(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Let us talk about George Orwell [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-05-02
There has been a lot of talk about fascism (specifically, whether we are on the verge of fascism). I would suggest that we are actually on the verge of something much more sinister… an Orwellian 1984 with a Ministry of Truth controlling our minds in a modern version of Airstrip One.
But there is a lot to unpack before we can get to this.
George Orwell did not just conjure up this Ministry of Truth out of thin air. He had lived and experienced it, or something sufficiently similar to it. To understand where he may have been coming from, we have to unpack a lot of history.
Let us start with the American Revolution. That is where the George Orwell story begins. (I did warn you that there was a lot to unpack...so be warned). Stories about the American revolution are generally dominated by stories about George Washington, or Ben Franklin, or one of founders. But the most important lesson is actually from Lord Cornwallis, the British General who surrendered to George Washington. The lesson he learnt is that when you are establishing a colony, be very wary of the settlers . The settlers are the ones who will cause all the trouble (just as the American settlers had), and not the natives. This is perhaps one of the most under-rated lessons in all of history. Cornwallis learnt this lesson well, and when we was deputed to his next mission, specifically to India by the East India Company, he applied it with the eagerness of someone who learns well from past mistakes. In his legal framework, he setup rules for what “Englishmen” (this includes Scots and Irishmen as well) could and could not do in India. And one of the things they could not do was buy property (with some exceptions, which we will get to shortly). The idea being that if they are not allowed to buy property, then they won't form a settler class, and will never threaten the British crown. This plan worked, as we all know. Indian Independence was ultimately won by the natives, and not by a British settler class that established itself in India while genociding the natives (vs., say what happened in the USA, or what is happening in Israel/Palestine today). All of the British soldiers/officers who worked in India were expected to retire back to the English countryside after amassing a small fortune working in India.
That is where the George Orwell story begins. (I did warn you that there was a lot to unpack...so be warned). Stories about the American revolution are generally dominated by stories about George Washington, or Ben Franklin, or one of founders. But the most important lesson is actually from Lord Cornwallis, the British General who surrendered to George Washington. . The settlers are the ones who will cause all the trouble (just as the American settlers had), and not the natives. This is perhaps one of the most under-rated lessons in all of history. Cornwallis learnt this lesson well, and when we was deputed to his next mission, specifically to India by the East India Company, he applied it with the eagerness of someone who learns well from past mistakes. In his legal framework, he setup rules for what “Englishmen” (this includes Scots and Irishmen as well) could and could not do in India. And one of the things they could not do was buy property (with some exceptions, which we will get to shortly). The idea being that if they are not allowed to buy property, then they won't form a settler class, and will never threaten the British crown. This plan worked, as we all know. Indian Independence was ultimately won by the natives, and not by a British settler class that established itself in India while genociding the natives (vs., say what happened in the USA, or what is happening in Israel/Palestine today). All of the British soldiers/officers who worked in India were expected to retire back to the English countryside after amassing a small fortune working in India. Exceptions to the “no property ownership rule” . Now, this no-property-ownership was not an absolute rule. Some exceptions were granted; but those exceptions pertained to property ownership in areas of strategic interest to the East India Company (and later on, to the British crown itself). One of these was opium plantations. British/Scottish/Irish men (they were all men) were allowed to own and operate opium plantations. George Orwell was born as Eric Blair to Richard Blair (a relatively low ranking Scottish soldier who became an officer in the Opium Department, and Ida Blair, who was a French socialite from Burma). Eric Blair was born in Motihari, which is in the state of Bihar in modern India. At the time, this city/village was the heartland of opium production in the whole world.
Now, this no-property-ownership was not an absolute rule. Some exceptions were granted; but those exceptions pertained to property ownership in areas of strategic interest to the East India Company (and later on, to the British crown itself). One of these was opium plantations. British/Scottish/Irish men (they were all men) were allowed to own and operate opium plantations. George Orwell was born as Eric Blair to Richard Blair (a relatively low ranking Scottish soldier who became an officer in the Opium Department, and Ida Blair, who was a French socialite from Burma). Eric Blair was born in Motihari, which is in the state of Bihar in modern India. At the time, this city/village was the heartland of opium production in the whole world. “ Let us talk about Bonnie Prince Charlie ”. Charles Edward Stuart (or Bonnie Prince Charlie) was a “Jacobite” pretender (or rightful heir..depending on your viewpoint) to the British Crown, and a leader of the 1745 “rising” (use google or wikipedia for these terms). He was defeated in the Battle of Culloden in 1746, thereby ending the Jacobite claims to the throne. The Blair family lore had them descended from someone who was a sidekick of Bonnie Prince Charlie. After their defeat in 1746, the Jacobites were given the option of either joining the British Crown (and fighting for it; and being allowed to maintain their traditions), or….. death. Most of them joined the British Crown, and became relatively low ranking soldiers sent off to conquer distant lands. Most of the British soldiers who conquered India were actually Scottish. To be clear, the officer class was generally English; and the rank and file included mostly Indians; but also included a substantial number of ex-Jacobites from Scotland. Richard Blair’s great-grandfather appears to have been one of them. Keep this in mind, when you consider Richard Blair’s actions. Keep this in mind, when you consider how the 1984 Ministry of Truth works.
”. Charles Edward Stuart (or Bonnie Prince Charlie) was a “Jacobite” pretender (or rightful heir..depending on your viewpoint) to the British Crown, and a leader of the 1745 “rising” (use google or wikipedia for these terms). He was defeated in the Battle of Culloden in 1746, thereby ending the Jacobite claims to the throne. The Blair family lore had them descended from someone who was a sidekick of Bonnie Prince Charlie. After their defeat in 1746, the Jacobites were given the option of either joining the British Crown (and fighting for it; and being allowed to maintain their traditions), or….. death. Most of them joined the British Crown, and became relatively low ranking soldiers sent off to conquer distant lands. Most of the British soldiers who conquered India were actually Scottish. To be clear, the officer class was generally English; and the rank and file included mostly Indians; but also included a substantial number of ex-Jacobites from Scotland. Richard Blair’s great-grandfather appears to have been one of them. Keep this in mind, when you consider Richard Blair’s actions. Keep this in mind, when you consider how the 1984 Ministry of Truth works. The Opium Wars. To understand why Englishmen were allowed to own opium plantations in India, you have to understand the opium wars. About 150 years before Eric Blair was born, the British had discovered tea, a drink so powerful that it would lift your spirits when you were down and would calm you down when you were excited (this is a mashup of a quote often attributed to William Gladstone). In fact, tea was so “addictive” (I am using this word deliberately) amongst the English public that it created a huge coffer in British finances. Britain (via the East India Company) was importing so much tea that it was shipping most of it’s cash to China, and taxes (ahem...tarriffs) on tea imports was responsible for a substantial part of the British government revenue. The situation was so bad that they were ready for a trade war. The solution was diabolically clever: (1) Produce opium in India. Or rather, force farmers in India to grow opium, and then force them to sell to you. (2) Sell the opium to 3rd party traders who (3) Sell that opium in China. The strategic importance of opium necessitated the exception granted to Englishmen owning opium plantations in India. Richard Blair was an officer in the Opium Department; and although he also eventually returned to England, he lived/profited from the trade. Enough to send his wife and infant son back to England (when Eric Blair was only 1 years old).
To understand why Englishmen were allowed to own opium plantations in India, you have to understand the opium wars. About 150 years before Eric Blair was born, the British had discovered tea, a drink so powerful that it would lift your spirits when you were down and would calm you down when you were excited (this is a mashup of a quote often attributed to William Gladstone). In fact, tea was so “addictive” (I am using this word deliberately) amongst the English public that it created a huge coffer in British finances. Britain (via the East India Company) was importing so much tea that it was shipping most of it’s cash to China, and taxes (ahem...tarriffs) on tea imports was responsible for a substantial part of the British government revenue. The situation was so bad that they were ready for a trade war. The solution was diabolically clever: (1) Produce opium in India. Or rather, force farmers in India to grow opium, and then force them to sell to you. (2) Sell the opium to 3rd party traders who (3) Sell that opium in China. The strategic importance of opium necessitated the exception granted to Englishmen owning opium plantations in India. Richard Blair was an officer in the Opium Department; and although he also eventually returned to England, he lived/profited from the trade. Enough to send his wife and infant son back to England (when Eric Blair was only 1 years old). Motihari, Bihar, India . George Orwell was born in Motihari, Bihar, India. His birthplace is about 250 km (or 150 miles) from Lumbini in Nepal, where Gautam was born in 563 BC, and also about 250 km from Bodh Gaya, where Gautam became Siddhartha… the enlightened one.. in 528 BC. It is about 100 km from Patna, where Brahmagupta was born, and where the number zero was “invented” as a method that enabled calculus and astronomy. It is about 200 km from Nalanda, home to the oldest university in the world, and which drew scholars from all over the world till about 1200 AD. When the East India Company arrived in India, the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were amongst the richest provinces in the world. In short, George Orwell’s birthplace should have been the enlightenment capital of the world. In actuality, it is one of the most backwards region of the whole world. Poverty (and human development indices) are worse than in sub-Saharan Africa, while the rest of India is relatively well developed today. I can say all that because I was also born in that area; and I grew up there. I know that area well. George Orwell left that place when he was 1 year old; but he did serve as a colonial police officer in Burma, and travelled fairly extensively in India. I suspect he looked up his family history during these travels.
George Orwell was born in Motihari, Bihar, India. His birthplace is about 250 km (or 150 miles) from Lumbini in Nepal, where Gautam was born in 563 BC, and also about 250 km from Bodh Gaya, where Gautam became Siddhartha… the enlightened one.. in 528 BC. It is about 100 km from Patna, where Brahmagupta was born, and where the number zero was “invented” as a method that enabled calculus and astronomy. It is about 200 km from Nalanda, home to the oldest university in the world, and which drew scholars from all over the world till about 1200 AD. When the East India Company arrived in India, the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were amongst the richest provinces in the world. In short, George Orwell’s birthplace should have been the enlightenment capital of the world. In actuality, it is one of the most backwards region of the whole world. Poverty (and human development indices) are worse than in sub-Saharan Africa, while the rest of India is relatively well developed today. I can say all that because I was also born in that area; and I grew up there. I know that area well. George Orwell left that place when he was 1 year old; but he did serve as a colonial police officer in Burma, and travelled fairly extensively in India. I suspect he looked up his family history during these travels. Capitalism run amok. The transition of the state of Bihar in India from enlightenment capital to the most lawless region of India was largely down to free market capitalism run amok. Specifically, the East India Company’s need (and later by the British Crown’s need) to grow opium in India to sell to China. There is a lot to unpack here, so let us take this slowly. Opium had a very long history as a low level euphoric agent that was also a mild pain killer. The discovery of tobacco (and smoking) in the new world had also introduced the possibility of smoking opium, which was quite a bit more intoxicating, and much more addictive than when it is consumed by eating. The Chinese were getting addicted. And free market capitalists thrive when they have a marketable product that is addictive. It does even better when you can control the supply chain. And another lesson learnt by Lord Cornwallis was that the Mughal State (who the East India Company had forced to hand over the rights to Bihar/Bengal and Orissa) had exclusive rights to the production and distribution of opium for medicinal purposes. Thus, having inherited those exclusive rights, he set about forcing the production of opium. With exclusive rights over the supply chain, and a captive market that is quickly getting addicted, they had effectively captured the world. In practice, this meant that Company Officers of the “Opium Department” could force farmers to grow opium as per the Company’s needs. Forcing farmers to comply came in various specific practices. Gangs of company sponsored thugs (all Indians) would roam the countryside, looking for any signs of defiance, and enforce customs meant to ensure compliance. As an example, on their wedding nights, select farmers were forced to handover their newly wedded brides to be raped by Company Officers and/or the Indian thugs before the bride was allowed to see their husbands. There are Scottish enclaves in that region; or rather small villages of descendants of Scottish men and Indian women… shunned by both sides… who are witness to this gory past. I have been to one of those enclaves, and even now (i.e. well over 100 years after the fact), there are familial memories of what happened, passed along from generation to generation. And yes, I also have a hard time believing any of this. This was not just big brother; but also big husband, big father, chief rapist, primary addiction enabler, and chief enforcer. Those who refused to comply were either chased out (they launched a rebellion that failed), or shipped out via indentured servitude (to Fiji, the Carribbeans, South Africa and a few other places). George Orwell’s father, Richard Blair, was a relatively low ranking officer in the opium department. He likely witnessed all of this, but (according to most accounts) remained loyal the the idea of Empire until his death. Eric Blair (who would go on to become George Orwell) was more fortunate, in that he recognized this as evil. He writes a semi-autobiographical and semi-fictionalized account of his time as an Imperial Officer in Burma (strongly recommend Burmese days) and describes an Imperial Officer who could see right from wrong, but lacked the courage to do much about it. I believe his Flory in Burmese days is a mashup of Eric and Richard Blair. In a sense, he is describing all of us; we are all lacking in the courage department to do much about it.
I believe it is this capitalism run amok that George Orwell describes in 1984.
Let us turn now to how this situation may apply to the present day. The necessary ingredients of the big brother style capitalism run amok are as follows
Product . A product that is relatively useless, but which is also very very addictive. Think smoked opium levels of addictiveness.
A product that is relatively useless, but which is also very very addictive. Think smoked opium levels of addictiveness. Supply chain . A supply chain that is browbeaten into submission via control of a corrupted government. The East India Company had effective control over the British Crown via its finances. Through this control, it was able to develop exclusive rights to the opium being produced. A modern day equivalent would be “the oligarchs” buying control over the US government via a pliable and corruptible politicians.
A supply chain that is browbeaten into submission via control of a corrupted government. The East India Company had effective control over the British Crown via its finances. Through this control, it was able to develop exclusive rights to the opium being produced. A modern day equivalent would be “the oligarchs” buying control over the US government via a pliable and corruptible politicians. Literature. In order to sustain an Empire, you need a ruling class that believes in the morality of the mission. This can be sustained only with literature. Since we are discussing George Orwell, it is useful to highlight his framing for this. He describes the literature that sustains the ruling class as “good bad books”. These are books/poems that are technically flawed (i.e., the writing is relatively low skilled), but which touch an emotional nerve in the reader, and reinforces a particular belief system. The main purveyor of this genre is Rudyard Kipling. I will quote one passage, but I suggest you read Orwell’s whole essay on Kipling here. It contains several observations that are relevant to our current-day discourse. (“ It is no use claiming, for instance, that when Kipling describes a British soldier beating a ‘n**ger’ with a cleaning rod in order to get money out of him, he is acting merely as a reporter and does not necessarily approve what he describes. There is not the slightest sign anywhere in Kipling’s work that he disapproves of that kind of conduct – on the contrary, there is a definite strain of sadism in him, over and above the brutality which a writer of that type has to have. Kipling is a jingo imperialist, he is morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.”). Keep in mind that most soldiers of the British Crown were lower middle class Scottish/Irish/English lads; they had some resentments that the purveyors of Good Bad Books could work with (think back to Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites).
Now, let us transpose all of this to our current situation.
What product (or products) exists that can be just as addictive as smoked opium was in 19th century China. Think of social media as an example of such a product. AI enabled friends (as Facebook is trying to launch), or AI enabled porn (as X/Twitter is trying to push).
Now think of literature. George Orwell defines Kipling as one who fans the jingoistic fervor amongst upper middle class Englishmen (and later upper middle class Americans). He is equally critical of Kipling’s disdain for lower class Englishmen as he is of Kipling’s disdain for the native “coolies”.
Is there a modern equivalent to such “good bad poems”?
Yes, there is. It is literature that informs you that your identity group has been uniquely oppressed through all of history, that none of your ancestors ever belonged to any of the oppressor class, and that your uniquely oppressed identity grouping deserves special rights because of your unique history. Combine this with social media, and you have an AI enabled app that pushes this good bad poem on you on a 24/7 basis. Kipling could only dream of such efficiency.
What about the supply chain? Think of how quickly all the oligarchs coalesced around Trump, even though they all knew (or must have known) that he is an idiot. Do you think it is possible that they coalesced around him *because* they knew he is an idiot, and that he would help them secure the supply chain.
In my opinion, those are the ingredients that can lead to the Airstrip One and the Ministry of Truth!!
Let us also consider the fascism angle. As Orwell points out, Kipling could be accused of being evil, but he could not be accused of fascism.
And yet the ‘Fascist’ charge has to be answered, because the first clue to any understanding of Kipling, morally or politically, is the fact that he was not a Fascist. He was further from being one than the most humane or the most ‘progressive’ person is able to be nowadays. All his confidence, his bouncing vulgar vitality, sprang out of limitations which no Fascist or near-Fascist shares.
The primary difference is on the issue of competence
The modern totalitarians know what they are doing, and the nineteenth-century English did not know what they were doing.
This is what I always come back to, when the fascism debate rages around me (my wife and some of my close friends, for instance, are firm believers that we are just one step removed from fascism). Does Trump remind you of someone who knows what he is doing? Does he surround himself with men (they are always men, remember) of outstanding abilities to conjure evil? No, Trump has men who have trouble figure out messaging apps, and Stephen Miller, and Pam Bondi. And people who photoshop MS13 on knuckles… does that remind you of Goebbels level propaganda or something that Israeli hasbara would try to pull ?
Let us end on a positive note.
I would be remiss if I left you in such a depressing framework. So to end this essay on a more positive note, I will quote from George Orwell again.
It is notable that Kipling does not seem to realize, any more than the average soldier or colonial administrator, that an empire is primarily a money-making concern. Imperialism as he sees it is a sort of forcible evangelizing. You turn a Gatling gun on a mob of unarmed ‘natives’, and then you establish ‘the Law’, which includes roads, railways and a court-house. He could not foresee, therefore, that the same motives which brought the Empire into existence would end by destroying it.
When reading the above quote, please also keep in mind the caveat that Empires are primarily a system of coercion, and secondarily a money-making concern. Yes, that is me (a lowly human who will not accomplish 1% of what Orwell has) disagreeing with my idol in a pedantic manner.
But within the context of the point Orwell makes, he is correct in stating that Empires are money-making concerns. The East India Company was one of the first shareholder owned enterprises, and had a relatively small window-less office on Leadenhall Street in London. It was so successful because it was created in an age where borrowing and lending were frowned upon. Shakespeare Hamlet, in which the famous warning about “Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry” was penned right around the time that the East India Company was incorporated. Because that warning from Polonius reflected the values of the day, and money-making was so addictive (to both the English shareholders and the Indian money-lenders), the Company just took off.
We are at risk of a 1984 scenario; but this scenario is primarily a money making concern, and not fascism.
Fortunately, the same money-making motives that puts us at risk of this 1984 scenario is also one that can liberate us from it. A rival business model eventually rises up to compete.
As an American, I can add another context to Orwell’s optimistic closing line.
Empires are primarily a system of coercion, and people don't like being coerced, so the coercion eventually comes to an end. We think that God has endowed us all with certain inalienable rights, including the right to liberty. And liberty does not coexist with coercion.
I don't think Orwell would have objected to me adding this footnote. In “Burmese days”, Orwell describes Flory, a character who knows right from wrong, but is lacking in the courage department. This character is said to be based on Eric Blair/George Orwell, who is describing himself as lacking in courage to do anything about Empire. But in reality, Orwell did as much as anyone to ensure that Empire was discredited.
Orwell did not like the coercion, or the money-making, and unlike Flory, he was not powerless to do something about it.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/5/2/2320176/-Let-us-talk-about-George-Orwell?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
