Современность Орвелла

[a_kleber]

Как, наверное, уже понятно из моего блога - я очень уважаю этого автора, мне нравится его... как бы это сказать: посыл. И я в собственном мышлении стараюсь такому же посылу следовать. При этом, Орвелл наговорил за свою жизнь кучу глупостей и во многом оказался не прав (особенно в конкретных политических прогнозах - его военный дневник это сплошные попадания пальцем в небо), но тем не менее общий посыл всегда был правильным. Он из тех людей, которые что называется зрят в корень, ошибаясь в частностях. Мне это дико нравится, сама не знаю почему, хотя очень часто с ним не соглашаюсь. Конечно, как всякий мега-популярный писатель, он подвергся массе искажений, которые уже теперь никто никогда не исправит, но можно попытаться. Вот что он писал читателям о своем последнем романе и мировом бестселлере "1984" - это особенно актуально для (анти)советского читателя. Через год он умер от чахотки.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in London by Seeker & Warburg on 8 June 1949 and in New York by Har court, Brace on 13 June 1949

158. Letter to Francis A. Henson (extract)

[Part of a letter, since lost, written on 16 June 1949 by Orwell to Francis A. Henson of the United Automobile Workers answering questions about Nineteen Eighty-Four. Excerpts from the letter were published in Life, 25 July 1949, and the New York Times Book Review, 31 July 1949; the following is an amalgam of these.]

My recent novel is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralised economy is liable and which have already been partly realised in Communism and Fascism. I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe (allowing of course for the fact that the book is a satire) that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences. The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasise that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.

---------

160. Letter to Vernon Richards
Cranham Lodge
Cranham
Gloucester
22 June 1949

Dear Vernon,

Thanks so much for your letter, & the press-cuttings. Yes, I got the copy of the memorial number (1) all right.
Sell as many photos as you can. It doesn't cost me anything, & is all advertisement. I had a lot of fuss with Life, who wanted to send interviewers here etc, but I put them off because that kind of thing tires me too much. I am afraid some of the US Republican papers have tried to use 1984 as propaganda against the Labour Party, but I have issued a sort of dementi (2) which I hope will be printed.
Yes, send me the list of questions & I'll do my best. You will understand that I cannot answer at great length. The more this issue is cleared up, the better.
I'd love to see you some time. But let me know when you're coming. (I think there are people coming the next 3 week-ends) so as not to clash with anyone else, & so that I can arrange abt a car.

Yours
George

(1) Freedom, 28 May 1949, which was devoted to the memory of Vernon Richards's wife, Marie Louise, who had died of pneumonia on 13 April 1949.

---------

(2) "I have a photocopy of the original 'Statement' in front of me now - having made a personal visit last year to The Orwell Archive (UCL London), because I also had difficulty in finding it - for reasons which can be analysed later..."

STATEMENT ON 'NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR

It has been suggested by some of the reviewers of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR that it is the author's view that this, or something like this, is what will happen inside the next forty years in the Western world. This is not correct. I think that, allowing for the book being after all a parody, something like NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR could happen. This is the direction in which the world is going at the present time, and the trend lies deep in the political, social and economic foundations of the contemporary world situation.
Specifically, the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities, by the necessity to prepare for total war with the U.S.S.R. and the new weapons, of which - of course - the atom bomb is the most powerful, and the most publicized.
But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook, by intellectuals of all colours.
The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one : Don't let it happen. It depends on you.

(The 'Statement' continues, but is no longer written by Orwell. It is completed, I assume, by his editor, Victor Gollancz - correction, Fredric Warburg - Ed)

George Orwell assumes that if such societies as he describes in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR come into being, there will be several super states. This is fully dealt with in the relevant chapters of Nineteen Eighty-Four. (Chapter IX - 'The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein' - Ed)
It is also discussed from a different angle by James Burnham in THE MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION. These super states will naturally be in opposition to each other, or (a novel point) will pretend to be much more in opposition than in fact they are. Two of the principal super states will obviously be the Anglo-American world and Eurasia.
If these two great blocs line up as mortal enemies, it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents, and will not dramatise themselves on the scene of history as Communists (or Socialists - Ed).
Thus they will have to find a new name for themselves. The name suggested in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR is of course Ingsoc (English Socialism - Ed), but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the U.S.A. the phrase "Americanism" or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable, and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish.
"If there is a failure of nerve, and the Labour party breaks down in its attempt to deal with the hard problems with which it will be faced, tougher types than the present Labour leaders will inevitably take over, drawn probably from the ranks of the Left, but not sharing the Liberal aspirations of those now in power.
Members of the present British government, from Mr. Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps down to Aneurin Bevan, will never willingly ('never' is underlined - Ed) sell the pass to the enemy; and in general, the older men nurtured in a Liberal tradition are safe. But the younger generation is suspect, and the seeds of totalitarian thought are probably widespread among them.
It is invidious to mention names, but everyone could - without difficulty - think for himself of prominent English and American personalities whom the cap would fit.

June 1949