The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius

Product Information

Politics and the Press, 4pm, Sunday 1 April: Gaby Hinsliff, Martin Moore, Lance Price, chaired by Jean Seaton One cannot see the modern world as it is unless one recognizes the overwhelming strength of patriotism, national loyalty. In certain circumstances it can break down, at certain levels of civilization it does not exist, but as a positive force there is nothing to set beside it. Christianity and international Socialism are as weak as straw in comparison with it. Hitler and Mussolini rose to power in their own countries very largely because they could grasp this fact and their opponents could not. 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.

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

His description of the inevitable and desirable socialist revolution in England was hopelessly utopian. Revolutions rarely go so well despite the best intentions of the instigators. But the general weakening of imperialism, and to some extent of the whole British morale, that took place during the nineteen-thirties, was partly the work of the left-wing intelligentsia, itself a kind of growth that had sprouted from the stagnation of the Empire. It may be hard for some, without any knowledge of, or feeling for, distinctive British socialism to comprehend what Orwell’s socialism is, and how it differs from Leninism, Marxism or what he calls ‘the mixture of humbug and Utopianism’. The most appealing and lasting feature of The Lion and the Unicorn is its home-grown socialism, free from dogma or doctrine. Orwell turns his breathless urgency towards solutions. He believes: ‘The fact we are war has turned Socialism from a text-book word into a realisable policy.” One of the central themes of the book is how to use the patriotism in the first part to deliver the socialism in the third part: “An intelligent Socialist movement will use their patriotism, instead of merely insulting it, as hitherto.”The first part of the essay, " England Your England", is often considered an essay in itself. With the introductory sentence "As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.", [1] the content sheds some light on the process which eventually led Orwell to the writing of his famous dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four. The text is also influenced partly by his other experiences in the Spanish Civil War, which he published his memoirs of in " Homage to Catalonia". His beliefs molded there of the dangers of totalitarianism and his conviction for democratic socialism to defeat fascism and Soviet communism are evident in all of his future novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm but are expressed here without allegory. In the years between 1920 and 1940 it was happening with the speed of a chemical reaction. Yet at the moment of writing it is still possible to speak of a ruling class. Like the knife which has had two new blades and three new handles, the upper fringe of English society is still almost what it was in the mid nineteenth century. After 1832 the old land-owning aristocracy steadily lost power, but instead of disappearing or becoming a fossil they simply intermarried with the merchants, manufacturers and financiers who had replaced them, and soon turned them into accurate copies of themselves. The wealthy shipowner or cotton-miller set up for himself an alibi as a country gentleman, while his sons learned the right mannerisms at public schools which had been designed for just that purpose. England was ruled by an aristocracy constantly recruited from parvenus. And considering what energy the self-made men possessed, and considering that they were buying their way into a class which at any rate had a tradition of public service, one might have expected that able rulers could be produced in some such way. It’s all a bit stodgy because half of what he says is right and the other half either wrong or so localised to 1941 England that you can’t tell.

The Lion and the Unicorn - Penguin Books UK

In 1993, British Prime Minister John Major famously alluded to the essay in a speech on Europe by stating, "Fifty years from now Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and – as George Orwell said – 'old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist'." [3] See also [ edit ] 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. Even Churchill realised that to win the war, the forces of modernity must be mobilised and the whole nation given a single purpose. You needed radar and Mulberry harbours, not bayonets and horses. The people were patriotic. As Orwell described, when Anthony Eden called for volunteers for the Local Defence Volunteers, a quarter of a million men reported for duty in the first 24 hours. But they wanted more than victory over the Germans. Despite Churchill’s outdated references to race and Empire, the bulk of the population were with Orwell, seeing the war as the means to a better future, without dole queues, slums, and soup kitchens. When Labour invited them to ‘win the peace’ in July 1945, the heirs to Nelson and Cromwell did so in record numbers. Those that had queued for jobs in the 1930s and queued to join the army in 1940, queued at the ballot box in 1945. The revolution, when it came, was peaceful and democratic, and its sounds were the trundle of prams bearing babies full of milk, not tumbrils en route to the guillotine. The British ruling class were not altogether wrong in thinking that Fascism was on their side. It is a fact that any rich man, unless he is a Jew, has less to fear from Fascism than from either Communism or democratic Socialism. One ought never to forget this, for nearly the whole of German and Italian propaganda is designed to cover it up. The natural instinct of men like Simon, Hoare, Chamberlain etc. was to come to an agreement with Hitler. But – and here the peculiar feature of English life that I have spoken of, the deep sense of national solidarity, comes in – they could only do so by breaking up the Empire and selling their own people into semi-slavery. A truly corrupt class would have done this without hesitation, as in France. But things had not gone that distance in England. Politicians who would make cringing speeches about ‘the duty of loyalty to our conquerors’ are hardly to be found in English public life. Tossed to and fro between their incomes and their principles, it was impossible that men like Chamberlain should do anything but make the worst of both worlds.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. Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English author and journalist. His work is marked by keen intelligence and wit, a profound awareness of social injustice, an intense opposition to totalitarianism, a passion for clarity in language, and a belief in democratic socialism.

The Lion and the Unicorn - GEORGE. ORWELL - Google Books The Lion and the Unicorn - GEORGE. ORWELL - Google Books

As a rallying cry for social revolution, Orwell's essay, The Lion and the Unicorn, merits acclaim equal to his later allegorical novels, Animal Farmand 1984, although it never caught the public's imagination in the quite the same way. The English Revolution - The argument is made for an English democratic socialism, sharply distinct from the totalitarian communism of Stalin. Orwell gives a sweeping trenchant review of the current political scene in England then in 1941. All the parties of the left are incapable of reform, the Labour Party most of all since it is the party of the trade unions and therefore has a vested interest in the maintenance and flourishing of capitalism. The tiny communist party appeals to deracinated individuals, but has done more to put the man in the street off socialism than any other influence.the State, the common people will feel, as they cannot feel now, that the State is themselves. They will be ready then to endure the sacrifices that are England Your England - Orwell describe the essence of Englishness and records changes in English society over the previous thirty years or so. Thought-provoking, powerful and passionate its the longest of the three. In its affection for all aspects of England it continued the nostalgia for an older, less commercialised, more decent England which marked his previous book. DV8 physical theatre company at the National Theatre Uses part of our event, ‘What can’t you speak about in the 21st Ce ntury?’ Pacifism is a psychological curiosity rather than a political movement. Some of the extremer pacifists, starting out with a complete renunciation of violence, have ended by warmly championing Hitler and even toying with antisemitism. This is interesting, but it is not important. ‘Pure’ pacifism, which is a by-product of naval power, can only appeal to people in very sheltered positions. Moreover, being negative and irresponsible, it does not inspire much devotion."