American
socialism must be the most diverse ideological movement in our country’s
history. Today, we can count Marxists, communists, classic socialists,
democratic socialists, social democrats, progressives, and postmodernists all operating
in its orbit. Is it any wonder many call themselves socialists without being
able to describe what they believe? History has shown changing political
systems requires a unified group large enough to take power and hold it. That unity
has always been lacking in the American socialist movement because of ideological
differences among its adherents.
George
Orwell (1903-50), the well-known British writer and social critic, was
attracted to socialism as a tool end poverty, but became frustrated by its lack
of acceptance in the United Kingdom and Western Europe. Orwell identified
ideological confusion as a key problem in his book The Road to Wigan Pier
published in 1937. Orwell was approached by his publisher, the well-known
social reformer Victor Gollancz, to write a book about economic conditions in
the depressed areas of Northern England. Gollancz suggested Orwell visit cities
as part of his research, thinking the public would be more interested in
stories about real people than the dry and boring demographics that accompany a
statistical analysis. Orwell had previously lived among the working poor in
Paris while he was researching his book Down and Out on Paris and London,
published in 1933.
The author visited
in three cities during January, February, and March of 1936, but spent the most
time (the month of February) in Wigan, an industrial town located 45 minutes
west of Manchester. At the time, Wigan had a population of 87,000 and was known
for coal and cotton manufacturing. Wigan Pier had been a landmark of the town; a
coal loading dock removed several years before the author’s visit.
Orwell
assumed a working-class identity by moving into a rundown boarding house
managed by a couple named Brooker. This husband-and-wife team operated a
converted home as a shop for selling tripe and a lodging house for paying
guests. Orwell slept in a small upstairs bedroom, which was a converted drawing
room. Some pieces of furniture remained, dust laden and unused. Four beds were squeezed
tightly into the room, forcing Orwell to sleep with his legs bent to avoid
kicking the person in the bed next to him. A chandelier hung from the ceiling,
caked with an inch or two of dust. The windows were sealed, allowing no
ventilation, and the room reeked with the smell of a neglected hamster cage.
The first
floor featured a single room serving as a kitchen and dining room. Its table
was covered with oil cloth on a layer of old newspapers. Orwell never witnessed
the table being wiped off; the same crumbs were there every day. Mr. Brooker,
who served the meals, never washed his hands, so Orwell had to accept a greasy
thumbprint on every piece of buttered bread he was given. Brooker worked in the
shop most of the day, so his chores in the boarding house were neglected until
he closed the shop. Often the beds were not made until 6:30 in the evening.
After his
stay in Wigan, Orwell traveled to Chesterton, some 45 miles to the southeast, to
explore a coal mine. The undertaking began with a ride down the main shaft in a
cage. Upon reaching the working level, some 400 feet underground, Orwell realized
he had to walk long distances (up to a mile) to reach the sections where the men
were working. The tunnels were about five feet high, so a person had to walk
bent over the entire time. The miners shoveled loose coal onto a conveyor belt
so it could be carried to the surface. When all the loose coal has been
removed, blasting powder was used to break apart the solid black wall of coal. The
space was thick with coal dust even though fans were pulling air through the tunnels.
The work day was seven and a half hours with no breaks, except when a miner was
able to steal fifteen minutes to gnaw on a piece of bread or have a sip of tea.
Happiness in
the industrial towns of the north was simple to assess. Did the husband have a
job and, if so, did he make enough money to live on? Too often, the answer to one
of those questions was no.
The stories
of real people made up the first seven chapters of The Road to Wigan Pier.
In the final section, which included chapters eleven through thirteen, Orwell evaluated
socialism as a replacement for capitalism. His starting point was the assumption
socialism was the best solution to the problem of inequality and poverty in the
United Kingdom. His role, he stated, was to play the devil’s advocate and critique
socialism by analyzing it. To defend it, one must attack it.
In Orwell’s
view of Western Europe, socialism was moving backward instead of forward, eclipsed
by communism and fascism. If capitalism was on the decline, socialism should be
on the rise so socialism’s lack of progress must indicate some defect in its
approach. Orwell believed fragmentation of the socialist ideology was a major
reason for its lack of success.
Orwell saw socialist
theory as exclusively a middle-class ideology supported by people who do not
fit the common narrative.
The typical
socialist is not a ferocious working man in greasy overalls and a raucous
voice. He is either a useful snob or a prim little man with a white-collar job
– usually a secret teetotaler and often with vegetarian leanings, with a
history of non-conformity behind him and a social position he has no intention
of forfeiting.[1]
In addition
to these two types is the disquieting presence of cranks. Socialism draws into
itself by magnetic force every juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex
maniac, Quaker, Nature cure quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.
These groups
alienate decent people.[2]
And there are
the middle-class socialists who talk about a classless society but will never
give up their own social prestige.[3]
To Orwell,
the working man’s view of socialism was pure. He wanted better wages, a shorter
work week, and freedom on the job. This contrasts with the passionate
revolutionary socialist who sees himself in a battle against oppression. The
working man’s view was more legitimate because he understood that socialism represented
justice and fairness. He hoped for a world with the worse abuses removed but didn’t
understand the price to be paid to reach that goal. You can’t pursue socialism
to achieve one piece of what it offers, because the journey to that end requires
the tear down of an entire political system.
Orwell thought
about the motives of the theoretical book-trained socialist in order to
understand his behavior. That person presented himself as motivated by love for
the working class and the belief in equality. Was this his true aim? It seemed
hard to believe because he has never been part of the working class and is far
removed from it. More likely, it was his sense of order that drove him. Working
class problems were messy and hard to clean up. Only a new political structure could
fix that problem.
Perhaps this
advocate didn’t really care about the working class and had no desire to
associate with them. Perhaps he viewed himself part of a group of elites who
would implement political reforms designed to control the lower class. He was
not an emotionless theorist, however, because he also was a man who harbored a
smoldering hatred of the capitalist oppressors that anticipated violence.
Orwell
suggested socialism appealed chiefly to unsatisfactory or even inhuman types.
You have the warm-hearted unthinking
socialist, the typical working class socialist, who only wants to abolish
poverty and doesn’t understand what that implies. On the other hand, you have
the intellectual book-trained socialist, who understands that it is necessary
to destroy the current civilization and is quite willing to do so. And this
latter group is drawn almost entirely from the middle class and from a rootless
town-bred section of the middle class at that.[4]
Still more
unfortunately, it includes – so much so that to an outsider it even appears to
be composed of the kind of people I have been discussing – foaming denouncers
of the Bourgeoise, the more water in the beer types of which Shaw is the
prototype, and the astute young social-literary climbers who are communists
now, and will be fascists five years from now, and then all that dreary tribe
of high minded women, and sandal wearers, and bearded fruit juice drinkers who
come knocking toward the smell of progress like bluebottles to a dead cat.[5]
Ordinary people
who were attracted to socialism conceptually, could not picture themselves in in
association with these groups. They might embrace a revolution but would never
support a dictatorship of the elites.
When
confronted with resistance to his ideas, the ardent socialist sees opposing
views as corrupt, expressing skepticism about whether socialism could work, or a
fear of the revolutionary process. This view was too narrow leaves out valid
reasons held by many people, including the value of spiritual and nationalistic
ideas fundamental to human society. If these values were sacrificed, would the
people regret what they had lost?
Orwell
believed that a rise of fascism can result from socialist parties failing to
control their members. The appearance of communism is a signal the labor class is
unraveling and the only way to save a capitalist system is a transition to
fascism. Fascism achieves the goal of socialism while retaining fundamental
values like religion and nationalism.
Orwell believed
that socialism could prevail over fascism if class distinctions could be put
aside. He feared that if England failed to build a strong labor party, fascism
would prevail. If it came to a struggle between socialism and fascism, he hoped
the diverse socialist groups would unite for the cause and put aside their
differences.
Obviously, Orwell
could not see the future from 1937. He was frustrated at the lack of progress
socialism was making and expressed his thoughts on the subject. To him, socialism’s
competitors appeared to have the upper hand in a world rejecting capitalism. He
could not foresee fascism would be destroyed by its lust for power and universally
condemned as an unjust political system. He knew the Soviet Union was a corrupt
authoritarian oligarchy, but did not know its success would be limited.
Capitalism
and democracy won the Second World War and became the dominant political system
worldwide because they represented the best path to opportunity and freedom.
As for
socialism, it remains today the fragmented ideology of the Left.
[1]
Orwell, George. The Road to Wigan Pier.
Independently published 2021, Section 11, page 3.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Orwell, George. The Road to Wigan Pier.
Independently published 2021, Section 11, page 7.
[5]
Ibid.
