orwell.jpg

There really ought to be a paper on George Orwell and Public Choice.  Thanks to Loyola University senior Michael Makovi, there finally is.  He’s done a great job – “George Orwell as Public Choice Economist,” forthcoming in The American Economist, is history of thought you can really sink your teeth into.  Here are some highlights.

Abstract:

George Orwell is famous for his
two final fictions, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. These
two works are sometimes understood to defend capitalism against socialism. But
as Orwell was a committed socialist, this could not have been his intention.
Orwell’s criticisms were directed not against socialism per se but
against the Soviet Union and similarly totalitarian regimes. Instead, these
fictions were intended as Public Choice-style investigations into which
political systems furnished suitable incentive structures to prevent the abuse
of power.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”,serif;}

Fleshed-out version:

Although
Orwell certainly was distrustful of individuals and suspected them of being
liable to abuse their power, he was also interested, as we shall see, in what
political institutions might affect their liability to abuse their
power. While Orwell’s skepticism of political power and his fear of individual
abuse of that power are significantly consistent with Public Choice, in fact
Orwell’s concerns went much further. Therefore Orwell was not only a skeptic of
political power but he was also concerned with political institutions and their
incentive structures, and thus a practitioner of Public Choice economics.

In this way, through the Public
Choice interpretation of Orwell, we may reconcile the sensibility and
straightforwardness of the conservative interpretation of Animal Farm
and Nineteen Eighty-Four as having been written to oppose socialism,
with the actual fact that Orwell was a socialist. For after all, Orwell was and
always remained an advocate of democratic socialism and he could not have been
a critic of collectivism per se. At the same time, the conservative
interpretation seems so sensible and appears to so readily agree with the texts
precisely because it is not altogether wrong. Orwell was not opposed to
socialism per se as the conservative interpretation suggests, but he was
opposed to a particular kind of socialism, viz. any form of socialism
which turned totalitarian because it neglected to provide suitable political
institutions to mitigate the abuse of power. The conservative interpretation of
Orwell’s fictions as anti-socialist thus carries an important kernel of truth. Therefore,
Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four were not intended as criticisms
of the abstract economics of collectivism in theory, but rather of the
political dynamics of “decayed communism,” non-democratic forms of collectivism
in practice. Though these two fictions have many differences – Animal Farm
being an allegorical beast fable about the very recent past, Nineteen-Eighty
Four
a relatively realistic dystopian novel set in the future – it is this
polemical intention which they share in common.
The Public Choice interpretation of Orwell helps us understand that Orwell was
opposed to a particular form of socialism -the totalitarian kind – and why. In
doing so, this interpretation allows us to square the sensibility of the
conservative anti-socialist interpretation with the fact that Orwell was a
socialist.

Orwell was totally a socialist:

Orwell
thought that “Capitalism, as such, has no room in it for any human
relationship; it has no law except that profits must always be made” (“Will
Freedom Die with Capitalism?”[1941] 1683).
Similarly, in “The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius”
(1941), which he wrote during World War II, Orwell defined “economic liberty”
as “the right to exploit others for profit” (Essays 294). Furthermore,
discussing Britain’s ability to wage a defensive war, he continued,

What this war has demonstrated is 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.
It cannot deliver the goods. (Ibid. 315; emphasis in original)

In
the same essay, Orwell came to the conclusion that

Laissez-faire capitalism is dead. The choice lies
between the kind of collective society that Hitler will set up and the kind
that can arise if he is defeated. (Ibid. 344)

More:

But
if Orwell was a socialist, the question remains, why? What about socialism
appealed to him? Thankfully, Orwell tells us in his autobiographical “Preface
to the Ukranian Edition of Animal Farm” (1947):

I became pro-Socialist more out of a disgust
with the way the poorer section of the industrial workers were oppressed and
neglected than out of any theoretical admiration for a planned society. (Essays
1211)

Thus, we should not expect that Orwell necessarily read
widely in economics, and certainly it seems that even if he had, this was not
what influenced him towards socialism. Instead, it appears that what Orwell
rejected more than anything else was any hierarchy or inequality which he
perceived to be socially unnecessary (Orwell, “Review of The Machiavellians
by James Burnham” [1944] in Essays 525; Orwell, “James Burnham and the
Managerial Revolution” [1946] in Essays 1070; cf. Goldstein in Nineteen
Eighty-Four
in Complete Novels 1100). So Orwell was a socialist
because he was an egalitarian. Indeed, according to Richard White, he was what
Marxians would disdainfully call a “utopian” socialist, a socialist inspired by
ethical and moral views, determined to institute socialism for the sake of
social justice, whereas Marxists would consider socialism to be an amoral
historical inevitability (White, “George Orwell: Socialism and Utopia”).

Unlike most contemporary socialists, however, Orwell abhorred intellectual victory by definition.  He freely admitted that Nazism, like Communism, was socialist:

Orwell
even argued that by virtue of their undemocratic and collectivist nature, Nazi
fascism and Soviet communism were essentially the same thing, a fact which he
accused his fellow socialists of failing to appreciate:

[T]ill very recently it remained the official theory of
the Left that Nazism was “just capitalism.” . . . Since nazism was not what any
Western European meant by socialism, clearly it must be capitalism. . . .
Otherwise they [the Left] would have had to admit that nazism did avoid
the contradictions of capitalism, that it was a kind of socialism,
though a non-democratic kind. And that would have meant admitting that “common
ownership of the means of production” is not a sufficient objective, that by
merely altering the structure of society you improve nothing. . . . Nazism can
be defined as oligarchical collectivism. . . . It seems fairly certain that
something of the same kind is occurring in Soviet Russia; the similarity of the
two regimes has been growing more and more obvious for the last six years.
(“Will Freedom Die With Capitalism?” [1941] 1684; emphasis in original)

Furthermore:

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”,serif;}

Thus,
Orwell’s experiences in Spain convinced him not that socialism was a
false ideal, but that the Soviet Union and the Communists had betrayed that
ideal. Orwell “was a socialist but, ever since Spain, an anti-Stalinist
socialist and his hostility to Communism was a pervasive feature of his
political writing” (Newsinger, Orwell’s Politics 97). He thought that
“Communism is now a counter-revolutionary force” (Orwell, “Spilling the Spanish
Beans” [1937] 67), working against socialism. He became inspired to expose
their duplicity and conniving, and he related
the theme of the Soviet betrayal of the cause of socialism with the
totalitarian rewriting of the past:

The
Communist movement in Western Europe began as a movement for the violent
overthrow of capitalism, and degenerated within a few years into an instrument
of Russian foreign policy. (“Inside the Whale” [1940] in Essays 233f.,
quoted in Newsinger, Orwell’s Politics 113)

He furthermore referred to “Russian Communism . . . [as]
a form of Socialism that makes mental honesty impossible” (Orwell, “Inside the
Whale” 235), and so Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four were
written not as defections from socialism, but as attempts to redeem true
socialism from the betrayal of the Communists.

Some amusing ridicule by Makovi:

One would defend the conservative
interpretation of Orwell’s fictions as anti-socialist by arguing that Orwell
was no longer a socialist anymore when he wrote them. And it would be difficult
to refute the claim that Orwell had a change of heart prior to writing his last
two major works for the same reason that it is difficult to challenge a claim
that someone had made a deathbed recantation or confession.

My main suggestion for improvement: Makovi should have heavily emphasized the parallels between Orwell’s 1984 and the late great Gordon Tullock’s work on dictatorship and revolution.  Listen to Tullock speak:

Another obvious area for empirical investigation concerns the expectations of the revolutionaries. My impression is that they generally expect to have a good position in the new state which is to be established by the revolution. Further, my impression is that the leaders of revolutions continuously encourage their followers in such views. In other words, they hold out private gains to them. It is certainly true that those people that I have known who have talked in terms of revolutionary activity have always fairly obviously thought that they themselves would have a good position in the “new Jerusalem.” Normally, of course, it is necessary to do a little careful questioning of them to bring out this point. They will normally begin by telling you that they favor the revolution solely because it is right, virtuous, and preordained by history.

Now hear the words of O’Brien in 1984:

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested
in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or
luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure
power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the
oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the
others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and
hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close
to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize
their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they
had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just
round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free
and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power
with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an
end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a
revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the
dictatorship.

P.S. I’m writing an all-new dystopian role-playing game for Capla-Con 2015, June 20-21 – and you’re invited!  Join the Facebook group for details.

P.P.S. Makovi’s paper was written under the direction of Prof. William T.
Cotton in his honors English literature course, “George Orwell and the
Disasters of the 20th Century” at Loyola University, New Orleans.