. Hij hint er wel een paar keer naar dat er misschien nog wel ruimte voor verbetering is, maar zijn hoofdargument blijft dat ’t hoe dan ook beter dan fascisme is. Het is misschien de wijsheid van achteraf, maar een van de grootste teleurstellingen geuit door linkse lieden sinds de jaren ’60 is dat hun voorgangers in het interbellum en de jaren vijftig erin faalden fatsoenlijke democratische hervormingen voor te stellen. De boodschap van dit essay was misschien belangrijk in 1940, maar niet heel constructief in 2020.
Het tweede stuk (1941) gaat over literatuur. De conclusie is dat in feodale tijden er weinig persvrijheid was, maar dat mensen daarmee waren opgegroeid en ermee konden dealen, terwijl in de jaren dertig en veertig fascisten en communisten dicteerden wat de vrijheid van de dag was, en dat mensen daarvan emotioneel kapot werden gemaakt, omdat ze elke keer hun gevoelens moesten bijstellen. Dit essay is eigenlijk een studie voor Orwells 1984 .
“Freedom in the Park” (1945) gaat over censuur in het naoorlogse Engeland. Het is eigenlijk een klaagzang over het gebrek aan transparantie bij de nieuwe Labour-regering van toen. Er waren wat colporteurs opgepakt die linkse bladen verkochten in een park, en Orwell vraagt zich af in hoeverre een nieuwe overheid ambtelijke functionarissen moet vervangen. Als de politie even rechts blijft als onder alle Tory-regeringen van ervoor, moeten alle korpschefs dan worden ontslagen om dat te fixen? En hoe zit het met de geheime diensten en hoe met het bestuur de BBC enz. Tja, dat weet ik eigenlijk ook niet, George.
Het vierde verhaal (1940) gaat over The War of the Worlds, dat hoorspel over wezens van Mars die de Aarde komen genocideren, waarvan iedereen die de radio na de inleiding aanzette dacht dat het een nieuwsuitzending was en het Einde nabij was. Orwell reflecteert op een enquête die achteraf gehouden werd, waarin mensen gevraagd werd hoe ze reageerden toen ze dachten dat hun leven voorbij was. Blijkbaar vonden mensen die toch al niet zo’n boeiend leven hadden het eigenlijk wel prima, zolang de hele mensheid maar tegelijk met ze dood ging. Dat is het hele stuk; ik weet niet zo goed wat dat met fascisme of democratie te maken heeft. Als we samen hard zouden denken zouden we misschien wel tot iets interessants kunnen komen, maar Orwell doet ’t niet voor ons.
De laatste (1942) gaat over partijdige geschiedenis, fake news en de werkelijkheid. Het zijn conclusies over Orwells ervaringen in Catalonië tijdens de Spaanse Burgeroorlog en observaties over hoe er met de werkelijkheid om wordt gegaan. In dit essay staan zinnen die letterlijk in 1984 terug te vinden zijn, ook al vormt de basis voor dit essay zijn Homage to Catalonia . Daarnaast reflecteert hij op de mentaliteit in het VK ten opzichte van totalitaire regimes en de fascistische misdrijven die daar gepleegd worden. Hij schrijft: “We in England underrate the danger of this kind of thing, because our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the thing you most fear never really happens.”
Het eerste essay (1941) gaat over de vraag waarom bourgeois democratie beter zou zijn dan fascisme. Dit is niet echt een discussie die in linkse milieus gevoerd wordt, maar ’t was een onderwerp waarmee de communisten in de jaren dertig graag aan de haal gingen: dat een liberale rechtstaat en het fascisme één pot nat zouden zijn. Orwell neemt het standpunt in van de democratisch socialisten, dat de liberale democratie best het verdedigen waard is. Hij hint er wel een paar keer naar dat er misschien nog wel ruimte voor verbetering is, maar zijn hoofdargument blijft dat ’t hoe dan ook beter dan fascisme is. Het is misschien de wijsheid van achteraf, maar een van de grootste teleurstellingen geuit door linkse lieden sinds de jaren ’60 is dat hun voorgangers in het interbellum en de jaren vijftig erin faalden fatsoenlijke democratische hervormingen voor te stellen. De boodschap van dit essay was misschien belangrijk in 1940, maar niet heel constructief in 2020.
Het tweede stuk (1941) gaat over literatuur. De conclusie is dat in feodale tijden er weinig persvrijheid was, maar dat mensen daarmee waren opgegroeid en ermee konden dealen, terwijl in de jaren dertig en veertig fascisten en communisten dicteerden wat de vrijheid van de dag was, en dat mensen daarvan emotioneel kapot werden gemaakt, omdat ze elke keer hun gevoelens moesten bijstellen. Dit essay is eigenlijk een studie voor Orwells 1984 .
“Freedom in the Park” (1945) gaat over censuur in het naoorlogse Engeland. Het is eigenlijk een klaagzang over het gebrek aan transparantie bij de nieuwe Labour-regering van toen. Er waren wat colporteurs opgepakt die linkse bladen verkochten in een park, en Orwell vraagt zich af in hoeverre een nieuwe overheid ambtelijke functionarissen moet vervangen. Als de politie even rechts blijft als onder alle Tory-regeringen van ervoor, moeten alle korpschefs dan worden ontslagen om dat te fixen? En hoe zit het met de geheime diensten en hoe met het bestuur de BBC enz. Tja, dat weet ik eigenlijk ook niet, George.
Het vierde verhaal (1940) gaat over The War of the Worlds, dat hoorspel over wezens van Mars die de Aarde komen genocideren, waarvan iedereen die de radio na de inleiding aanzette dacht dat het een nieuwsuitzending was en het Einde nabij was. Orwell reflecteert op een enquête die achteraf gehouden werd, waarin mensen gevraagd werd hoe ze reageerden toen ze dachten dat hun leven voorbij was. Blijkbaar vonden mensen die toch al niet zo’n boeiend leven hadden het eigenlijk wel prima, zolang de hele mensheid maar tegelijk met ze dood ging. Dat is het hele stuk; ik weet niet zo goed wat dat met fascisme of democratie te maken heeft. Als we samen hard zouden denken zouden we misschien wel tot iets interessants kunnen komen, maar Orwell doet ’t niet voor ons.
De laatste (1942) gaat over partijdige geschiedenis, fake news en de werkelijkheid. Het zijn conclusies over Orwells ervaringen in Catalonië tijdens de Spaanse Burgeroorlog en observaties over hoe er met de werkelijkheid om wordt gegaan. In dit essay staan zinnen die letterlijk in 1984 terug te vinden zijn, ook al vormt de basis voor dit essay zijn Homage to Catalonia . Daarnaast reflecteert hij op de mentaliteit in het VK ten opzichte van totalitaire regimes en de fascistische misdrijven die daar gepleegd worden. Hij schrijft: “We in England underrate the danger of this kind of thing, because our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the thing you most fear never really happens.”
April 4, 2025
A short book of 5 essays by Orwell, discussing some notions of democracy, freedom, totalitarianism, freedom of speech. The overall conclusion is that we should not take our freedom for granted as it can change any minute. And given the circumstances of the current world, who can argue that we have freedom at all?
November 3, 2022
Em "Fascismo e Democracia", um compilado de artigos escritos em plena 2a. Guerra Mundial, George Orwell expõe, sem qualquer reserva, as entranhas do pensamento fascista. É a opinião de um homem de sua época, ainda sob a ameaça de uma Alemanha Nazista, no momento em que o fascismo era combatido dentro e fora das trincheiras. Enquanto homens se sacrificavam no front para deter o fascismo, as elites econômicas (controlando vários políticos) e parte da população iludida pelos discursos de extrema direita minavam os esforços democrático "dentro de casa", nos jornais e nas tribunas londrinas.
O mais assustador é encontrar os paralelos entre aquela época e hoje, como no trecho onde Orwell explica como a verdade é distorcida e manipulada pelos fascistas:
"[Para os fascistas] não existe, por exemplo, uma coisa como 'ciência'. Existe apenas a 'ciência alemã', a 'ciência judaica', etc. O objetivo implícito desta linha de pensamento é um mundo de pesadelo no qual o Líder, ou algum grupo governante, controla não apenas o futuro, mas o passado. Se o Líder diz acerca de tal evento, ‘Nunca aconteceu’ – bem, nunca aconteceu. Se ele diz que dois e dois são cinco – bem, dois e dois são cinco. Esta perspectiva me assusta muito mais do que as bombas – e depois de nossas experiências dos últimos anos isso, essa não é uma afirmação frívola."
Em outro momento, Orwell mostra como as elites sempre são coniventes com o fascismo, desde que seus interesses econômicos não sejam ameaçados. Nunca é pela democracia; sempre é pelo dinheiro!
"Naquela data, Hitler ainda era respeitável. Ele havia esmagado o movimento trabalhista alemão e por isso, as classes de proprietários estavam dispostas a perdoar-lhe quase tudo. (...) É fácil dizer que em certo estágio de sua carreira, ele foi financiado pelos industriais, que viram nele o homem que esmagaria o socialismo e o comunismo."
George Orwell ainda não havia escrito "1984", mas já podemos perceber os sentimentos antifascistas que mais tarde fariam com que ele escrevesse esta obra. Ler Orwell hoje é praticamente uma obrigação para qualquer democrata. Para entendermos o presente, precisamos entender o passado - e impedir que ele seja apagado.
O mais assustador é encontrar os paralelos entre aquela época e hoje, como no trecho onde Orwell explica como a verdade é distorcida e manipulada pelos fascistas:
"[Para os fascistas] não existe, por exemplo, uma coisa como 'ciência'. Existe apenas a 'ciência alemã', a 'ciência judaica', etc. O objetivo implícito desta linha de pensamento é um mundo de pesadelo no qual o Líder, ou algum grupo governante, controla não apenas o futuro, mas o passado. Se o Líder diz acerca de tal evento, ‘Nunca aconteceu’ – bem, nunca aconteceu. Se ele diz que dois e dois são cinco – bem, dois e dois são cinco. Esta perspectiva me assusta muito mais do que as bombas – e depois de nossas experiências dos últimos anos isso, essa não é uma afirmação frívola."
Em outro momento, Orwell mostra como as elites sempre são coniventes com o fascismo, desde que seus interesses econômicos não sejam ameaçados. Nunca é pela democracia; sempre é pelo dinheiro!
"Naquela data, Hitler ainda era respeitável. Ele havia esmagado o movimento trabalhista alemão e por isso, as classes de proprietários estavam dispostas a perdoar-lhe quase tudo. (...) É fácil dizer que em certo estágio de sua carreira, ele foi financiado pelos industriais, que viram nele o homem que esmagaria o socialismo e o comunismo."
George Orwell ainda não havia escrito "1984", mas já podemos perceber os sentimentos antifascistas que mais tarde fariam com que ele escrevesse esta obra. Ler Orwell hoje é praticamente uma obrigação para qualquer democrata. Para entendermos o presente, precisamos entender o passado - e impedir que ele seja apagado.
March 16, 2022
From the back cover: “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world… This prospect frightens me more than bombs.”
Incredibly short. More like a pamphlet than a book, but I found it in English and thought it looked interesting. It’s five essays on fascism, totalitarianism, and truth.
I think both modern leftists and modern conservatives would have a problem with his views for different reasons, but there is wisdom here if it’s something that interests you.
I particularly found the “Literature and Totalitarianism” essay interesting.
Incredibly short. More like a pamphlet than a book, but I found it in English and thought it looked interesting. It’s five essays on fascism, totalitarianism, and truth.
I think both modern leftists and modern conservatives would have a problem with his views for different reasons, but there is wisdom here if it’s something that interests you.
I particularly found the “Literature and Totalitarianism” essay interesting.
August 19, 2021
Incrível como um livro escrito há tanto tempo pode ter questões tão atuais.
September 7, 2025
Read this for a class but might as well rate it!
Lots to think about in relation to today... my fav chapter was definitely Literature and Totalitarianism, May 1941.
Quotes:
Lots to think about in relation to today... my fav chapter was definitely Literature and Totalitarianism, May 1941.
Quotes:
Moreover all government democratic or totalitarian, rests ultimately on force… The things it is supposed to be fighting for are always scrapped as soon as the fighting starts.
this is not a critical age. It is an age of partisanship and not of detachment, an age in which it is especially difficult to see literary merit in a book whose conclusions you disagree with. Politics — politics in the most general sense — have invaded literature to an extent that doesn’t normally happen, and this has brought to the surface of our consciousness the struggle that always goes on between the individual and the community… We live in an age in which the autonomous individual is ceasing to exist.
Totalitarianism’s control of thought is not only negative, but positive. It not only forbids you to express — even to think — certain thoughts but it dictates what you shall think, it creates an ideology for you, it tries to govern your emotional life as well as setting up a code of conduct. And as far as possible it isolates you from the outside world, it shuts you up in an artificial universe in which you have no standards of comparison.
The peculiarity of the totalitarian state is that though it controls thought, it doesn’t fix it. It sets up unquestionable dogmas, and it alters them from day to day. It needs the dogmas, because it needs absolute obedience from tis subjects, but it can’t avoid the changes, which are dictated by the needs of power politics... It declares itself infallible, at the same time attacks the very concept of objective truth.
There is no reason for thinking that this state of affairs will change while any totalitarian domination endures. We don’t grasp its full implications, because in our mystical way we feel that a régime founded on slavery must collapse. But it is worth comparing the duration of the slave empires of antiquity with that of any modern state. Civilisations founded on slavery have lasted for such periods as four thousand years. When I think of antiquity, the detail that frightens me is that those hundreds of million of slvaes on whose backs civilisation rested generation after generation have left behind them no record whatever. We do not even know their names.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 245 reviews