The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius

Product Information

Orwell is right that one of our great weaknesses as a country is our anti-intellectual streak (pp.39-40), particularly in the working class: we’ve never had ‘room’ for intellectuals, in contrast with France, and we treat ‘cleverness’ as a cause for suspicion. I don’t think many would find this assessment surprising: the common culture is never intellectual, and intellectual life is inherently isolating (involving lots of quiet reading and lectures with only the like-minded in attendance). They have more in common with their European counterparts, although the latter are generally far less ostracised.

Orwell: The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the George Orwell: The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the

George Orwell’s response to the outbreak of the Second World War was a highly unusual one. Unlike many other people on the socialist left ˗ and in spite of the vigorous anti-war sentiments expressed in his writings of the late 1930s ˗ Orwell believed that Britain had no choice but to take up arms against Hitler’s Germany and its fascist allies. On the other hand, he rejected the idea that the war could only be won if patriotic Britons rallied around the existing government. Having seen the depths to which market forces had reduced the country during the slump, Orwell firmly believed that Britain would have to abolish capitalism and embrace socialism if the challenge of fascism was to be met. His message to his fellow countrymen was as startling as it was quixotic: War and revolution are two sides of the same coin. Without a socialist government to guide the country at its hour of supreme crisis, Britain may not have the strength it needs to consign Hitler and his armies to the dustbin of history. Chamberlain and his followers take the risk of rousing strong popular feeling against Fascism? Anyone who was genuinely hostile to Fascism must also be opposed Though he himself is a nationalist, he honestly talks about the paradox of otherwise meaningless fights that nationalism brings with it: It follows that British democracy is less of a fraud than it sometimes appears. A foreign observer sees only the huge inequality of wealth, the unfair electoral system, the governing-class control over the press, the radio and education, and concludes that democracy is simply a polite name for dictatorship. But this ignores the considerable agreement that does unfortunately exist between the leaders and the led. However much one may hate to admit it, it is almost certain that between 1931 and 1940 the National Government represented the will of the mass of the people. It tolerated slums, unemployment and a cowardly foreign policy. Yes, but so did public opinion. It was a stagnant period, and its natural leaders were mediocrities. It is quite true that the English are hypocritical about their Empire. In the working class this hypocrisy takes the form of not knowing that the Empire exists. But their dislike of standing armies is a perfectly sound instinct. A navy employs comparatively few people, and it is an external weapon which cannot affect home politics directly. Military dictatorships exist everywhere, but there is no such thing as a naval dictatorship. What English people of nearly all classes loathe from the bottom of their hearts is the swaggering officer type, the jingle of spurs and the crash of boots. Decades before Hitler was ever heard of, the word ‘Prussian’ had much the same significance in England as ‘Nazi’ has today. So deep does this feeling go that for a hundred years past the officers of the British army, in peace time, have always worn civilian clothes when off duty.His criticism of left-wing intelligentia ('And from that they will proceed to argue that, after all, democracy is “just the same as” or “just as bad as” totalitarianism.') is just as relevant today as it was in 1941. Shopkeepers at War - He makes the case for a socialist system in England and declares that the old ruling class and their capitalism must be overthrown for the simple reason that private capitalism, that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit- does not work. Orwell is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) and the satirical novella Animal Farm (1945) — they have together sold more copies than any two books by any other twentieth-century author. His 1938 book Homage to Catalonia, an account of his experiences as a volunteer on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War, together with numerous essays on politics, literature, language, and culture, have been widely acclaimed. Even small characteristics can be telling of common mentality. Cruelty to animals is a distinct difference between nations that Orwell downplays, but probably seems more significant to the modern reader. His point about the English as hobbyists is true – crosswords specifically are still very popular. We resist regimentation, unlike the French and Germans (although the common dilemma of the acceptability of murder ‘for your country’ still applies to us). ‘Gentleness’ gets a mention, and I think this is a valid point. We still don’t learn foreign languages, and lean towards the old comfort of ‘splendid isolation’. I think that, as Orwell says on p.12, it’s fine and warranted to identify general differences between countries – we are very distinct, especially in Europe. However, Orwell’s view makes Englishmen at large seem simple-minded, which is not the case – even where we’re overly concerned with the trivial over the practical, it’s still better to be engaged than idle, and doesn’t match up with our merits and achievements on paper.

George Orwell: Part I: England Your England George Orwell: Part I: England Your England

Here are a couple of generalizations about England that would be accepted by almost all observers. One is that the English are not gifted artistically. They are not as musical as the Germans or Italians, painting and sculpture have never flourished in England as they have in France. Another is that, as Europeans go, the English are not intellectual. They have a horror of abstract thought, they feel no need for any philosophy or systematic ‘world-view’. Nor is this because they are ‘practical’, as they are so fond of claiming for themselves. One has only to look at their methods of town planning and water supply, their obstinate clinging to everything that is out of date and a nuisance, a spelling system that defies analysis, and a system of weights and measures that is intelligible only to the compilers of arithmetic books, to see how little they care about mere efficiency. But they have a certain power of acting without taking thought. Their world-famed hypocrisy – their double-faced attitude towards the Empire, for instance – is bound up with this. Also, in moments of supreme crisis the whole nation can suddenly draw together and act upon a species of instinct, really a code of conduct which is understood by almost everyone, though never formulated. The phrase that Hitler coined for the Germans, ‘a sleep-walking people’, would have been better applied to the English. Not that there is anything to be proud of in being called a sleep-walker. Bazı tartışmalı noktaları yok değil, tüm dünyanın kaos içerisinde olduğu ve de geleceğin pek belirsiz olduğu bir tarih döneminde yazıldığı unutulmamalı. Enternasyonalizm eleştirisi, yurtseverlik övgüsü ve İşçi Partisi'nin aslında kapitalizmle uzlaşmak için var olduğu yönündeki tespitleri radikal solcuları rahatsız edebilir. İşçi Partisi hakkındaki tespiti sanırım 50 sene sonra Blair yönetimi ile ispatlandı. Enternasyonalizm- Yurtseverlik konusu ise hiç bitmeyen bir tartışma. It expressed his opinion that the outdated British class system was hampering the war effort and that to defeat Nazi Germany, Britain needed a socialist revolution. Therefore, Orwell argued, being a socialist and a patriot were no longer antithetical, but complementary. As a result, "The Lion and the Unicorn" became an emblem of the revolution which would create a new kind of socialism, a democratic "English Socialism" in contrast to the oppressing Soviet totalitarian communism and also a new form of Britishness, a socialist one liberated from empire and the decadent old ruling classes. Orwell specified that the revolutionary regime might keep on the royal family as a national symbol but would sweep away the rest of the British aristocracy.

From the archive

a b Orwell, Sonia and Angus, Ian (eds.). The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 2: My Country Right or Left (1940-1943) (Penguin) The Lion and the Unicorn was written in London during the worst period of the blitz. It is vintage Orwell, a dynamic outline of his belief in socialism, patriotism and an English revolution. His fullest political statement, it has been described as 'one of the most moving and incisive portraits of the English character' and is as relevant now as it ever has been. In addition to his literary career Orwell served as a police officer with the Indian Imperial Police in Burma from 1922-1927 and fought with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War from 1936-1937. Orwell was severely wounded when he was shot through his throat. Later the organization that he had joined when he joined the Republican cause, The Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), was painted by the pro-Soviet Communists as a Trotskyist organization (Trotsky was Joseph Stalin's enemy) and disbanded. Orwell and his wife were accused of "rabid Trotskyism" and tried in absentia in Barcelona, along with other leaders of the POUM, in 1938. However by then they had escaped from Spain and returned to England. Previous winner Peter Beaumont and previously longlisted Lindsey Hilsum both pay tribute to Marie Colvin, killed in Syria this week